The same thing is happening in Pennsylvania: environmental crimes; hiring armed muscle to keep civilians from observing drilling sites from afar (I've been harassed myself) even though these sites pass through little league fields, apartment complexes etc; some shenanigans getting classed as a public utility with eminent domain rights; and some FOIA shenanigans (there should be no secrets here). Highlights:
Similarly in Texas: https://www.kxan.com/pipeline-exposure/ . The KXAN reporter (Jody Barr) who worked on this expose was followed by sheriffs in multiple counties and stopped for no reason on public roads.
All these comments seem to live in a fantastical world where money doesn't corrupt or influence behavior. Police were paid to do a job and did it to the benefit of an oil company. You can't pay a detective to investigate a family murder or sexual assault and shouldn't have to. Ostensibly that's what taxes for and what most people actually want them to do anyways.
The day we normalize companies paying for services like these is the day we normalize the things people actually like police doing getting even more de-prioritized because everyday people can't (and shouldn't) pay for it. It's like a college building a new sports stadium, suuuure they say the ticket sales will offset the cost and help the school but somehow it all gets funneled back into sports.
> All these comments seem to live in a fantastical world where money doesn't corrupt or influence behavior.. You can't pay a detective to investigate a family murder or sexual assault and shouldn't have to.
An example of corruption is how the FDA is funded. Pharmaceutical companies who want their application for approval to be given priority can pay extra. Because of this the pharmaceutical companies end up doing most of the funding of the FDA instead of the federal government. Ever since this rule was put in place a higher percentage of drugs have been recalled and had to add side effects to the label than before.
Just like in the detective example, nobody should be given preferential treatment just because they pay more. Just because a drug company pays more to get their drug doesn't mean it's drug is more valuable to society than the one that it skipped in line. It's just like paying a detective to investigate your case doesn't make it more important.
> Because of this the pharmaceutical companies end up doing most of the funding of the FDA instead of the federal government.
45% is way too much, but it is not "most of the funding". IIRC that was an urban legend that got started recently.
Many government agencies are funded to a significant degree based on fees from their specific constituents. The post office is funded in large measure from postage fees. Highway construction is funded in part from gasoline and automotive vehicle taxes. The USPTO is funded in part from fees. So is the SEC.
The point of fees of this sort is that they are directed narrowly at the petitioners who use the service of the agency. Do you want Merck to have its (arbitrarily many) applications to the FDA paid for by you, rather than Merck, via income tax? Surely it should be shouldering the cost of its own drug submissions.
That can be dangerous of course. It's true that such fees can promote regulatory capture, or even corruption, but they are not in and of themselves examples of corruption as you claimed. 45% is ridiculously high but it is not corruption. Corruption would be the FDA approving drugs in return for payment where it would not have otherwise.
> Just because a drug company pays more to get their drug doesn't mean it's drug is more valuable to society than the one that it skipped in line.
No, it means that the company was willing to shoulder the costs of expedited processing. Embassies do this too, you know: if you pay more money you can get your passport processed faster. I don't like the idea of expedited approval processes for drugs: it damages the safety checks in place. But I don't think that just because Merck paid gets its drug approved faster means it "skipped ahead in line" in front of J&J, just that its process is moving faster because it paid for the resources to make that happen.
> All these comments seem to live in a fantastical world where money doesn't corrupt or influence behavior. Police were paid to do a job and did it to the benefit of an oil company. You can't pay a detective to investigate a family murder or sexual assault and shouldn't have to. Ostensibly that's what taxes for and what most people actually want them to do anyways.
But as another commenter mentioned[1], the pipeline company isn't doing this voluntarily, they're doing it because the utility commission forced them to. If that's the case, what's the difference between the pipeline company paying the police, and the pipeline company paying taxes, which goes to the town, which pays the police?
"Enbridge told the Guardian an independent account manager allocates the funds, and police decide when protesters are breaking the law. But records obtained by the Guardian show the company meets daily with police to discuss intelligence gathering and patrols. And when Enbridge wants protesters removed, it calls police or sends letters.
“Our police are beholden to a foreign company,” Tara Houska, founder of the Indigenous frontline group Giniw Collective, told the Guardian. “They are working hand in hand with big oil. They are actively working for a company. Their duty is owed to the state of Minnesota and to the tribal citizens of Minnesota.”"
The company does much more than just funding the police comparable to tax revenue, they're literally organisizing and coordinating with police in their own interests, put simply, they use the police like a bunch of private goons.
underfunding public institutions in ways that drive them towards other sources of funding and outside influence by those with power and capital is not accidental, it is intentional.
You can effectively force this type of corruption by cutting apportionment without cutting responsibilities. C.f....
* IRS unable to investigate rich tax cheats due to lack of agents
> underfunding public institutions in ways that drive them towards other sources of funding and outside influence by those with power and capital is not accidental, it is intentional.
You fail to address the question in my earlier comment: what's the difference between:
1. a company being forced to pay taxes to the local government, and the local government using that to fund the police
It adds a layer of indirection which helps prevent moral hazard. If the company pays taxes to the local government, and the local government pays the police department, AND the company is not allowed to pay the police department directly, there is less possibility for the company to incentivize particular behaviors.
The police budget should be set by the local government, breaking protestor lines should not come with rewards provided by a private company, that investigating regular public crimes would not have.
> It adds a layer of indirection which helps prevent moral hazard. If the company pays taxes to the local government, and the local government pays the police department, AND the company is not allowed to pay the police department directly, there is less possibility for the company to incentivize particular behaviors.
According to the article there's already a layer of indirection.
"independent account manager allocates the funds"
What's the difference between "independent account manager" and "local government" in this case? Moreover, what can either party do to influence the police's behavior? Does having "evil pipeline co." on the check make the police chief more willing to beat up protesters or something?
>The police budget should be set by the local government
Considering that the payment is being forced by the utility commission, I doubt the local government is able to spend the money as they see fit (ie. spend it on schools rather than police). For all intents and purposes their budget-setting ability is fairly limited.
>breaking protestor lines should not come with rewards provided by a private company, that investigating regular public crimes would not have.
Is there any indication that's the case? As far as I understand it the utility commission is forcing the pipeline company to give the police a given amount, and the pipeline is complying with that requirement. Is the pipline company setting a bounty per protester beaten up or something?
> What's the difference between "independent account manager" and "local government" in this case? Moreover, what can either party do to influence the police's behavior? Does having "evil pipeline co." on the check make the police chief more willing to beat up protesters or something?
Local government is partly elected, and beholden to its citizens. The independent account manager is neither. Furthermore, the article states that the company pays for overtime and such, so yes, they're directly paying to those more willing spend time on the matter, and can directly incentivise them.
>Local government is partly elected, and beholden to its citizens. The independent account manager is neither.
but the police chief is still beholden to its citizens? I'm still not clear on how the pipeline company being forced to fund them makes them beholden to the pipeline company. Suppose the pipeline company was forced to pay me $10k/month. Does that mean I'll be beholden to them? If rather than wiring the money directly to my account, they wire it to a shell company, and the shell company wires it to me, does that make me beholden to the shell company? Would you support the pipeline company funding the police anonymously using cash?
>Furthermore, the article states that the company pays for overtime and such
that's actually the more reasonable concern here, if you assume that more time on patrol = more protesters beaten up and/or civil rights violated. However, if that's actually the case my I'd be more concerned about why that's the way in the first place.
1 - there is a process of public representation and societal input via elected government representatives, transparency, equality, and indirectness. EVERYONE pays the local government which then decides on priorities and apportions funds. Their taxes, like your and my taxes, go to all government services not just police.
2 - does not and is effectively equivalent to paying protection money to the mob.
I'll be honest that I don't see this point as a good faith argument. Unless you are making some societal critique here on the number of governmental functions, up to and including aesthetic preferences for hair styles [0], that US society assigns to police fundamentally usurps the process of democracy?
So you're just going to ignore an entirely valid concern?
>1 - there is a process of public representation and societal input via elected government representatives, transparency, equality, and indirectness. EVERYONE pays the local government which then decides on priorities and apportions funds. Their taxes, like your and my taxes, go to all government services not just police.
you seem to arguing for something entirely different. rather than the pipeline company paying $x to fund the police department, you want the pipeline company to pay $x the local government so they can fund schools or whatever. While that's a reasonable demand, it's also entirely separate from what's actually happening (ie. the utilities commission requiring the pipeline company to fund the police so taxpayers aren't on the hook to secure their pipelines). It's not really "oh no the police are corrupt because the pipeline company is paying for them!", it's more "oh no the pipeline company isn't funding local government services!".
>2 - does not and is effectively equivalent to paying protection money to the mob.
I'm not sure what's the point you're trying to make here. Is the government the bad guy here for making the pipeline company pay police for protection? I'm sure the pipeline company would be happy to get rid of an expense.
>they're literally organisizing and coordinating with police in their own interests, put simply, they use the police like a bunch of private goons.
I'm not seeing that in the quoted excerpts. Specifically,
>But records obtained by the Guardian show the company meets daily with police to discuss intelligence gathering and patrols
"company meets daily with police" just means... "company meets daily with police". It doesn't mean the company is ordering the police around. Maybe the pipeline company has knowledge about the local geography and/or protester movements. Is telling that to the police wrong? Moreover, I fail to see where the leverage is coming from. Suppose the company wants the police to illegally beat up protesters. The police chief refuses. What's the pipeline company going to do, fire them? That's not an option because they're forced to pay the police.
>And when Enbridge wants protesters removed, it calls police or sends letters.
Yes, that's how police works. If my house is getting robbed or my neighbor is partying a bit too loud, I call the police to deal with it. I don't wait for the police to show up on their own accord. Me calling up the police doesn't mean I'm using them "like a bunch of private goons".
I hope you're able to draw a distinction between protests of the public near a state park and through native land against a company and their pipeline which is inherently an issue of public land usage and environmental concerns and some thief rummaging through your garage. It should be very obvious why that is a bad faith comparison.
The right of the public to protest and protect their land, in a democracy at least, holds quite some value, and furthermore in a democracy the police answers to the people and citizens it serves, in this case native people, they should not have the oil company CEO on speed dial.
Am I missing something here? Is the pipeline company calling the police in bad faith? ie. they're reporting protesters even though they're not on pipeline company land? Is the legal situation regarding land rights in that area so conflicted that it's impossible to know who owns what? Even if there are appeals going on, there should be some sort of current decision about who can access/use the land.
>Can the tribes call up the police to have them enforce treaty rights that the oil companies are infringing?
Police aren't supposed to be judge, jury, and executioner. A protester trespassing on pipeline company's property is a fairly cut and dry case that the police can act on it. Some treaty dispute between the tribe and the pipeline company is vague enough that they'll need a court ruling before they can act. If the tribes can get a court ruling, they can definitely call up the police to enforce those treaty rights.
>> Yes, that's how police works.
>Yes, that's the problem.
I'm baffled by this. You think that being able to call up a police to report a disturbance/crime, is a problem?
Funny how the pipeline company's "property" is cut and dry, but a 200 year-old treaty guaranteeing access to that land isn't recognized, is't it?
The problem with the police that I'm talking about here is that they readily apply violence to suppress protest on behalf of corporate interests, when the legal situation is actually far more complex.
If it's just so simple as "the pipeline companies meet with the police every day," do tribal leaders get the same courtesy?
> Funny how the pipeline company's "property" is cut and dry, but a 200 year-old treaty guaranteeing access to that land isn't recognized, is't it?
No.
I'm also not surprised that the anti-pipeline activists presented talking points that sound vaguely compelling and garner maximum sympathy from an average layperson.
>The problem with the police that I'm talking about here is that they readily apply violence to suppress protest on behalf of corporate interests, when the legal situation is actually far more complex.
I agree it's complex, but just because it's complex, doesn't mean that the pipeline is in a legal limbo zone where nobody owns it and everyone can do what they want. I suspect that's happening is that legally speaking, the pipeline company has gotten the necessary permits/approvals/decisions that they can start construction and evict trespassers. There might still be additional appeals on top, but they're not convincing enough for a judge to grant an injunction. You might disagree with this, and say that the justice system should be more obstructionist, but that's more of a problem with the judicial system than the police, and has nothing to do with this article's accusation that the police are being bribed or whatever.
Speaking of those stadiums, when there's a large event, the city asks the event holder to compensate them for the amount of overtime it will cost the city to man the event. It's already quite normal, tho I agree with you in principle.
If taxes paid for any and all necessary police protection, Trump wouldn't owe the city of El Paso half a million dollars.
> The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, which regulates pipelines, decided rural police should not have to pay for increased strain from Line 3 protests. As a condition of granting Line 3 permits, the commission required Enbridge to set up an escrow account to reimburse police for responding to demonstrations.
The crux of the issue here is whether the police are being incentivized and are biased by this arrangement.
It's possible they feel that they are being paid by Enbridge and thus behave differently, but I think it's much more likely that this arrangement is above their heads — they're doing their job as police, and the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is ensuring that local townspeople don't pay for an increase in police budget caused by a large company's behavior. I could only really imagine they're being biased if they're being weaponized as a personal security force, and could, for instance, be removed from assignment if they don't follow Enbridge's orders on who to arrest. I highly, highly doubt that to be the case.
> Enbridge told the Guardian an independent account manager allocates the funds, and police decide when protesters are breaking the law. But records obtained by the Guardian show the company meets daily with police to discuss intelligence gathering and patrols. And when Enbridge wants protesters removed, it calls police or sends letters.
This reminds me of a local police presence at a rally or controversial talk speaking to the organizers of the event about their concerns. This is rather ordinary, really.
Without evidence of what their letters or calls contain, I imagine it's like "hey, this person broke the law and here's the evidence," which frankly is fine reason to arrest someone. The ability to call the police and tell them that you want someone arrested for an illegal action is one of their main purposes!
Altogether, this article has a huge bite as clickbait, as the idea of our police being weaponized like a private security force by a foreign national company, but I think the reality is much more dull.
I think the issue is that without a) all documents being public from day 1, and b) all processes controlled, audited, and strictly overseen by an independent third part who is just as open and public from day 1, this process is ripe for corruption.
Even having the conversation, click bait or no, tells me that there wasn't enough information about this from the get-go.
So, I'm curious -- why are there protests here to begin with? What is the proper bar for adding a pipeline across the landscape? When your land is traversed against your will, what exact rights to you have to protect it?
The Anishinaabe people did cede all of this land the pipeline is on to the US Government in the 1800's. However it came with the requirement that they retain the rights to hunt, fish, and gather wild rice there.
So while it is technically the government's land to do whatever they want with, I can understand the argument that building a pipeline across the land and rivers could impact their ability to hunt, fish, or gather on the lands.
Alaska, Florida, and Louisiana purchases were contracts between colonial powers, not the indigenous peoples of the respective lands. Not quite comparable.
Pipelines leak after being in place for a while and what they leak is usually toxic to the ground near where they are built. Hypothetically leaks can be kept to low levels by proactive maintenance, but in practice managers want to cut costs to a minimum, and have no incentives to spend their company's money to keep up the value of someone else's land.
The proper bar for adding a pipeline across a landscape is putting enough money in a cleanup trust to handle any and all spill costs and compensation, up to the most catastrophic outcome, as well as EOL decommissioning. This trust must be controlled by the communities across whose lands this pipeline runs.
No pipeline in the United States currently meets this bar.
Even if the patrol officers had no idea they were being paid by the pipeline company, the chief of police surely would know. And the chief would be able to direct patrols in certain locations or drive investigations into individuals of interest.
> paid by the pipeline company, the chief of police surely would know
Awareness of who is paying is step one of the potential for corruption here, but it's far from conclusive. The chief of police is getting paid regardless, whether it's by the municipality or the company isn't particularly relevant to him I imagine.
> the chief would be able to direct patrols in certain locations or drive investigations into individuals of interest.
This is exactly what a police chief should do all the time! When you hear of crime, you send officers to investigate it. Anyone can direct patrols to a certain location by calling 911 and reporting a crime.
Would you rather these things be reported on or not? The US doesn't exactly have a great history with company towns and these deals smell a lot like that.
It’s really important to stem this stuff, in law, before it has even the slightest foothold to get out of hand.
I’m sure there are plenty of rational folks who could sensibly sell their left kidney to a transplant facility but we forbid it because, unchecked in any form, it will lead to corruption and exploitation of humans.
We don’t forbid private entities from paying for policing because we’re ultra flush and don’t need the money — we forbid it because once allowed it is inevitable that corruption will occur.
> We don’t forbid private entities from paying for policing because we’re ultra flush and don’t need the money — we forbid it because once allowed it is inevitable that corruption will occur.
We don't forbid private entities from paying for policing at all. In my town, and many other places I've lived [0 for example}, you can contact the police department and hire a "paid detail" consisting of off-duty uniformed officers for any e.g. event where a police presence is beneficial.
Which in my opinion is a real problem. I went to a private high school that hired off-duty cops from the local PD as security. Guess which high school students got off easier when they were caught underage drinking and the like by the police?
I don't think it's a problem with an easy solution though. Activities by private organizations that require a police presence aren't something we want to discourage, but we do want to pass the costs on to the people incurring them.
If I'm putting together a festival in a city park to raise money for cause X (while providing some value to the local denizens), that's a good thing, but the municipality shouldn't have to pay my security costs. It's similar if I need to do construction that will impede a roadway and need a police officer to direct traffic; the cost for those hours should be passed to me, not to the town.
Why does it need to be true police? Why don’t mall cop security guards work? If you needs to hire police it means you are pulling resources away from elsewhere
There are many problems with them being actual police though. Actual police can directly arrest people, and can physically assault people without consequence in many cases. Meanwhile, off-duty or not, assaulting a police officer typically carries much harsher penalties than getting into a fight with ordinary private security.
They aren’t really off duty though. They on duty for hire but the tax payer still pays for their injuries pension and lawsuits. Also they still get get all the protections of someone who is acting on behalf of the state while acting on behalf of a private party
"If I'm putting together a festival in a city park to raise money for cause X (while providing some value to the local denizens), that's a good thing, but the municipality shouldn't have to pay my security costs."
Why not? Are these 200 people that came to donate to my 'save a goat' charity not deserving security? Do they not pay taxes? If they were instead having drinks in a pub, the police could just take a day off?
Where does this lead us, what if you cannot afford to pay, is police going to deliberatly avoid that location?
Are commenters here familiar with the history of police and "private security" being deployed against striking workers? This has been happening without interruption in the U.S. since the nineteenth century.
There are some excellent resources out there - some useful keywords to search would be "Pinkertons" and "Ludlow"…
It's useful to recognize that police primarily exist to defend private property and the persons to whom said property belongs.
Because the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission required they do so.
Getting enraged at the pipeline company is misplaced. You can't blame the company for following the law. Complain to the governor, Tim Walz, that oversees the commission.
the money trail isn't the main issue here. It's the perception that the pipeline company is getting discretion at who gets arrested, rather than the police making the decision.
Seems like the police's problem. If the police need more money to enforce the law, then they should request it through the proper government channels.
If the pipeline company needs more support on their frontlines, then they should pay a private security company such as Pinkerton[0] or Blackwater[1] - not the police.
A weak or non-existent financial barrier between corporations and government is synonymous with corruption.
There's perverse incentives going for both obvious plans (company pays vs town pays), but I suspect one is worse than the other.
If we say that towns should pay the burden, then companies cannot "incentivize" police, but they can also exhibit disproportionate burden vs. other police priorities.
If we say that companies pay, then at some point the company is responsible for so much of police wellbeing that the police begin to lose moral credibility.
The police in the US are atrocious. It’s an easy problem to solve. Dissolve the only union that rightfully needs to be dissolved— the police union. Put cops on practitioners insurance like nurses and back that up with always on cameras that the police department has no access to. It’s a low skilled, low bar for entry job. Finding candidates should be a breeze.
> It’s a low skilled, low bar for entry job. Finding candidates should be a breeze.
Proper police should be well trained ( de-escalation, judging situations, hostage negotiation, domestic abuse, etc etc). Furthermore, it's a (potentially) very tough ( in terms of hours worked and shit that happens during those hours) and thankless job. I don't think there would be that many candidates.
You need to know none of those things to be a cop in the US. Furthermore it’s one of the safer jobs with pizza delivery men getting killed or injured more often than cops.
> But in Minnesota, a financial agreement with a foreign company has given public police forces an incentive to arrest demonstrators.
I must have missed it. What’s the incentive. Are the police paid by the number of arrests or something else?
> Police have arrested more than 900 demonstrators opposing Line 3 and its impact on climate and Indigenous rights
Identifying where problems are is, it think, important. So, where these people doing illegal things or arrested for doing legal things? Police enforce laws but legislatures create them. Is there an issue of bad laws a legislature needs to look at around protesting?
> I must have missed it. What’s the incentive. Are the police paid by the number of arrests or something else?
They are paid for overtime by the company directly, so yeah. Each extra arrest is more time spent on documentation, interrogation, etc., which means more money past a certain threshold.
It should be illegal for a police department to accept any source of funding outside of government. The potential for abuse is so obvious that I struggle to imagine how this is not already the case.
The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission required Enbridge to pay for additional police presence as a condition of granting permits. These payments are managed by an independent third party.
Enbridge informs the police when people are suspected or observed breaking the law. Some of those people are indeed breaking the law and arrested.
I can confirm this as I worked with a cleaning contractor for their offices and met the cops that were paid to work the night shift watching for trespassers.
1984 is often cited as "it's not supposed to be a manual!" book when referring to current events, but I think that title should more properly go to Snow Crash these days.
"MetaCops Unlimited is the official peacekeeping force of White Columns, and also of The Mews at Windsor Heights, The Heights at Bear Run, Cinnamon Grove, and The Farms of Cloverdelle. They also enforce traffic regulations on all highways and byways operated by Fairlanes, Inc. A few different FOQNEs also use them: Caymans Plus and The Alps, for example. ... MetaCops’ main competitor, WorldBeat Security, handles all roads belonging to Cruiseways, plus has worldwide contracts with Dixie Traditionals, Pickett’s Plantation, Rainbow Heights (check it out — two apartheid Burbclaves and one for black suits), Meadowvale on the [insert name of river] and Brickyard Station. WorldBeat is smaller than MetaCops, handles more upscale contracts, supposedly has a bigger espionage arm — though if that’s what people want, they just talk to an account rep at the Central Intelligence Corporation. And then there’s The Enforcers — but they cost a lot and don’t take well to supervision. It is rumored that, under their uniforms, they wear T-shirts bearing the unofficial Enforcer coat of arms: a fist holding a nightstick, emblazoned with the words SUE ME."
I'm not convinced this is necessarily the worst option?
On one hand, the police being paid for by the company for their enforcement, especially so much money, definitely creates perverse incentives for the police officers to disrupt the protests more than they should.
On the other, the police were going to do it anyways because several of the protesters were breaking the law. I'd rather the police be doing this than a private enforcement company who is entirely dependent on the pipeline company, without the additional duties of being a police officer.
commenters so far have been discussing two options like "town pays for police operations" and "company pays for police operations" but there are third and fourth options
of course it's all in the past at this point, but if the people responsible receive the right incentives, maybe those choices will be on the table next time this comes up
In the US, individuals and companies pay property tax and are entitled to police protection, consistent with the law. Opponents of the permit should use the courts and the political process to argue their position. Failing that, protests should follow the law, and failing that, police should enforce the law at their own expense.
5) Towns tax the pipeline company like they would any other business that attracts crime?
Am I missing something here? These pipelines pay taxes, right? If so, why is a special funding arrangement parallel to taxation needed? And if not, why not?
>At about 5pm a group of protesters ran from a nearby camp to the drill site, leaned ladders against the fence and began to climb over, according to a Wright county police report obtained by the Guardian. Police told them they were under arrest but they kept climbing. Then police fired at protesters with “less-lethal munitions” – weapons that are more likely to injure than kill someone. Wright county officers fired pepper spray at protesters and arrested four people.
Is it safe to say that the fenced in drill site is private property? If so couldn't the headline alternatively read: "Police demand payment for enforcement of trespassing law"?
Looking at the maps in [0], there's a variety of land types involved, including state forests and private property.
Having spoken with some folks who are involved in this sort of protesting, frequently the lines are built on private land with a utility easement or eminent domain seizure. In the cases of private land, often the owner is sympathetic to the protesters but legally barred from supporting them, so they tacitly look the other way from a group of protesters camping on their property. Since utility workers are only allowed to access the easement when they are undergoing active work, the goal of the protest is to prevent active work as often as possible, forcing the pipeline company to repeatedly weaponize the state to enforce their easement.
If it's protocol to shoot non-violent trespassers with "less-lethal" ammunition, that seems like a big problem. They weren't involved in theft or destruction, at least not at the point they were climbing a fence. It's kind of a distraction to turn this into "but it's private property" - that doesn't inherently excuse police action.
If there isn't a legal basis for those arrests the headline should read: "Police violently commit extra judicial action against peaceful protestors".
If I got a mob of angry people and stood them in front of your place of work and I incited them to rush towards it, when would you like the police to take action?
A corporation and a personal home are different, and again, I'm not challenging the police's ability to act, I am challenging the magnitude of response given the context of the situation.
If I have a mob outside of my home, I'm going to assume I will be dead and fight to the best of my abilities or run. These people were trespassing on property, not entering into a private home, so still not really addressing the concern I have.
For my own opinion: I absolutely value individual private human life over replaceable corporate property. I find it unacceptable that our police force isn't trained to respond peacefully to a nonviolent threat of minimal immediate danger.
While you were writing your comment I realized the flaw in that argument and changed my point to place of work. This is a better anology because that is exactly what it is. The people doing the manual labor to install a pipeline aren't responsible for environmental policy. Go climb over the fences they had around Congress if you want to find someone to blame. However in that case they won't use less lethal rounds.
I don't think trespassing on open property is inherently threatening - I doubt the manual labor employees were at any time in risk or threatened by the protestors, maybe I need to do more homework, but this still isn't holding up.
If they forcibly enter a locked building, that's also different than crossing a fence. If they force open a building and sit in the lobby with a sign, that's still different from forcing themselves further into the building, or causing destruction or damage to irreplaceable property (computers/data/private information).
All of these things should require a different level of awareness of context and response magnitude by officers.
Comparing them does nobody any good unless we're laying out the different levels of force/response we think is reasonable at what level of crime and at what cost to taxpayers or businesses.
I don't really want to have that conversation because it's moot if we're starting at cops using "less than lethal" which isn't non-lethal, force against unarmed fence climbers. Just full stop.
* thugs: https://www.audacy.com/kywnewsradio/articles/news/more-scrut...
* charges: https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2021/10/05/pennsylvania-pi...
* FOIA: https://www.chescoplanning.org/pic/PDF/ME2-092421.pdf
etc. If you think there has been miscarriage of justice, consider letting Sunoco know how you feel.