Alleged context (feel free to correct if you have info in comments):
After Israeli Maccabi hooligans terrorized Amsterdam, the Dutch government demonized the pro-Palestine movement and banned protests. People came to protest anyways (peacefully)
The police arrested peaceful protesters and put them in a bus. They were driven to a parking lot. The police released them from the bus in a parking lot near a station.
While the protesters were walking to the station the police started hitting them. Allegedly for not moving fast enough.
Why would violence be the appropriate / expected result in your mind?
Using violence to enforce the law and government decree is literally the job of the police.
The job of the police is to enforce law and government decree without violence. Violence is just a tool they have access to, but it doesn’t mean it should be used for every kid and granny.
That’s a silly way to word it, that normalizes violent behavior. It’s a common tactic / tool they use, but more accurately:
“enforce the law and government decree is literally the job of the police.”
Violence, at the most cynical, is a common way they do it.
In this case, (not discussing the whole bussing thing), if an arrest was required, say, for the bus damage, it should have been completed with the absolute minimum violence.
It’s not silly. It is the most reasonable lens through which to examine the citizen’s relationship with police: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
Normalizing via speech is entrenching this very problem. I’m not saying this thread is gonna tip the scales, I’m discussing that the above commenter replied as if it’s the right response. They are condoning and almost evangelizing the topic (evangelizing is way too active a word, I can’t think of a better one, but this one is too much).
I think there’s distinction between your raising the issue that police have a monopoly on violence, and their commenting that violence is their job. Given the context, it comes off as they are saying “it is correct and GOOD that the police met this group with violence.”
I contend it is not appropriate, but accept that is is common (even systemically so)
Arresting a person in a pissed off crowd isn’t exactly easy.
What we see in the video is the end of police enforcing dispersal of the crowd. We don’t see the repeated non violent orders to disperse that preceded this.
The people in the video participated in an illegal protest and ignored repeated police orders to disperse.
As far as police violence goes, the video isn’t terrible. You even see the cop help up the guy on the ground.
I agree. This video does not depict a person being “beat up”