They're approaching this from a "total war" or "war on terrorism" stance...they're out to destroy protesters' support, logistics, and aid networks, and clearly have demonstrated an attitude protesters are to be treated as enemy combatants, albeit ones not subject to rules of engagement or humane treatment. Targeting "agitators" for removal or arrest -- when and where agitators are not law enforcement -- would be counterproductive to their ends and calculi, because that violence and destruction is a useful tool for delegitimizing protest and justifying police brutality against protest. Which is why police are prioritizing one target, but not the other.We fully expect the police to forcibly arrest violent rioters setting cars on fire. We don't expect them to invade shelters looking after the homeless or trash medical stations and destroy their bottled water and medical supplies, not least because that stuff's often counterproductive.
I appreciate facing down an angry and abusive - albeit not seriously violent - crowd can be a scary and difficult thing. Keeping cool whilst someone screams in your face, spits at you and throws water on you is difficult. On the other hand, it's also what I expect a police officer to be trained to handle. Driving a car into them is just the crowd control equivalent of tasing a guy because he's got a sulky expression whilst answering questions.
Now, otherwise, let me just dig into my reservoir of Proud American Conservative Talking Points™...if they don't like their job, the way they're treated, or their coworkers, well by golly gee they can just quit now can't they. Nobody's forcing them to be cops.
The Rodney King riots were so violent and expansive, Marines had to be deployed after state and federal law enforcement, and the CA Guard, failed to contain them. The Guard had to be called in to both Ferguson and Baltimore.I agree this is not the first time. I'd also point out that Obama had lots of protest, the biggest ones probably being Ferguson, Occupy and Tea Party. None of them turn stupendously violent like they are know. Bush and Clinton didn't have anything like this either. Somehow, they manage to deal with protest without it getting out of hand.
The only thing the tea party was swarmed and kettled by, were news crews. Funny how there wasn't national unrest and mass law enforcement deployment when government buildings and abortion clinics just kept spontaneously combusting during the Clinton administration, either.
But I suppose you're right, the Bush II admin didn't face mass, violent protests. Ah, the halcyon days of preemptive riot control by herding protesters into cages, blocking press access to or around those cages, and surrounding protesters by guards carrying live rounds. True American civility and competent governance.