Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts – and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change.
The simplest answer is usually not one that works, you can disperse crowds with water cannons alone and eliminate stragglers with arrests and rubber bullets
The real answer would probably end up being violence in the end, planned action to sabotage police movements, forming communes to act in unison and to act against the state and their tools
High participation raises the likelihood that the people in the police, military, national guard, have friends and family on the other side. This makes them less likely to use force and more likely to defect.
So how do you keep the police from making it violent?
What does that have to do with non-violent protesters?
Did the violent attacks by police & police dogs make the Birmingham campaign a violent protest?
Yes!
Wrong, brah: a violent response doesn’t make a violent protest.
The narrative becomes one of violence when violence becomes involved. Cultural thing.
Numbers.
The simplest answer is usually not one that works, you can disperse crowds with water cannons alone and eliminate stragglers with arrests and rubber bullets
The real answer would probably end up being violence in the end, planned action to sabotage police movements, forming communes to act in unison and to act against the state and their tools
High participation raises the likelihood that the people in the police, military, national guard, have friends and family on the other side. This makes them less likely to use force and more likely to defect.
They are already outnumbered.
Police like to be more violent the more they’re outnumbered!