I understand that people feel threatened and unsafe around a group of men with guns and riot shields, but how could those officers have survived the Molotov cocktails and rocks being thrown at them? People were looting and destroying businesses, hundreds of thousands of dollars are being spent to recover from the damage from the violent protests to a justified police shooting. Police officers can't do their job if they are unprotected. Riots and violent crowds of people call for drastic measures.
Pretty bad idea. Militarizing the police will instill fear in the community. The police are there to protect and serve, not scare and terrorize. It gives them a look that means "We're here to kill". Maybe only in the extreme of cases, but generally speaking, the police shouldn't allow this.
This is kind of a yes/no answer. To give a bit of history, The United States is one of the few countries founded on the principles of classical liberalism, which served to significantly limit government control due to the belief that a man can do what he wants as long as he doesn't negatively affect his fellow man. Now'a'days this belief exists in a branch of Libertarianism called "Neo-classical Liberalism."
As that belief served as a major cornerstone for the United States, Many of the founding documents were directly based upon that concept. And as such, Americans were given the right to do what they wanted while the government, either State of Federal, was there to make sure that liberties weren't being suppressed by their peers, falling into anarchy.
The protesters have the right to their protests, as they are making their opinions known to the government. But once they start to harm someone, or their property, then it is the government's duty to remove them. Not because of their protests, but instead because of their stifling of the liberty of their fellow man.
So if these protesters are destroying buildings, looting, and attacking people, then it is the government's job to stop them through the military force entrusted in them. But if they are being peaceful, and protesting their cause nonviolently, then they are to be allowed to continue for as long as the protesters deem necessary
Obviously the people have a right to be mad about this. The police shot and killed a man. Although I think their protests are a little extreme. Especially since the person was not even innocent in the first place. Police need to be pacifistic and show that they are not there to hurt anyone. Militarizing the police only gives them more of a reason to protest and gives the people more of an edge as to why they're protesting.
The United States is a democratic country. Oppressing people with deadly weapons should be banished. However, if the protests use physical violence or other illegal activities such as destroying buildings or loitering, then the police can be militarized. Nevertheless, militarization is not the best answer. Rather, police department tries to make the best negotiation with community residents and show their effort to them. Also, they have to openly talk about racial profiling or other discrimination in their police department and suggest effective solutions that make the resident satisfied.
Those protestors were dangerous and violent and complained about someone being shot out of self defense. Not all of them but many. And a group of teens went to a pro mike brown rally than yelled "kill white people" and hammered 32 year old zemir begic to death. Protestors have also assaulted people outside rams games and malls. They disrupted Christmas performances featuring 6-10 year olds who wound up scared and in tears and Christmas shopping and they've been doing a "black brunch" thing where they harass people in restaurants. Many of these protestors are dangerous and violent.