Gucci doesn't control the police, no. People who shop at Gucci do.
Do you think that they are not going to see the smashing of their favorite shop as an implicit threat against them personally?
Gucci is a powerful symbol of unchecked gaudy wealth as much as it is a retail establishment. The handbags themselves aren't really the point, which they'd be the first to admit to.
I'm not sure anyone controls the police. They look a lot like self ruling autonomous entities to me. The mayor of New York, supposedly their boss, is in a conflict with NYPD, and is mostly losing, from what I hear.
The current "looting" is in no way confided to Gucci type stores. All retail with anything of value is being plundered.
But even in a world where the gaudy rich control the police, and only their favorite stores were destroyed, I can't imagine that leads to police reform.
If people attack something you hold dear and makes demands on you, few people just give in. The normal reaction is to fight back as hard as you can, ignoring costs, until your enemy is defeated. I offer the US reaction to 9/11 as an example.
In your model, the Gucci customers are extremely powerful, so they can mount very strong counter attacks.
I was reading this this morning, on the subject of "who controls the police," seems legit (the answer is, the economic elites, absolutely represented by Gucci patrons):
> More than crime, modern police forces in the United States emerged as a response to “disorder.” What constitutes social and public order depends largely on who is defining those terms, and in the cities of 19th century America they were defined by the mercantile interests, who through taxes and political influence supported the development of bureaucratic policing institutions. More than crime, modern police forces in the United States emerged as a response to “disorder.”
> These economic interests had a greater interest in social control than crime control. Private and for profit policing was too disorganized and too crime specific in form to fulfill these needs. The emerging commercial elites needed a mechanism to insure a stable and orderly work force, a stable and orderly environment for the conduct of business, and the maintenance of what they referred to as the “collective good” (Spitzer and Scull 1977). These mercantile interests also wanted to divest themselves of the cost of protecting their own
enterprises, transferring those costs from the private sector to the state.
> Maintaining a stable and disciplined work force for the developing system of factory production and ensuring a safe and tranquil community for the conduct of commerce required an organized system of social control. The
developing profit-based system of production antagonized social tensions in the community. Inequality was increasing rapidly; the exploitation of workers through long hours, dangerous working conditions, and low pay was endemic; and the dominance of local governments by economic elites was creating political unrest. The only effective political strategy available to exploited workers was what economic elites referred to as “rioting,” which was actually a primitive form of what would become union strikes against employers (Silver 1967). The modern police force not only provided an organized, centralized body of men (and they were all male) legally authorized to use force to maintain order, it also provided the illusion that this order was being maintained under the rule of law, not at the whim of those with economic power.
Do you think that they are not going to see the smashing of their favorite shop as an implicit threat against them personally?
Gucci is a powerful symbol of unchecked gaudy wealth as much as it is a retail establishment. The handbags themselves aren't really the point, which they'd be the first to admit to.