All Riots are Caused by Police

Quite a title, huh?  Provocative, yes?  Hear me out, let me make my case. 

This piece was inspired by the movie The Trial of the Chicago 7.  It is a dramatization (partly fictional) of a real event, the trial of a bunch of "radicals" who came to Chicago to make a statement against the Vietnam War, and against the Democratic nominee for president Hubert Humphrey, who had not distanced himself from President Lyndon Johnson, the Democratic president who had aggressively expanded America’s participation in the war.   The year was 1968.

The Chicago 7 (Chicago 8 at the beginning) were charged with a “federal crime to use interstate or foreign commerce routes or facilities (such as by crossing state lines or through mail, use of the Internet, or phone calls) to incite a riot, organize, promote or participate in a riot or to extend activities of a riot" (Title X of the Civil Rights Act of 1968).  Five were found guilty of this crime (by a jury), mostly because of the judge's partiality.  All of the convictions were reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on the basis that the judge was biased in his refusal to permit defense attorneys to screen prospective jurors for cultural and racial bias, and the FBI surveillance of the defense lawyers' offices.  But it took 33 months to do so.

As soon as I got home from viewing the movie in a local theater (I was one of only two viewers), I posted a hearty recommendation of the film on Facebook.  Then I added this: “My takeaway from this film is this: if you ever wonder who caused a riot, ask yourself these two questions: who was armed (firearms, billy clubs, tear gas, etc.) and whose blood was spilled?”  But this is not proof of my point. 

Here is my proof, please hear me out. 

Thought experiment: two fellows have gotten into a heated argument at a bar.  They take it outside so as not to disturb the bar’s other patrons.  Person A says some nasty stuff to person B, person B counters, saying nasty stuff to person A, and back and forth.  Until person B punches person A in the face, laying him on the ground.  The First Amendment protects both parties’ right to say nasty stuff to one another.  But punching a guy is a crime.  So, it matters not in the slightest who was the original provocateur, the fist is the only thing that matters.  The march across Edmund Pettis bridge may have been provocative to the police on the other side, but the marchers didn’t break any law, not any law that you and I would consider a proper law in any case.  And the police beat up on these “protestors.”  What was their “provocation”?  Advancing on the police?  With what threat?  To harm the police?  With what, their fists?  Are you kidding?   Any provocation was in the minds of the police who went out of control.  It was common knowledge across the country that these black men and women were committed to non-violence.  Was there a riot?  Who caused it?    People walking across a bridge?  Putting aside their committing no crime, why could not the police have just stood their ground and prevented further motion on the part of the “protesters"?  The police caused the riot.

Even provocative speech, like calling cops pigs, or crying "defund the police" is verbal provocation, but it is protected (legal) speech, and the police know it.  They have no lawful option but to stand their ground.

Police may not act against people who are not breaking any law.  And even if some people are breaking the law, the police’s right to arrest someone is not permission to bust their skulls.  Or to use firearms against them.

Let me repeat my takeaway from this movie: if you ever wonder "who caused a riot?", ask yourself these two questions: who was armed (firearms, billy clubs, tear gas) and whose blood was spilled?” 

I understand that not everyone will agree with my argument or its logical conclusion.  Please show me why I am wrong.