kane

Things like this are all about public perception. You can't just say you don't give a shit about the news when the news is the one telling the public what is going on. If you are the Mayor of a city and you tell the police to remove some protesters and the police use gas which gets people running, causes chaos and starts a riot the news is going to blame you.

I could see it first hand a few nights ago when the police evicted the Occupy Portland people. At first it was a standoff and nothing was happening. Then it started to look like the police were going to forcefully remove the protesters. The news that was covering it live kept talking about all the people who were close by and watching and they were talking about police trying to be careful to not spark unneeded violence because the protest had been peaceful. You could tell just by how they were talking that there were chomping at the bit to criticize the city and police for how they handled things. In the end the police just waited them out. They let people get tired and go home and then eventually they arrested a few and let the rest move to a different location and the news was very complimentary towards them and praised them.

Here is the the interesting thing. For the first two hours of the standoff about every 5 minutes the police made an announcement over a loudspeaker that if the crowd didn't disperse the police would arrest them and use force if needed including chemical agents. the news said they were required by law to give that warning and nobody left. Had they actually started firing tear gas and it caused chaos and some poor kid or innocent person got trampled or hurt how much shitty press would the police and the city get for that? A ton! Not to mention the potential lawsuits.

In the end what do they gain from using gas? They showed some protesters who is boss? And what does that gain them? the risk VS reward is too big.