> but today they might let the protest get a bit wild if they want to allow the protesters a bit of leeway, and then those untrained, poorly equipped policemen will be screwed.
I'd say most often than not, when a government lets a protest get wild it's because they want to justify the harsh repression that's coming or at least that when the time comes for decision, they won't side with the protestors.
Or they're just in over their head but in that case, they don't let it get wild, they just loose control.
The HK protests were interesting recently for that reason - the protestors had the momentum, and the governments first reaction if it was mainland China would probably be to crush it. They let it boil over, and eventually the momentum was lost and anti-protestor sentiment took over. Whether that was by design or 'helped along' is another issue, but it showed how popular protests can sometimes just sour if left to their own devices.
Occupy Wall Street comes to mind as another example. NYC sentiment turned rather quickly against that movement once the public delectation, rape allegations and the inconvienient even caused by protestors started to boil over.
At university my friend was studying police tactics dealing with football hooligans and riots in the UK - they were slowly changing their tactics from full-on horse charges and batons waving to a very tai chi style light touch. Generally speaking the moderates would get bored and go home and then leave only the hardcore, who were then easier to identify and target. The light touch is a fantastic PR tool too because it shows any gov as tolerant and open.
I'd say most often than not, when a government lets a protest get wild it's because they want to justify the harsh repression that's coming or at least that when the time comes for decision, they won't side with the protestors.
Or they're just in over their head but in that case, they don't let it get wild, they just loose control.