Berkeley Police Department firing stun grenades against political opposition?

[EnglishPete]

Yesterday as everybody knows well there was a riot in Berkeley. A large group of right wingers organised a free speech protest and a large group of antifa turned up to disrupt and attack the event. There was a significant amount of fighting from both sides that was well documented by the media.

What was also well documented was that the Berkeley Police were, yet again, given stand down orders that encouraged the violence to get out of hand

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWhwNjmrtUU

Now I've discussed before how this tactic of giving the police stand down orders in the face of left wing violence is a tactic used by leftist authorities in various places, including Berkeley, as a way of using violence against political dissidents in a 'plausibly deniable' way.

However I have to say that I've truly underestimated the extend to which Berkeley PD and Berkeley authorities work to facilitate left wing 'protest' groups. this is from the Berkeley PD Website

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://archive.fo/7uiyS#selection-993.0-1075.22

Sorry, WTF were those last two items

"Do you want symbolic arrests?
If so, where and when?"

So lets get this right if far left agitators threaten and carry out violence against right wing dissidents (in other words political opponents of the Democratic Party leadership) then Berkeley PD will be ordered to stand back and do nothing to prevent this 'expression of the right to protest' (wink, wink).

However if a left wing protest group actually want some fake arrests to be carried out so that they can have a little photo op pretending to fight 'the man' then Berkeley Police will oblige. And they Berkeley PD actually advertise this as a service on their website.

Frankly any left wing agitator or protester in Berkeley who imagines that they represent the opposition to the authorities must be tripping.

[EnglishPete]

     I know I was doubtful before when you said that liberal institutions were tacitly allowing this stuff, but it is amazing to see how this played out just as everyone expected. I'm starting to think that the only way a free speech demonstration can happen in Berkeley without Antifa violence is for the National Guard to be deployed to keep the peace here.

Of course its easier to see these things for what they are. If western people were to see an example of a group of anti-Putin protestors being attacked by a group of pro Putin thugs with the Russian police standing aside and looking the other way then most people would, not unreasonably, assume that the police were being given politically motivated orders to not interfere.  Its sometimes a bit more difficult to accept that the same kind of thing can happen in our own countries.

As I said before I think its the

"Do you want symbolic arrests?
If so, where and when?"

on the Berkeley PD website really removes the last shreds of doubt for me of the attitude of the Berkeley authorities to left wing protestors.

[EnglishPete]

Anyways, I agree that the Berkeley PD is soft, weak and allowed this to happen: they should have rounded up as many of these fascists thugs as possible at the first sign of violence. Of course, police officers anywhere and everyone are staffed with fascists and Republicans so this is probably asking too much, I realize that it's in their nature to bloody socialists and to coddle neo-Nazis so this policy is the best policy possible.

If it had been the other way around and it had been a right wing group attacking a leftist rally then I suspect the police would have stepped in to stop the violence.

Holding a political rally, whether that's a 'free speech rally' or an 'actual nazi rally' (and a couple of dudes in the middle of the crowd throwing up a 'Roman' salute does not a nazi rally make, but that's beside the point) or a left wing rally is not a criminal offence. Using crime and disorder to shut down political rallies you don't like is a crime.

It is literally the job of the police to prevent, deter crime and disorder and to stop incidents of crime and disorder if it starts. That is officially their main reason for existence as a service. So where crime and disorder are occurring on a large scale and the police are deliberately ordered to stand back and do nothing to prevent it or stop it and are ordered to just wait around and do nothing instead that requires explanation, especially when this happens repeatedly.

Now what you are suggesting is that the police should intervene directly themselves to shut down right wing political rallies, i.e. what you would consider to be fascist rallies. In other words you think that such rallies should be classed as criminal in and of themselves. Of course such laws exist and are enforced in communist countries and its unsurprising, given your avatar, that you think such laws should exist in the US and indeed everywhere.

Of course such laws do not exist in the US and indeed there are not just strong legal but also strong cultural defenses of the rights to free speech and free assembly. The Berkeley authorities are therefore unable to use the police directly to try to shut down right wing political protest. So instead the police are given clear orders to stand down and keep out of sight as a way of facilitating far left groups attempting to play that role.

[EnglishPete]

Nice conspiracy theory, but how does that explain Oakland police beating the crap out of anti Iraq war protesters and Occupy Oakland? As well as them beating up some anti police brutality protesters in Berkeley (where they were called into for backup) a couple of years ago, definitely a bad move there.

Two point to make there. Firstly Oakland PD is a different force to Berkeley PD. I'm not aware of Oakland PD literally offering "Do you want symbolic arrests" as a service on their website.

However leaving that aside for one moment you can see that yes, in most protest situations the police are not given stand down orders and they're ordered to keep the protests under control. In situations where leftist agitators are wanting to attack not some aspect of the local establishment but right wing opposition to that establishment then Berkeley PD are given orders to deliberately stand down and get out of the way and allow the violence to get out of control.  You see the contrast?

[EnglishPete]

I checked the Berkeley PD's website myself and it appears to maintain the questions about symbolic arrests. I understand maintaining a certain level of passivity in order to avoid jumping the gun on protesters, as such tends to look bad, but this amount of placation is ridiculous.

Exactly. No doubt there have been other cases with other police forces where such pre arranged 'symbolic arrests' have taken place (particularly where the one being arrested is a police spy, but that's a different matter).

But to actually offer symbolic arrests as a service on their website is amazing. They may as well put "You want a nice photo op of you being oppressed for standing up to the pigs. No problem, its all part of the service". Its just amazing.

[EnglishPete]

The right wing tut-tutting some random students while their leaders rip money from the poor and kill little arab girls with bombs will never stop entertaining me.

The issue is not the behaviour of the far left and far left agitators. Obvious their behaviour on Saturday was appalling but that's just the nature of these people.

The issue is the actions of the Berkeley PD. Their job is to maintain law and orders and for the third time this year they were given politically motivated 'stand down' orders in order to facilitate leftist violence. The "Do you want symbolic arrests? If so where and when" is just the cherry on top that removes all doubt that BPD is being used by its political masters to serve the purposes of leftist agitators with whom they sympathise and who are politically useful for them.

[EnglishPete]

Wait ... did I sleep through some constitutional amendment that says people with abhorrent views no longer have the right to free speech? Because even assuming these rightwingers are unrepentant Nazis, I don't see why that precludes them from having a free speech rally.

Germany, like the UK, doesn't have the First Amendment. A fact of which SUSAN CRUSHBONE (and TheDeadFlagBlues) clearly approve.

[EnglishPete]

    DFB, I know you know better than that. The anarchists have consistently shown up and started violence.

have they? good. violence against nazis is inherently an act of self-defense and/or defense of others.

Says the user who uses their signature to celebrate the revolution that brought about a genocidal and racist regime which killed millions of people.

Don't you know that the Bolsheviks murdered millions, caused needless famines in which millions more died and set up a tyranny that lasted over seventy years as "an act of self-defense and/or defense of others". I suspect though that if Rosa Crushbone here had been one of the 1917 revolutionaries then she would later have become one of the fanatic early Bolshiviks to die in the Gulags in one of Stalin's purges.

[EnglishPete]

Wait ... did I sleep through some constitutional amendment that says people with abhorrent views no longer have the right to free speech? Because even assuming these rightwingers are unrepentant Nazis, I don't see why that precludes them from having a free speech rally.

Germany, like the UK, doesn't have the First Amendment. A fact of which SUSAN CRUSHBONE (and TheDeadFlagBlues) clearly approve.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really. There is no censorship? Is that why and 87 year old woman was recently sentenced to eight months in prison for stating her opinions

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3770772/Prominent-German-neo-Nazi-convicted-Holocaust-denial.html

Is that why the German police raid the homes of people and arrest them for things they've written on the internet

https://www.thelocal.de/20160713/german-police-launch-first-nationwide-hate-speech-raids

Is that why Germany has all kinds of laws that prohibit various kinds of speech and publishing if the German state deems them 'hate speech' or 'anti-Democratic'?

Is that why the German authorities have a policy of turning a blind eye against far left violence directed at right wing dissidents (like the AfD) in order to encourage such useful (for them) anti-dissident threats and violence?

The German authorities seem to have a funny idea of what constitutes 'no censorship'.

Clearly Germany has political censorship and clearly you approve of that and think there should be more. I'm not sure why you don't just admit this?

[EnglishPete]

Wait ... did I sleep through some constitutional amendment that says people with abhorrent views no longer have the right to free speech? Because even assuming these rightwingers are unrepentant Nazis, I don't see why that precludes them from having a free speech rally.

Germany, like the UK, doesn't have the First Amendment. A fact of which SUSAN CRUSHBONE (and TheDeadFlagBlues) clearly approve.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really. There is no censorship? Is that why and 87 year old woman was recently sentenced to eight months in prison for stating her opinions

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3770772/Prominent-German-neo-Nazi-convicted-Holocaust-denial.html

Is that why the German police raid the homes of people and arrest them for things they've written on the internet

https://www.thelocal.de/20160713/german-police-launch-first-nationwide-hate-speech-raids

Is that why Germany has all kinds of laws that prohibit various kinds of speech and publishing if the German state deems them 'hate speech' or 'anti-Democratic'?

Is that why the German authorities have a policy of turning a blind eye against far left violence directed at right wing dissidents (like the AfD) in order to encourage such useful (for them) anti-dissident threats and violence?

The German authorities seem to have a funny idea of what constitutes 'no censorship'.

Clearly Germany has political censorship and clearly you approve of that and think there should be more. I'm not sure why you don't just admit this?

that's bc germany makes it explicit (unlike the u.s.) that one person's rights end where they begin to infringe on someone else's. not a difficult concept.

And the German state determine that opinions they don't like and want banned "infringe on someone else's rights". In the US people are able to deny historical events or engage in conspiracy theories or advocate non egalitarian views on race or sex or sexuality without "Infringing on anyone else's rights". And certainly the Free Speech rally in Berkeley weren't 'infringing on anyone else's rights' when they were subject to an unprovoked attack by antifa.

The law in the US, clearly unlike the law in Germany, doesn't recognise a right to not be offended that trumps other people's right to free speech.

[EnglishPete]

country x: has laws against trespassing
y'alls fckers: wow? they're restricting people's right to freedom of movement? why does country x hate freedom?

I take it that you're not especially sympathetic about "right to wander" or "freedom to roam" laws, then?

i think it's fair to say that wandering into someone's house is an infringement on their right to privacy, and wandering through some massive parcel of wilderness that happens to be someone's private property isn't

apologies if the phrasing was unclear

You haven't explained why exactly you think that an 87 year old expressing her opinions on history, or people posting their opinions on the internet are 'infringing on anyone else's rights. You haven't explained why right wing dissidents like the AfD - who are subject to violence and threats that the German state turns a blind eye to - are supposed to be infringing on anyone else's rights. They may be offending plenty of people but apart from that they're not going round attacking people like antifa.

Clearly you favour censorship, you've said quite clearly that you favour censorship against people you deem to be 'nazis'. I don't know why you have a problem admitting that you favour political censorship.

[EnglishPete]

Wait ... did I sleep through some constitutional amendment that says people with abhorrent views no longer have the right to free speech? Because even assuming these rightwingers are unrepentant Nazis, I don't see why that precludes them from having a free speech rally.

looks like a free speech rally to me. ah yes, the noble nazi salute, that free speech symbol.

funny how every symbol of free speech seems to be a swastika or an apartheid south africa flag but when the red flag is flown it's a symbol of authoritarianism.

As I mentioned before a couple of guys throwing up Roman salutes amongst a large crowd of people does not a nazi rally make. Furthermore the question here is about the police response to leftist aggression. I would guess that the guy in the photo is probably not a big fan of free speech. That's his opinion (assuming he's not just LARPing). That doesn't mean that he was provoking or starting any violence.

There are people in this thread who don't agree with free speech. One of them has a signature that includes a celebration of a totalitarian murderous government that abolished all freedom of speech. Does that give people the right to throw massive rocks at her 'in self defense'?

[EnglishPete]

And yes, traveling to Berkeley of all places to throw up Nazi-salutes is provoking violence in the sense that these people knew it was going to happen, prepared for it and embraced it. Should that have been the response? No, but this is what provocation looks like. If I traveled to your house and started calling you a pedophile, a child-raper and a Nazi, that would be provocation. If I did it in the public square, it would likely be legal (let's say you live in America for the sake of simplicity). If you responded to be with force, that would be illegal. However, the violence would have been provoked. I was asking for it and, in fact, demanding it.

I can see that throwing up Roman salutes would be provocative. However there were just a couple of of guys there doing that and antifa would have still attacked if that hadn't been done.

The rally was planned at Berkeley because that was where a previous Trump rally had been shut down by violent antifa with the complicity of the city authorities. People wanted to defend the principle that they should be able to proceed with and complete a political rally in any city or town in the country that they wanted to without far left activists having any say in the matter. They prepared for violence because they knew that they were likely to be attacked and would need to defend themselves.

To cancel or not hold the rally on the grounds that it was likely to provoke a violent response from leftist activists would be to accept the principle that, in parts of America at least, violent left wing activists get to have a partial say in who who is and isn't allowed to speak or hold rallies in public. You can see why people would find that principle so offensive and repulsive and want to protest against it.

There's nothing noble or worth defending about the creeps who went to this rally. They're barely human beings as far as I am concerned. If someone supports censoring them, I disagree with them, but that's besides the point. I have the right to discuss the ideological objectives of people who host rallies like this and to avoid discussing the violent response to them. I won't play into their narrative of martyrdom. It's sought out. They are not victims. They are wastrels, degenerates and losers.
[/quote]Sounds like you're the one with a lot of hatred in his heart.

[EnglishPete]

I'll never understand the freaks who are non-white and turn up to stand in solidarity with people who want to throw them in chains but they exist

Its a mystery to me as well, I wish such people wouldn't support communism but its just the reality that they do.

[EnglishPete]

Anyways, I see that people are deflecting from my chief point, which is that these are not free speech rallies.

I don't know wtf a "free speech rally"is.  From the selected pictures you've showed us it seems to be a neo-Nazi rally (but even that is in question).  Neo-Nazis have free speech, but they don't throw "free speech rallies".  

I wasn't a nazi rally. There were, I think, two dudes there throwing up nazi salutes and claiming to be national socialists. that was it.

It was a rally in favour of free speech because antifa thugs has successfully used violence to shut down a pro Trump rally a month and a half earlier in Berkeley, with the complicity of the Berkeley authorities. It was a rally for the principle that antifa activists should have absolutely no veto or say in who is and isn't allowed to speak and hold rallies publically, in Berkeley or anywhere else. That is why it was a free speech rally.

[EnglishPete]

Ann Coulter is scheduled speak at UC Berkeley on the 27th of April so expect the same antifa crowd to launch Berkeley's fourth riot of the year next week.

[EnglishPete]

Ann Coulter is scheduled speak at UC Berkeley on the 27th of April so expect the same antifa crowd to launch Berkeley's fourth riot of the year next week.

Latest on the Ann Coulter Speech. Statement from the Young America's Foundation

"Young America’s Foundation, BridgeCal and Berkeley College Republicans have been working together to produce a lecture at UC-Berkeley on April 27, 2017, by Ann Coulter, a twelve-time bestselling author, whose book, “Adios, America!” – a No. 2 New York Times bestseller — is widely credited with shaping President Donald Trump’s immigration views.

The topic of her speech was immigration.

UC-Berkeley, a publicly-funded university, first imposed a series of ridiculous requirements on the speech allegedly in the name of “safety.” Coulter, we were informed, would be required to deliver her speech in the afternoon; only students would be allowed to attend; and the speech location would not be announced until close to the event.

Against our advice, Coulter agreed to all these requirements.  In return, she requested two measures, which actually had something to do with safety:

1) That the University of California chancellor request that the Oakland chief of police refrain from telling his men to stand down and ignore law-breaking by rioters attempting to shut down conservative speakers, as he has done in the past; and

2) That UC-Berkeley announce in advance that any students engaging in violence, mayhem or heckling to prevent an invited speaker from speaking would be expelled.

As Coulter explained, “If Berkeley wants to have free speech, it can have it.”

The university’s response was to ban her speech.

This is as clear-cut a case as it gets that public universities are using taxpayer dollars to shut down conservative speech, while allowing liberal speech only."
http://www.yaf.org/news/berkeley-tries-cancel-ann-coulter-event-lecture-will-go/

And from Coulter herself

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[EnglishPete]

As can be seen again authorities in Berkeley using leftist violence as a tool for shutting down speech they don't like. The University authorities and the City authorities have been following the same playbook here.

Issue stand down orders to police authorities in the face of leftist violence so that rioters are able to lose any fear of negative consequences for their illegal behaviour and the violence grows and gets out of control.

Speak positively about the rioters and blame their violence on their targets, further encouraging such behaviour

And now the final aim of all this activity, tell conservative speaker "We'd be perfectly willing to host your event, unfortunately we can't allow it for safety reasons because of all the violence", in other words "we want to ban you and we're going to use as our excuse the very violence that we ourselves have encouraged"

[EnglishPete]

As can be seen again authorities in Berkeley using leftist violence as a tool for shutting down speech they don't like. The University authorities and the City authorities have been following the same playbook here.

Issue stand down orders to police authorities in the face of leftist violence so that rioters are able to lose any fear of negative consequences for their illegal behaviour and the violence grows and gets out of control.

Speak positively about the rioters and blame their violence on their targets, further encouraging such behaviour

And now the final aim of all this activity, tell conservative speaker "We'd be perfectly willing to host your event, unfortunately we can't allow it for safety reasons because of all the violence", in other words "we want to ban you and we're going to use as our excuse the very violence that we ourselves have encouraged"

The City of Berkeley has no say over whether Ann Coulter speaks on campus.

See the bit I bolded there. The University authorities have been encouraging leftist political violence (e.g. violence outside the planned Milo event), just like the city authorities have done on other occasions (e.g. the violence directed at the rally in the park on Saturday)

[EnglishPete]

As can be seen again authorities in Berkeley using leftist violence as a tool for shutting down speech they don't like. The University authorities and the City authorities have been following the same playbook here.

Issue stand down orders to police authorities in the face of leftist violence so that rioters are able to lose any fear of negative consequences for their illegal behaviour and the violence grows and gets out of control.

Speak positively about the rioters and blame their violence on their targets, further encouraging such behaviour

And now the final aim of all this activity, tell conservative speaker "We'd be perfectly willing to host your event, unfortunately we can't allow it for safety reasons because of all the violence", in other words "we want to ban you and we're going to use as our excuse the very violence that we ourselves have encouraged"

The City of Berkeley has no say over whether Ann Coulter speaks on campus.

See the bit I bolded there. The University authorities have been encouraging leftist political violence (e.g. violence outside the planned Milo event), just like the city authorities have done on other occasions (e.g. the violence directed at the rally in the park on Saturday)

The university encouraged $100,000 in damage to their property? Hilarious theory.

When a planned speech by Milo was cancelled due to violent riots - during which neither the UC Berkeley Police or any other police force attempted to subdue the riot - the UC Berkeley Police Chief praised the 'restraint' of the police in failing to prevent injury to talk attendees or damage to property and suggested that the solution might be to review the University's policy on inviting speakers.

In other words she enabled a violent mob to shut down a speech they didn't like and then suggested the solution was to shut down speeches that left wing mobs might not like. Others in authority in the University encouraged the same and made similar remarks.

As for the $100,000 dollars why should people running the college or its Police Force care? Its not their money.

[EnglishPete]

What happened in Berkeley?

     There was a demonstration (the sides disagree on the nature of the demonstration, with some claiming that it was to promote free speech and some claiming that it was to promote fascism). The Black Bloc showed up and a huge melee ensued. While fists were flying, the police just stood by and watched.

Seems like there were a few arrests that happened in fact. And there was no property damage reported either.

And considering the tear-gassing and looting back in 2014, kinda hard not to see why they decided to under-react.

     It started in a park and only spread onto Shattuck Ave near the end of the skirmish, so the lack of property damage is to be expected. The underreaction may be understandable, but that should not make us tolerate it. I tried to explain it in as evenhanded a fashion as possible when the information was requested, but it remains that a masked mob tried to shut down a legal demonstration.

Considering the City Hall, the High School, a homeless shelter, the Post Office, all the other odds and ends of downtown appear well before Shattuck Ave, um yeah, property damage IS something that could've happened.

Also, when the alternative reaction is to recreate the catastrophic response by St. Ronnie in which people with NOTHING to do with the demonstration but in the crossfire are getting arbitrarily arrested, tear-gassed, pepper-sprayed, and rounded up to correctional facilities, then yeah, and under-reaction IS preferable.

Whilst its important for police to be trained well to make sure in that riot situation that they're arresting and/or tear gassing the right people I have to wonder how much choice did Reagan have. How else could Reagan have stopped the rioters from harming and damaging property and people without simply giving in to the scum's demands?

Of course the latter is the preferred option for the bosses of UC Berkeley, give the rioters what they want because its what they want as well. You understand why this is a less attractive option for conservatives who oppose what the rioters want?

[EnglishPete]

Why should my tuition go towards paying the speaking fees of scum like Ann Coulter or Charles Murray?

wasn't aware that their speaking fees were being paid by the University.

Speaking of tuition fees going towards paying scum to speak

"/pol/ News Network‏ @polNewsNet  15h15 hours ago
More
 The AntiFa rioter who attacked people with a bike-lock has been identified: SFSU Professor Eric Clanton.

/pol/ got him - they always do.







"

Eric Clanton now reported to be arrested

[EnglishPete]

he should have been arrested for that weaksauce mustache and the "I can almost grow a soul patch" soul patch.

[EnglishPete]

Remember all those reports that antifa were throwing M-80 fireworks at the people in the Free Speech Demonstration. Well its looking like they weren't M-80s and they weren't thrown by antifa. The evidence is pointing to them being Police stun grenades fired by police

"This is a well presented and easy to understand video which appears to make a solid case that police munitions were fired by the Berkeley Police Department against Trump supporters, and in support of AntiFA thugs, last weekend.

The video was created by Thomas Wictor who is continuing to assemble more evidence.  WATCH, it is rather stunning to realize what could be happening:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S-xPS0G5nY

If the video is correct the FBI needs to immediately open an investigation into the use of police munitions against political opponents by Berkeley Police.

Update: 2nd Video Added:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwRja6CMXNI  "

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/04/20/stunning-research-video-was-berkeley-police-department-supporting-antifa-violence/

[EnglishPete]

Remember all those reports that antifa were throwing M-80 fireworks at the people in the Free Speech Demonstration. Well its looking like they weren't M-80s and they weren't thrown by antifa. The evidence is pointing to them being Police stun grenades fired by police

"This is a well presented and easy to understand video which appears to make a solid case that police munitions were fired by the Berkeley Police Department against Trump supporters, and in support of AntiFA thugs, last weekend.

The video was created by Thomas Wictor who is continuing to assemble more evidence.  WATCH, it is rather stunning to realize what could be happening:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S-xPS0G5nY

If the video is correct the FBI needs to immediately open an investigation into the use of police munitions against political opponents by Berkeley Police.

Update: 2nd Video Added:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwRja6CMXNI  "

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/04/20/stunning-research-video-was-berkeley-police-department-supporting-antifa-violence/

OK, you're from the UK, so I guess I can understand you thinking this is some huge event, but in 2014 in Berkeley, the police used smoke stuff like this, kennels, and beat some up against anti police brutality protesters. Oakland police have done much worse.

The difference is that in the 2014 'protest' there was a situation where rioters were engaging in criminal behaviour, blocking the highway and causing criminal damage. its the job of the police to prevent such behaviour and to disperse those engaging in such a riot, at first by requesting but then later by force, as they were forced to do after the crowd refused repeated police demands to disperse. The duty of the police to disperse people engaged in this kind of behaviour is the same irrespective of whatever 'cause' the rioters may or may not be supporting.

In the April 15th the Free Speech protest was not engaged in rioting. They were not engaged in blocking the traffic or damaging private property. They were not wanting to start any fights with antifa, merely defend themselves against aggressive violence from antifa who were threatening them and throwing projectiles in an effort to prevent them from holding a lawful rally in the park.

And it looks like Berkeley PD instead of making any effort to restrain and disperse those using criminal violence in an attempt to prevent a lawful protest (i.e. engage in domestic terrorism) were actually engaged in joining the antifa domestic terrorists in blasting dangerous projectiles at the lawful rally (presumably on order from higher ups). Do you not see how that falls under the category of political repression in a way that using force to disperse criminal rioters who refuse to disperse does not?