Following the Civil Rights Movement, the government trained police in negotiation tactics, realizing that force from the police caused escalation in situations that could have been both safe and harmless for all involved. However, in 1999, with the World Trade Organization Protests in Seattle, these new management tactics went out the window, and the police force became the response yet again, reversing all of the work done to progress. 

The reversal, in reality, began in the 1990s when the US Department of Defense gave local law enforcement agencies unused military equipment free of charge through the 1033 program. The Department of Justice also increased funding for local law enforcement agencies, specifically for equipment, training, and programs. 

The brutality against protestors manifested in two ways, the first being the use of weapons during protests, which became easily accessible due to the two previously explained programs, and the second the mass arrests following. Although he later regretted his decision, during the protests, Police Chief Norm Stamper authorized the use of chemical agents against non-threatening, nonviolent protesters. Therefore, when attempting to disperse crowds, officers would use tear gas and pepper spray on protestors. However, it did not stop there. Even when few protestors were around, police officers would use these chemical agents that ultimately harmed bystanders more than anyone. When protestors tried to resist these tactics, violence ensued. One way was using rubber bullets, but the other was just the brute force of officers. One witness explains she,

“[witnessed her friends and many others] " . . . sitting down in a peaceful 

protest when the police . . . advanced on the people, ripped off their gas 

masks and [sprayed] them point blank in the face over and over again. 

[The police] were also ruthlessly beating them in the back with their 

nightsticks repeatedly.”

Despite the police repeatedly being in the wrong, mass arrests of protestors occurred. On December 1, 1999 alone, over 500 people were arrested.

The use of extremities by those in positions of power created a vicious cycle. The arrests and force from police resulted in increased defiance and, therefore, rebellion by the crowd, replacing the previous peaceful cooperation, which resulted in more arrests and weapon use. 

During the protests, less outwardly violent but still impactful decisions were made against not only protestors but also non-involved citizens. The mayor and others in positions of power violated and took away many civil liberties. The best example is the seven Proclamations of Civil Emergency the mayor issued during this time. Some of the restrictions imposed by these proclamations were curfews, the use of the National Guard, and the creation of a “no protest zone,” which were punishable with fines and even imprisonment. This “no protest zone” was one significant example of the escalation through non-physical means and is best illustrated by the story of one protestor. Still, it must be noted this was one of many instances:

"I was walking down the sidewalk on the west side of

Fourth Avenue heading north with two other people when

we encountered a line of police officers blocking the street

and sidewalk. I was stopped by an officer of the Seattle

police and told that I was entering a 'no protest' zone and

could not continue while wearing the button on my jacket

(it said 'WTO' with a red circle and slash around it). One

of my companions asked if I would be allowed to continue if

I put the button away. The officer replied that I would. So

I took it off and we continued down the sidewalk."

Although the US Constitution allows speech to be regulated, the criteria for this were not met in this case. Speech from both sides of the “argument” should be regulated, but this “no protest zone" prohibited only those who spoke out against the WTO. 

Furthermore, it was argued that these Proclamations were never fully legal. Although properly issued by the mayor of Seattle, many argue that this does not follow due process and is, therefore, an infringement upon citizens' rights. 

In order to justify the excessive use of force and the opposition to protestors, the protesters were villainized both during and following the protests. The protestors believed they were peaceful, and looking at the city’s original goal, there was no reason to think otherwise. The city of Seattle solely sought to provide delegates with access to the conference. However, the police force moved all protestors in the vicinity, despite no evidence of disturbance from the protestors overall, After Action Reports tell a different story. This is because the reports were altered in order to place the blame on the protestors. 

More evidence that the protestors' actions were amplified in the eyes of those opposing was Seattle’s request for FEMA support, specifically, more personnel, detection equipment, and medical equipment. Seattle claims to have feared terrorism at one of the events during this time in which many influential figures, including the President and Vice President, were attending, even though no concrete reasoning as to why they would be proposed other than the fact that they observed media reports of the mobilization of multiple anit-trade groups. 

The backtrack of police response discussed at the beginning of this section proved exactly why new training and tactics needed to be used. The resulting damage to property, the city, and these people’s lives could have been avoided by proper responses from those in power rather than the militarization of the police, the villainization of protestors, and the manipulation of those in power.