What's the deal with Police/National Guards, starting/Inciting Riots ???

Question

for example :
1968 Democratic National Convention
Haymaker Riot Chicago 1886
Ludlow, Colorado 1914
Columbine Mines, Colorado 1927
Minneapolis Teamsters strike of 1934
Cincinatti cops
many more...

Answer 1

They're overzealous about law and order. They're not members of the working class so it's easy for them to see working class strikers and protestors as dangerous subversives, especially when you consider that many of the underclass have some ties to Marxism, which calls for an overthrow of the system. As for 1968 in Chicago, I think you can chalk that one up to the generation gap. A bunch of young, long-haired protestors and Chicago cops wanted to show who was boss. It's a similar phenomena to southern police turning the fire hoses and dogs on peaceful African-American protestors-they're authority and their system is under attack (albeit peacefully) so they react the only way they understand-with force.

Answer 2

unsure what you advise by using "commencing/Inciting Riots" and "Police/national Guards". the police and the national look after are 2 very quite some issues. the national look after is the army, and for this reason should not be called right into a rebel until the police can't administration it. the national look after will kill human beings. that's what they're experienced to do. its no longer their fault in the event that they're despatched right into a minor concern and that they make it right into a considerable one. in case you permit a bull unfastened in a china save, is it the bulls fault while he breaks each thing ? Kent state replaced into the fault of the governor who despatched the national look after in. i dont see how the police or national look after can start up a rebel besides. what, everbody is examining the bible interior the park and the police start up turning over their very own vehicles and burning them ? as to your record of examples, to %. one,"Haymaker rebel Chicago 1886", you're conscious this got here approximately over one hundred years in the past ? many alterations have taken place in police branch approaches on account that then . this is quite no longer trustworthy to maintain complaining approximately it if the police have fixed the situation. and, as i bear in mind, maximum folk agreed the "rebel" began while somebody threw a bomb and killed a police officer. you may desire to argue the police went too far, took revenge, yet how are you able to assert they began the rebel ? even if in case you have the main appropriate to do even if that's you're doing, if the police order you to pass away, you may desire to pass away or you will get injury. you may sue the police later, or perhaps if, yet you may desire to pass away. in case you start up a rebel on account which you didnt like what the police did, you began the rebel, no longer the police.

Answer 3

Man, are you off base! You're just spewing out any riot you ever heard of and saying the authorities started it. In most cases, these riots were started by the other side. When you have riot police or soldiers coming to disperse your mob, you have two choices. You can be an *** and stand your ground, fighting back and causing a riot. Or you can simply disperse and seek other forms of expression.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you got a speeding ticket or something you don't think you deserved and are harbouring a grudge against authority figures. Just pay the damn ticket and move on.

Answer 4

~On what basis do you attribute the incitement to the police or national guard. If you want to load your question, at least learn to do so with a little intelligence and style. Otherwise, you just sound like a moron with an axe to grind. That may prepare you for a career as a neocon Republican politician or commentator, but not much else.

Answer 5

They got bored. Seriously, as a soldier, you receive all this gung-ho training and are rarely, if ever given a chance to use it, especially in peacetime. And once you've been to war, it can be hard not to overreact to certain situations.