The police are violent towards people protesting the murder of George Floyd

The argument

On May 26th, 2020, protests began to occur in every major city in the United States, following the death of George Floyd. Though the majority of these protests were peaceful, many incidents of police violence took place between protestors and the police. Videos of the police violence that occurred during protests have spread across social media, providing proof of violent incidents involving police. Hundreds of videos involving police violence against journalists have surfaced as well. Videos show protesters met with pepper spray, rubber bullets, tear gas, and batons, as well as physical assault by police officers. The US guarantees the right to freedom of speech and the right to protest. The violence police officers have inflicted against peaceful protestors undermines the protestors and their civil rights. Though some argue the police have used these tactics to protect themselves, disturbing videos have shown that the use of these tactics without provocation by protestors. Instead, its use incites fear and gains control over protesters. New York City has seen many of these incidents, including an instance that happened on May 30th, 2020, when police officers drove through a crowd of Brooklyn protestors, knocking many to the ground. Women and elderly protestors were victims of this heinous violence as well, infringing on their rights to peaceful protests and freedom of speech. Protesters are reacting proportionally to their treatment by police. The police and critics of the protest are bending the narrative, demonizing the protesters.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Police officers often use crowd-control methods to ensure the safety of the protestors. Tactics such as tear gas, rubber bullets, and pepper spray are used in extreme cases to avoid violence from escalating among protestors and business owners during riots. In most cases, the use of these tactics is for self-defense against aggressive protestors. Many police officers are civil to protestors, engaging in conversation about the protests, and providing food and water for those who are in need. The media is skewed in its portrayal of the behavior of police officers during protests, and the videos that surface the internet are taken out of context. There are many videos of police officers demonstrating solidarity with the protesters, and ven marching with them. If the media cared about representing these protests honestly, it would include these moments of humanity in the reporting and not just the violence.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The counter-argument on record disputes what the footage establishes, arguing that clips circulating without their preceding minutes cannot show whether force followed an escalation, and that crowd-control measures are deployed in conditions the recordings do not capture. [Rejecting P2] The rights to speech and assembly have never been read as unlimited, and dispersal orders, curfews and restrictions on obstruction are longstanding. The premise treats any forceful policing of a protest as an infringement, which would rule out lawful crowd control as well as unlawful. [Rejecting P3] 'Without provocation' is the contested claim, and it is supported by the same videos whose completeness is at issue. The counter argues the reverse selection effect — that officers marching with protesters, talking with them and distributing water were widely documented and rarely reported. [Rejecting C] The counter also resists the generalisation from incidents to institution: individual instances of excessive force, however serious, are consistent with misconduct by particular officers rather than a systemic threat to civil liberties.