Retired Sheriff’s Captain; Former CA POST Executive Director; Police & Corrections Practices Expert; Public Safety Consultant; Government Relations Strategist...
I subscribe to The Marshall Project website and I receive their daily newsletters (https://lnkd.in/gE7_FsDv). If you are familiar with The MP, you know that the premise of the articles are routinely adversarial to law enforcement and primarily progressive in ideology. Which is precisely why I force myself to read them. It's important to understand all sides of the issues facing law enforcement. Which brings me to today's posting. The MP article is entitled "Policing experts on campus arrests" (https://lnkd.in/grMAMTGm). The premise of the article is that the dispersement tactics were not sensitive enough. This excerpt gives you a flavor for the tone of the article: "...Last week, several criminologists told Reuters that aggressive police tactics were at odds with research and best practices developed after the 2020 protests over the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer." With all due respect to the academic scholars who opine on police response, the need to restore order and civil rights was the primary reason for the deployment of law enforcement to disperse unlawful crowds recently on college campuses. The notion that law enforcement are required to "negotiate" for each arrest scenario is implausible. By the time law enforcement was requested to disband campus agitators (referred to by the media as "peaceful protestors" for which many of them were not), the negotiations and de-escalation alternatives had already been exhausted. And often times, violence and criminal activity has already occurred and/or is in progress when the request for resources was made. The occupiers refused to disperse and subsequently were arrested. Cooperation and willful obedience would have averted the need for arrests. It's that simple . It's not surprising that the academic scholars, media and other critics are blaming the peacekeepers. Happens every time. Law enforcement are the heroes here, not the villains. Widespread media reporting is not always transparent and detailed. It is designed to suit a particular narrative. Those of us who had a front row seat to the crowd dispersal tactics of previous generations (70's, 80's, 90's) know that today's responses were professional and dignified. But the critics will never be satisfied.
The reality is any LEO could save a bus load of kids, each holding a puppy and a kitten, from going off a cliff and killing them all- and these people would complain that the LEO scratched the paint.
Kathleen Dias
5mo
Reading as many sources as possible is responsible, especially seeking out sources you fear you may disagree with. I suggest adding Pro Publica and Mother Jones to the list as well. Every source must be cross checked and cross referenced, especially ones we're inclined to agree with. That's responsible as well.
I believe it is a Marshall Project post that is pointing out the “illegal use of less lethal” during the UCLA engagement as well. I may be mistaken as to the source, however.
Damon Schneider
5mo
Ha! I I have read their drivel as well. Kudos to you for stomaching some of their nonsense.
Jerry Adams
5mo
Great post. Thanks!
Captain (Retired) Arlington MA Police
5moGreat post! Nauseating to hear these allegedly highly educated fools that are unable to decipher between freedom of speech and terrorist threats! What is even worse, instead of addressing rioting in its early stages, they wait until people are angry and foaming at the mouth, in hopes of getting our professional law enforcement agencies on video using force to gain compliance. Of course justified force is not always pretty. People are waking up! Better days ahead!