In
http://democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=760373&mesg_id=760373">another discussion thread, JanMichael brought up a very disturbing question on the topic of police violence at peace rallies. I thought this part of the matter deserved a separate thread.
The police are playing rough: shooting rubber bullets with seemingly little provocation, clubbing and choke holding grandmas at the demonstrations, and treating the protests like they were riots. The question is, given the police behavior, whether protestors should start dressing for "action".
That would mean wearing heavy vests, goggles, helmets, shin guards, and other protective gear. Ignore for the moment the irony of showing up at an anti-war rally dressed like an NFL lineman. Think about the consequences of going geared up instead of "naked" to a peace demonstration. Gearing up like this will encourage cops to escalate the violence. If someone's got a helmet on, a cop's more likely to swing the baton freely in an effort to exert control over the situation.
This is how things escalate, of course. The point of getting your eye popped out by a rubber bullet as a consequence of civil disobedience is to illustrate that civil violence does not work. If the peace protesters go dressed for war, then you all but guarentee that there will be "war" of some sort in the street.
I've had my head cracked open by a cop with a baton before. It bleeds coz it's on the head and it hurts like a mother. But if protestors start trying to protect themselves from that violence, then they are buying into the inevitability of violence.
What would Martin Luther King do? He'd wear a dapper tie and one of those snazzy summer weight suits that he was always getting arrested in. But he wouldn't wear a helmet to a peace rally. And, dammit, neither should we.