Yeah, I'm not buying it at all. Those sorts of risks are hardly new, and have been effectively handled before without resorting to these sorts of measures. What's so different now?
The obvious intent is to terrify the general population with masked shock troops. This is third world warlord shit. It's more likely that what the lawyers are afraid of is their employability after this nightmare is ended.
Right here in this very discussion there are comments calling for "violent revolution" and the "duty of the American people to overthrow [the government], up to and including violence".
The threat of violence against government agents is very real. If you don't see, it's only because you don't want to see.
I didn't say the threat of violence wasn't real. What's new is this kind of response to it, which is why I don't think it's really that threat that is the the reason for it. It's the sort of response that only makes everything worse for everybody.
Wearing masks is a very gentle response to the threat, compared to the kinds of things that have been done in the past. The historic response to threats against the police was excessive force and extrajudicial killings.
The obvious intent is to terrify the general population with masked shock troops. This is third world warlord shit. It's more likely that what the lawyers are afraid of is their employability after this nightmare is ended.