I'll take what you quoted at face value: "The president continued: 'You have to arrest people, and you have to try people, and they have to go jail for long periods of time.'" Seems reasonable that the intermediate trial step would prevent peaceful protesters (e.g., those in Flint) from prison, even in the unlikely event they were arrested in the first place.
That's different from the window smashers, car burners, etc. - in other words, the destructive protesters.
You have a lot more faith in the justice system that I do.
There have been reports of cities all over the country announcing curfews five minutes before curfew begins, then arresting peaceful protesters who (understandably) can't get off the streets before the curfew starts.
That would indeed be a spectacular example of government overreach, so I agree with you that any "arresting peaceful folks after a five minute curfew warning" are not good. But window smashers, car burners, etc.? Yeah, I say arrest them.
I urge arrest, prosecution, and if convicted, punishment of vandals, looters, and arsonists.
And not only because of their patent criminality.
I want them off the streets because their criminality induces fear that has a chilling effect on constitutionally protected assembly and speech.
Wait, I thought we were talking about rioters, not police.
Sure you are not referring to the organization that has documented cases of targeting journalists during the last few days? Or spraying children with mace (Seattle), or with a documented history of excessive force across many jurisdictions?
I know that most police officers are actually good people with a genuinely good moral compass and desire to serve and protect their communities. I also understand that it is a difficult and, at times, dangerous profession. Part of that moral compass should include a willingness to listen and accept change. In Seattle, where the police department is under a federal consent decree due to systematic overuse of force (racial bias was not conclusive because the data had not been collected), the police force has not exactly been as cooperative as we would like. The police unions, while it is appropriate that the look out for the interests of their members, have been a blocking force against reform.
Yes, violent actors at the otherwise largely peaceful protests should be prosecuted for specific acts of arson, looting or what not. But we should remember that the source of the protests, and at least part of the violence, is a systematic over-policing (to use a polite term) of a segment of our population. The protests and associated violence are not the root problem, they are a symptom. As a society, if we are truly to live up to the promise of the free and the brave, we need to address these issues. What does that look like?
1. Collect the data so that we can actually know if we have been effective.
2. Work with police unions to set up systems to get rid of the bad cops. This is a cultural sea change, but very important to legitimacy. It is natural to have a strong bond with people you work with closely and especially in difficult and dangerous settings. That culture is fine and appropriate, but it needs to view bad practices as having stepped outside the blue line.
3. Work on reducing warrior-culture in the police forces. Police forces have become increasingly militarized following 9/11. We should review and have a conversation about what we actually want our day-to-day police doing and being trained in.
4. Following up on 3, see if we can use other tools such as social workers to do some of the things police are currently tasked with, but maybe not trained as well in. Social workers, persons with expertise in crisis management, etc can be used.