> So you are saying, some people in the crowd throw rocks, therefore, innocent people in the crowd should also die?
I'm not suggesting they police should just blindly open fire on the crowd. But if you are in a crowd that turns violent and starts attacking the police, I think it's reasonable to expect some collateral damage in whatever their response is going to be.
> So you are saying, guy throws rock. Now he has no rock. He should be shot despite having no rock?
Yes. Or are you suggesting that if a guy shoots a gun and misses, then we should we wait for him to reload too? If the guy does not drop down on all fours and assume the position, I think it's reasonable for police to shoot someone throwing rocks at them.
> So you are saying, police riot gear is useless against rocks?
I doubt it's some invincible force field. They could still get hurt. And the police are there not just for their own safety. They are there to protect everybody. If someone is throwing rocks it could hit non police as well.
I do find it incredible the lengths people will go to argue in favor of violence to defend law breakers.
