Pixiq

I agree with most all of what you wrote Ryan. I also agree not condoning violence and hopefully this will all turn out without violence with something being accomplished on the protesters side... hopeful, but not optimistic.

Where a large concern of mine stems from is that if this does become violent and physical, the protesters will definitely be on the losing end. It's a numbers issue and the protesters don't have the numbers to be able to overcome the possibly over zealous, organized, and armed LEO's.

I applaud the efforts and dedication the protesters have put forth, I hope all turns out well. It's about time people in the U.S. got off their ass and are making their concerns heard!

Agreed. Tacking cops unless they're beating in your head = Stupid.

I'm from Seattle, and my family has always been at least on the local grapevine for protests, even if we don't participate.

Aside from a small criminal gang that self-identifies as anarchists, our local protestors are 100% peaceful. There's the odd out-of-towner that starts trouble, and the police and city council like to use those "anarchists" as a scapegoat to "prove" the protest rally was really a riot.

But without exception, in my lifetime (I'm a month shy of 37), every single so-called riot in Seattle was instigated by police. The media typically report that a riot broke out without naming causes, but the #1 cause of "riots" developing out of protests in Seattle is the police are poorly trained for controlling large crowds, and eventually get pissed off at the crowd.

When that happens, the POLICE either push the crowd until the only option for the crowd is self-defense (encircle a crowd, deploy pepper and gas, demand dispersal with nowhere to go, wade in with batons when an impossible dispersal fails to occur) or the police themselves riot against the peaceful protestors.

It has happened over and over again. The results are acceptable to city government, so the police are never properly trained, because proper training and psych screening would prevent the riots from occurring.

This. Gandhi was once asked why he picked peaceful civil disobedience as his tactic of choice. His response amounted to the British people having a conscience. He pointed out that if the British people had lacked a conscience, he would have cheerfully used guns and bombs instead, since you can't appeal to someone's conscience if they don't have one. But bullets work on anyone.

He's known, now, as a great humanitarian and pacifist. But he was really not all that pacifistic, he just chose the best tactics to achieve his goals.