Do "Flood the Zone" Police Tactics Actually Enable Looting in Large Cities?

[greenjar_01]

I'm not asking a question I know or even expect a particular answer to. It's a genuine question. We've all by now experienced or seen images of massed police - sometimes seemingly 70, 80 deep - "facing off" against massed protesters. Or, massed or semi-massed police converging on an area in rapid speed, or engaged in kettling operations that flank and enclose protest crowds. I won't pretend to know about policing tactics. It does seem to me, however, that massing police in this manner is not the ordinary course of policing large urban areas, and that police are thereby spread thin, as it were. This would be especially the case for opportunistic looters who are going to go where the police aren't. There was some discussion of this when the Loop got completely shredded in Chicago on Saturday, and certainly it seemed to be the looters' tactic in Manhattan yesterday.

Is it possible that one factor contributing to the widespread, devastating looting is that police tactics are particularly ill-equipped to handle large protests, and that the current "flood the zone" and "massed police" tactics are deeply counter-productive?

[msongs]

1. personal choices made by individuals "enable looting in Large Cities" nt

[greenjar_01]

3. That's a factor, sure

Those personal choices could be going on all the time, though, but looting isn't, right? So, what are some of the other factors?

Why do we have to make everything ideological? Is the question not valid about what's happening?

[LanternWaste]

11. Ten bucks says you fail to see the irony in your having written that.

"Why do we have to make everything ideological?"

Really? Yet alleging a most benign sign in a store front is ideologically divisive is then exempt from your righteous indignation? Or is there a specific and relevant difference between the two?

[MoonlitKnight]

2. Yes

This is the problem.

They should block of a route. Have a planned destination and March with the protesters to help them police any bad actors.

Police the rest of the city to deny opportunities for looters and vandals.

[List left]

8. It is clear when this is being done there are virtually no problems nt

[unblock]

4. Military tactics have different goals than law enforcement

These tactics are used to take and project control over an area. Get out or get shot, basically.

The goal is not to enforce laws, at least not directly, not at the moment. From their point of view, they can't enforce laws in areas they can't control, so first they have to control the area. Then they can enforce laws in that area.

So yeah, looting can go on because they're too busy trying to assert control. They can't stop someone looting, check id, confirm they didn't buy what they're carrying, and cart them off to be fingerprinted. They're too busy pushing people out of a designated area to assert control.


Now, if it really already is a violent riot, that may make sense. But not if it's a peaceful assembly. Like they can't ignore the peaceful protestors and just arrest the looters?

[greenjar_01]

5. Even military tactics don't expect to be under control of the whole city at one time

I agree that they're using tactics to control an area. The problem, and again, I don't know, seems to be that they're controlling small areas at the expense of completely abandoning other areas. And then the looters flood into the places where the police aren't. They control X part of the Loop, the looters hit the other part. They control the Loop and River North with a massive force, the looters flood into Wicker Park, Logan Square, etc. And so it goes.

The tactic is not a smart tactic for policing a large city during protests. Maybe there is no good tactic for that, but this one seems particularly useless.

[unblock]

6. Agreed about spreading themselves thin. But it's worse than that

They lose focus on law enforcement entirely. They're in crisis mode and everything is focused on control and playing with military toys and tactics and the spotlight is on and people wanna see the police show of force and control.

No officer in all the middle of a line is going to break off and arrest someone they see looting right in front of them. They'll ignore it or shoot or gas the looter, use whatever weapon they have from their position, but they won't break ranks, give chase, and try to slap handcuffs on the perp.

The thinking is simply to remove the looters from the area.

They're not even stopping looting in the areas they are trying to control because they're not thinking about law enforcement. That's a secondary priority.

[greenjar_01]

7. That's what I've seen

Kicking looters in the ass to get them to run off.

[MoonlitKnight]

9. For centuries protests have been allowed to form

At the White House, Governors Mansions, Legislatures, city halls, etc.

This should be allowed and encouraged.

We can thank George W Bush for his use of “protest zones” for the start of keeping people from being able to redress grievances to those in power so that those in power can hear the voices.

And the massive militarization of local police is his doing as well.

[madville]

10. Safety in numbers also

If you spread the cops out thin, like two on every block, they would get attacked more often and escalate their use of force faster and claim self defense. The police would have killed many people by now if they were not staying in large groups, it’s a good thing for safety on both sides.

[greenjar_01]

12. Cops are not massed during the course of most ordinary policing

No?

[madville]

13. Exactly nt