Quote:
Originally Posted by Grausamkeit
I think that's a bit of a dramatic scenerio.
|
Sounds like it. That said, six months ago the you-can-be-pepper-sprayed-in-the-face-for-sitting-on-the-quad-you-pay-tutition-to-use scenario would have seemed pretty dramatic, too. Ditto the "no old ladies or priests allowed to be standing downtown while people are upset" rule. That one also sounds a little crazy. Oh! And the "we will throw a tear gas canister at any people attempting to provide medical care to injured citizens" rule. Very dramatic. Also actually happened.
I'm going to go ahead and say that using violence against peaceful protestors is not simply doing one's job. I'm really very certain that unnecessary violence shouldn't be in the job description of anybody who works for a government theoretically based in democratic ideals. In fact, much of the communication being sent out to protesters specifically emphasizes remaining polite and using traditional civil disobedience methods (sitting down, linking arms, holding out one's wrists to be arrested without seeming aggressive) specifically to avoid putting officers in a position where they might feel threatened. There has been significant discussion about the fact that the officers are well within the 99%. The people who are choosing to respond violently are doing so of their own accord. They are doing so in situations where the people they are hurting are unarmed. Many are quiet. Some respond by kneeling, covering their faces, and chanting things like "Shame on you". These are not situations to be handled violently. These people aren't trying to hurt anybody.
They are literally trying to sit down in public spaces.