Don't think those are the only possible outcomes. Just my opinion but it would seem like there is middle ground from those outcomes and other more optimistic ones. As well as the possibility that inaction could cause civilian injuries or deaths.
I have been upfront that I am no expert in crowd dispersion/riot protocol but from your experience you have obviously seen different outcomes to different tactics used by police in these situations. Is non-intervention always the best method? And could a better planned police response before an event happens be a contributing factor?
I seem to be on the side that inaction and bad planning can cause more issues, while you seem to be of the view that police action to intervene could cause more trouble than it would solve. I don't think either of us are necessarily right or wrong since it would depend on the situation, but hopefully places that these actions are common place at can take a second look to see if policies that are in place are as good as they can be.
Don't think it something that requires federal funds being withheld to solve, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't question if there is anything that could be done better.
Well, I'm speaking to the scale we saw at UCB.
I would call that a destructive protest.
We're in a time of constant hyperbolic language and people call anything that gets more contentious than a candlelight vigil a riot. I'm not endorsing destructive protest, but it is still a bit of a ways from a riot.
Think of a scale of civil action escalation
Meetings held publicly for discussion
Presence at a place of significance to an issue
Flash mob type public performance or spectacle, usually satirical ridicule
March through neighborhoods to increase visibility
Disruptive actions to gain the attention of an institution (hard bargaining)
That last one is about where it gets grey for me. It has to be on the table or there's never going to be any bargaining with that powerful institution at all. It is a direct representation of how many people will put their bodies in the way of something that is past their limit of fundamentally wrong to them. How many people will take the time to get arrested, get processed, get a lawyer, pay the fine, and so on. It is essentially a form of combat without the body count.
Especially in the case of business interests being hampered over a social issue, unless the business interest in question is run by people with an ideological stake. They'll be calling their purchased politicians and telling them to knock off their social engineering ASAP. The police departments are spending money like crazy watching these actions and arresting people (boots=money). Now the city council is mad. The court may get your fine, but they've got a judge, prosecutor, paralegal staff, and a correctional division, time is money yet again. This is how you push power around.
Everything past this is beyond what I would consider justified (or effective). These acts go beyond decency or civility for someone's sense of moral affront to justify.
Hostility and intimidation towards dissenters
Property destruction and assault
Looting and rioting
Threats and acts of targeted destruction
Assassinations
Open revolt
So there's an escalation gradient appropriate to those on the other side. You'd hardly want rubber bullets and tear gas for the women's march that took place. The police looked like they were expecting the hostility/intimidation level and it went a few notches higher than they anticipated into the destructive level. So they contain the issue and focus on preventing people from getting hurt. Meanwhile resources are mounting at the same time the ones committing destructive acts are exhausting themselves in their frenzy. Once the resources arrive, the crowd is more weary, easier to chase down, putting up less of a struggle. It basically comes down to who's burning more calories if you want to look at it that way.
I won't deny they got caught flat-footed, but I don't they they were intentionally lax. It's the same thing we see with championship victories that go overboard. Most cops are decent people, they want people to be safe and alive, so they focus first on removing people not involved who might get hurt. People get tired, need to pee, get hungry, that moves body signals from amped to anxious, which means feet lead the body elsewhere. Police watch and study who the problem people are, start making moves when they are isolated, all the same stuff.
