Back when the events in Ferguson, MO were going down, I had a conversation with someone where the person admitted that he couldn't figure out why things transpired as they did. On the one hand, he couldn't figure out why a man might get shot or even hassled by the cops. On the other hand, he couldn't figure out why the end result would be rioting. This kind of thing didn't happen in Saratoga Springs, NY.
Of course it doesn't, I told him, because the people in Saratoga Springs, where he was from, were wealthy.
Let me be clear: that is not intended to be a character statements about wealthy people. There is no shortage of sin and brokenness at every level of affluence. Wealthy people commit just as many, and quite possibly more, crimes than poor people. Wealthy people are often just as rude to the cops and sometimes, distrusting in different ways. The reason that things like Ferguson don't happen in Saratoga Springs is not because the people are better or more moral or more ethical. It is because in Saratoga, the people have the money to keep the police just.
If a police officer in Saratoga Springs hassles someone unjustly, it's likely that the person he is hassling has the financial means to right the wrong, should it be necessary. Even if the person he hassles doesn’t have the means, the general community does, and they aren’t going to tolerate even the possibility of being hassled or treated unjustly. The police officer understands that his authority and power are held in check by the very people that he is called to police. If he does not do his job, he might lose it; if he takes advantage of his job, he might also lose it. The people in a wealthy city like Saratoga Springs have at least as much power as the police officer, and as it turns out, that’s the only scenario in which law enforcement can truly operate effectively.
Again, law enforcement can only function effectively in a society where the citizens have just as much power as the law enforcers. There is actually a biblical principle for this that comes up over and over again throughout the Bible, because it’s based on the very character of God himself. The principle is this: True biblical submission can only take place in the context of equality.
In the New Testament, there are authoritative/submissive commands for various relationships. Husband and wife, employer and employee, parents and children, and so on. Some people misunderstand those passages and attempt to do away with "authority/submission" language to soften the blow; in other words, they deemphasize the structure, in order to draw attention to the equality. Others misunderstand those passages by attempting to emphasize the authority/submission language, and often end up losing the value of inherent equality. To understand it properly requires that we view these commands through the Biblical lens which does not emphasize one over the other, but actually demonstrates that true authority/submission can only happen within true and real equality.
The early missionary and writer of much of the New Testament, Paul, emphasized on more than one occasion the equality of all people in the sight of God, while also emphasizing that within that equality there is a mutual submission that consists of authoritative roles and submissive roles. As it turns out, this is the most clear reflection of the nature of God, where we find that God is both equal with himself–that is, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all equal in their divinity and in their power and in their essence–and yet, are also submissive to one another, so that the Son is submissive to the Father's will and the Holy Spirit is submissive to the Father and the Son. Submission can only exist in the context of equality.
A healthy society, therefore, will emphasize the equality of law enforcement and the citizens. In a society where the law enforcement has all the power, you will end up with a domineering police state that hassles it's citizens without repercussion, and carries out it's "justice" inequitably amongst the people. Such is the case in many lower income areas, where the people do not have any power to keep the police in check. On the other hand, a state where law enforcement is deemphasized and disrespected also ends up with just as much injustice. Those with access will bend the law to their will, and the officers of that law to boot. The officers will end up serving some, and neglecting others. Instead of a balance of power, the people have the power (by which I mean, the wealthy people), the law enforcement become their pawns, and ultimately just as much injustice ensues.
No, there is only one way that law enforcement works in a healthy society, and that is when both the enforcer and the enforcee recognize their equality and thus their equal share of power. Both parties therefore enter into a mutually beneficial agreement; you will respect me, as a person, and my sovereignty, yet will nevertheless enforce the societal laws that we all agree on.
So why do "things like this not happen" in Saratoga? Because in Saratoga, there is a balance of power between those with the legal power and those with the financial power. They hold one another in check. In Ferguson, and in almost all places where we see this type of unrest, they do not hold one another in check. One side has all the power, and it's not the people. It's law enforcement.
That's why injustice happens, and that's why people respond in anger. They have no other choice. They have no other power. The only way to get something to happen is to get noticed, and hopefully, they will see justice.
If you can't understand why they would do that, my guess is, it's because you have other ways to fix the problem.