So. Occupy Wall St.

[Versus]

I kind of feel like an asshole for saying this, and I'm sure I'll get flak for it, but:

All this "police brutality" crap is really annoying me. It's just fucking pepper spray.

[Miss Absynthe]

Originally Posted by Versus

I kind of feel like an asshole for saying this, and I'm sure I'll get flak for it, but:

All this "police brutality" crap is really annoying me. It's just fucking pepper spray.

I do understand what you are saying - my Dad is a cop and has worked his whole career in an area in Sydney called Kings Cross, which is the center of the known criminal universe on this side of the planet. Consequently I have a very real idea of the risk that police take just by turning up to work every day. I also have a background in psych nursing, and this has given me an understanding of what it can take to stay safe in certain situations and the fact that at times you have to hit hard and fast to stop a situation from careening out of control.

But, this is not a case of rioting students throwing chairs through windows. This was an 84 year old person who was pepper-sprayed in the face - seriously. I thought that one of the things that American's were proud about was that people had the right to free speech and the right to protest. If people are no longer allowed to protest against perceived injustice then what other recourse do they have?

[Versus]

Originally Posted by Miss Absynthe

But, this is not a case of rioting students throwing chairs through windows. This was an 84 year old person who was pepper-sprayed in the face - seriously. I thought that one of the things that American's were proud about was that people had the right to free speech and the right to protest. If people are no longer allowed to protest against perceived injustice then what other recourse do they have?

It's not an isolated incident. Students at UC Berkley were also administered pepper spray during protests, and there was a big deal made about it being "exceptionally violent." My irritation stems from that people are using these to paint police as some kind of tool that the man uses to keep us down (And I say "us" very cautiously).

It's not that complicated. Police are everyday people who have an everyday job to do. If their job is to disperse a crowd because they are violating the law, they shouldn't be marked as being brutal because they used something as benign as pepper spray when people refused to comply.

Rodney King is what police brutality looks like. Let's not confuse the two.

[Versus]

I'm really, really, trying not to come off like I'm victim blaming. But come on.

When you are protesting, and the police say "Hey, you can't protest in the middle of the street, or on campus. You need to leave or we will arrest you," that is completely within their jurisdiction and it's not a suppression of anyone's freedom of speech.

[Solumina]

Yeah, that isn't exactly how things have been going down V. Also pepper spray can cause serious problems for people with asthma or those who have allergic reactions, hell it has even been linked to the deaths of perfectly healthy people. Sure it's rare for a deadly reaction to occur but pepper spray is on the same level as tasers and for use against protesters who aren't being violent it is unquestionably wrong.

I fully support police doing what needs to be done but the police shouldn't needlessly escalate things.

[Versus]

Originally Posted by Solumina

Yeah, that isn't exactly how things have been going down V. Also pepper spray can cause serious problems for people with asthma or those who have allergic reactions, hell it has even been linked to the deaths of perfectly healthy people. Sure it's rare for a deadly reaction to occur but pepper spray is on the same level as tasers and for use against protesters who aren't being violent it is unquestionably wrong.

I fully support police doing what needs to be done but the police shouldn't needlessly escalate things.

This is really two arguments. The first is whether using pepper spray was the right choice, and the second is whether pepper spray was necessary.

For the first, you need to look at pepper spray and it's applications as opposed to other means of force.

Pepper has been known to be a factor in fatalities, yes. It is unfortunate, but the vast majority of people do not have long term injuries from it. It becomes more and more risky to use the larger the number of people that you intend to expose to it at once. When you are dealing with a large group of people, you can't individually ask them if they would suffer serious side effects from pepper spray.

As opposed to other forms of force, pepper spray is best used when you intend to restrain a large group of people. Tear gas is better for dispersion or canalizing people because it's a static deployment and doesn't require active application to be used. Tasers can't subdue a large group of people, and to attempt to do so would expose the police to harm. Bean bags are very dangerous to use en mass because you have to prioritize who you shoot. The more people you have to decide between, the less the time you have to analyze them. That increases the likeliness of misapplication, which could result in serious injury as well as death. That leaves physical force. You can't argue that physically restraining someone without pepper spray is less dangerous then doing so with. If the suspect is fully able to resist, it would require greater and greater physical force to subdue them, and the chance of either the police or the suspect being hurt increases because it's a lot harder to control then pepper spray. In the instance of the UC Davis students I mentioned, I really doubt that that mob would have taken it anymore lightly if the students were physically restrained without pepper spray to make them less able to resist. It would certainly have appeared more violent (as opposed to The Man using his power and authority). On top of all this, you need to understand that the police do not get to chose what they are issued. Of everything, pepper spray was the obvious choice.

As for why it was necessary, you need to understand something about their perspective. There are a lot of factors that I doubt you considered.

The first is that they did not have a choice. It doesn't matter how they feel about arresting people, how they feel about violence, or how they feel about pepper spray. The fact is that they are tools, and choice is not something that tools have. They are given a job, and they do it, regardless of the circumstances. Without that kind of mindset, they simply could not do their job.

And the moment that someone says "No, I will not comply," they are resisting and the ONLY way to make them is with force. Now, don't misunderstand. Force can be anything. It can be talking, it can be a show of force, it can be shooting someone. But when was the last time you have heard about a cop shooting somebody because they wouldn't step out of the vehicle? That's clearly unnecessary, so in order to prevent that, they have a code that essentially dictates how they should escalate their force. Most start with simple asking again, or trying to persuade with words. Typically after that, physical force is applied, in different degrees. If that doesn't work, you move on to a show of non-lethal or lethal force which is intended to express an intent to use it. Beyond that, there is the actual application.

Something to remember, however, is that sometimes the situation will dictate if it's necessary to skip some of those steps. If, for example, someone were to point a gun at me while I was out on patrol, I wouldn't tell him to drop his weapon. I would go strait to shooting him. His intent is clear, and at that point he becomes an enemy combatant. "But Versus, they weren't being violent!" Yeah, I'm getting to that.

So here's your perspective: Arrest/disperse/whatever a large group of unruly people that will not cooperate, while given a significantly smaller number of officers to provide security, determine who is the highest priority, maintain communication with higher headquarters, physically restrain those people, move to an area that they can be segregated, and provide further security to the people that have been restrained. The standard is to accomplish that task under those conditions while maintaining the minimal amount of exposure (time/danger) to the possibility of injury of bother officers and suspects.

How would you have dealt with the situation?

If you think pepper spray is too dangerous, write your congressman and ask to ban it's use. Don't bash the police for making a judgement call that you all, by providing support, gave them the authority to do.

People scoff that the officers felt threatened or intimidated, but I would bet anything that they have never been the center of an angry mob's attention. Personally, I would be shitting my pants even without PTSD from crowds in Iraq. Training can only take you so far, and it gets easier to make misjudge things when you are scared or apprehensive. Knowing this, it's easier to understand why some people can make cold and calculated decisions. The risk of something going bad, especially people that seem non-violent, is too great. You have to chose between the best of many bad decisions.

I argued with Saya about this, and I wonder if my desensitization to violence has made me underplay all this. In basic, they used pepper spray on us before we fought with pugil sticks, and I've had a few run throughs the CS Gas Chamber. Yeah, they hurt, but never excessively and never more then for a few minutes. I just think that, knowing all this, it's not at all what people are making it out to be. But hey, I wasn't there.

[Miss Absynthe]

I really want to address some of the things that you've said (particularly about people scoffing at the officers feeling threatened and whether their use of force is necessary), but am in a shitty mood about the amount of pet hair on my carpet... so I will leave it for later.

I do want to just say quickly that you bring up some really interesting things and a point of view (the security aspect of dealing with large groups of people) that I don't think a lot of people consider when talking about all of this.

[Acharis]

Originally Posted by Versus

I kind of feel like an asshole for saying this, and I'm sure I'll get flak for it, but:

All this "police brutality" crap is really annoying me. It's just fucking pepper spray.

I’ve also been exposed to pepper spray, and I wouldn’t call it benign.

I am aware that police are following orders and may have done what they did out of panic – but the approach was disproportionate and heavy handed. Google Occupy Melbourne and watch the videos of the forcible evictions.

I can personally vouch for the fact that Occupy Melbourne was not an angry mob. There was a first aid tent, a kitchen, a clothing swap and temporary library. There were skill-share classes, and with all the people sitting around it could have been a garage sale or a fair. Very relaxed.

I wasn't at the Friday eviction, but many of the protesters were being physically carried/dragged out or simply linking arms (I saw a photo of the girl I'd been talking to, in which she and others were doing that). Really threatening. And policemen were yanking at their heads and necks to make them let go.


I walked on the march from Trades Hall to the Treasury Gardens; and whatever you saw on TV, we were just wandering. There was a tense moment when a small amount of people went and shook the fences of the place they'd been dragged out of and there was a scuffle, but everyone else was yelling at them "Let's keep walking!" Nobody else wanted any trouble, and a common call was "This is a peaceful protest!"

I was trundling along sipping from my drink bottle, and a policeman told the guy two feet in front of me "Two more steps and you get a horse’s hoof to the head". (Police horses in front of and behind us, and officers on foot along the sides. We were completely boxed in.) Also they had police dogs, but then they took them away.


My problem isn't with police using force in situation where they may be at risk, or carrying out their jobs... It's with hitting, dragging, harassing and pepper-spraying unarmed people who are simply trying to make a point. They got carried away and really overdid it.


Also you overlook why the protesters didn’t want to move.
Basically the aim was to call attention to the fact that people are being screwed out of choices, and the violence and harassment the movement is receiving only makes that fact clearer.

What’s happening is the people in power are setting things up to their own advantage regardless of what it does to the regular people, and if anybody questions – the elite stamp it out using law enforcement and the media.

The term police state describes a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state

Looks familiar. It would be so easy for Australia to become a police state, if it hasn't already.

[Versus]

Originally Posted by Acharis

I’ve also been exposed to pepper spray, and I wouldn’t call it benign.

Why? Because it hurt?

I am aware that police are following orders and may have done what they did out of panic – but the approach was disproportionate and heavy handed. Google Occupy Melbourne and watch the videos of the forcible evictions.

I can personally vouch for the fact that Occupy Melbourne was not an angry mob. There was a first aid tent, a kitchen, a clothing swap and temporary library. There were skill-share classes, and with all the people sitting around it could have been a garage sale or a fair. Very relaxed.

The police are not ever going to see it that way. Their mindset is one that is focused only on the task at hand, and the obstacles to accomplishing that task. You can be hunky dory all you like, but the truth is that they will see you as a large group of potentially dangerous people. They have to make that assumption because it's more dangerous and risky not to.

I wasn't at the Friday eviction, but many of the protesters were being physically carried/dragged out or simply linking arms (I saw a photo of the girl I'd been talking to, in which she and others were doing that). Really threatening. And policemen were yanking at their heads and necks to make them let go.

Again, that is not disproportionate. What you describe is not brutality. Of what the police are allowed to do, nothing short of physical action would get that task accomplished. That much is obvious because they are there in the first place to physically evict people that refuse to comply. If you're going to resist by linking arms (again, not threatening at all to you from your perspective) how else would you expect them to go about it? I mean, really. The police are not some kind of martial artists that can touch you and instantly make you comply, so anything physical they do is going to look rough.

I want you to imagine that you have to physically remove someone from your work because they refuse to and are being very disruptive. How would you do it? Politely tugging on their clothing isn't working, so you have to be more aggressive. Even though they're not being violent about resisting by doing things such as being a dead weight or pulling back, it's clear that minimal physical contact is a luxury you don't have. How do you do it? \

I walked on the march from Trades Hall to the Treasury Gardens; and whatever you saw on TV, we were just wandering. There was a tense moment when a small amount of people went and shook the fences of the place they'd been dragged out of and there was a scuffle, but everyone else was yelling at them "Let's keep walking!" Nobody else wanted any trouble, and a common call was "This is a peaceful protest!"

I was trundling along sipping from my drink bottle, and a policeman told the guy two feet in front of me "Two more steps and you get a horse’s hoof to the head". (Police horses in front of and behind us, and officers on foot along the sides. We were completely boxed in.) Also they had police dogs, but then they took them away.

Again, I remind you that you're not looking at this from any perspective but your own and you're saying "How could anybody possibly think otherwise?" Tell me, do you think that officer was threatening you, or was he warning you that you could get hurt in a matter of fact manner because his day had been far too long and stressful to care about being polite?

My problem isn't with police using force in situation where they may be at risk, or carrying out their jobs... It's with hitting, dragging, harassing and pepper-spraying unarmed people who are simply trying to make a point. They got carried away and really overdid it.

Police are always at risk from the moment they clock in. They were using force to carry out their jobs because their jobs were to remove people who were forcing them to do so by not cooperating. You're just upset that someone got a bruised elbow because you think that it can happen any other way.

Also you overlook why the protesters didn’t want to move.
Basically the aim was to call attention to the fact that people are being screwed out of choices, and the violence and harassment the movement is receiving only makes that fact clearer.

What’s happening is the people in power are setting things up to their own advantage regardless of what it does to the regular people, and if anybody questions – the elite stamp it out using law enforcement and the media.

As I said before, "why" is completely and utterly irrelevant to the police. They follow orders, not think-tank how to thoughtfully engage you so that you'll be willing to compromise. Is it not a decision on their part, so when you compare them to being the henchmen of some police state by slandering them when they take the only course of action to get you to move, you are trying to personify ordinary people as something they are not.

I want you to do something. I get the impression you can't look see this from an alien angle, so I want you to do something practical. Tell your friend that he has to stay in one spot and cannot move from it. He can't hit you, but he has to do everything he can to stay in that spot. Don't tell him why you're doing this.

Now try to move him without hurting him and see how it goes. Video tape it to see what it looks like, then show another friend. Now ask your two friends if they thought you were being violent.

[wolf moon]

Originally Posted by Versus

Police are always at risk from the moment they clock in. They were using force to carry out their jobs because their jobs were to remove people who were forcing them to do so by not cooperating. You're just upset that someone got a bruised elbow because you think that it can happen any other way.

Are you at all familiar with the concept of civil disobedience or what the movement is actually about? At all? The police are pepper spraying people who are sitting down and linking arms. This has been considered, for decades now, to be a universally understood sign of nonviolence. Prison guards who use pepper spray after an inmate is sitting down, even if that person was actively engaging in violence just moments before, are fired for excessive use of force. Your response to the police using these tactics on seated, nonviolent, nonaggressive protestors is seriously going to be "it's just pepper spray"?

The idea that this violence is justified by the fact that the protestors are not "cooperating" with a request to evacuate a public space is precisely what they're protesting in the first place. "Do whatever we say or we will use violence against you" is not supposed to be how this country works. The fact that you see nothing wrong with this mindset is terrifying.

[Versus]

Originally Posted by Miss Absynthe

I really want to address some of the things that you've said (particularly about people scoffing at the officers feeling threatened and whether their use of force is necessary), but am in a shitty mood about the amount of pet hair on my carpet... so I will leave it for later.

I do want to just say quickly that you bring up some really interesting things and a point of view (the security aspect of dealing with large groups of people) that I don't think a lot of people consider when talking about all of this.

Take your time.

And it really bothers me how one sided people look at this stuff. I'm not a police officer, but I know what they have to deal with because it's the same for me a lot of the time.

As an extreme, there was a soldier who was court marshaled for something he did in Iraq. His platoon was out on patrol and somehow a child had stole one of their machine guns and started to run away with it. The soldier took out his handgun and fired a controlled pair into the child's back, killing him.

Looks pretty awful, doesn't?

Most people don't consider that it's impossible to chase anybody when you're wearing 60-80 pounds of equipment (most people don't even know what *that* is like). Most people don't consider that military age males that often fight Americans are anywhere between 10 years of age and 50 years of age. Most people don't consider that the soldier used his handgun instead of his rifle. And most people don't consider that he didn't know what the child's intentions were and simply decided it was too dangerous to find out.

The only thing that people consider is that a soldier shot a child to death.

[Versus]

Originally Posted by wolf moon

Are you at all familiar with the concept of civil disobedience or what the movement is actually about? At all?

Really?

The police are pepper spraying people who are sitting down and linking arms. This has been considered, for decades now, to be a universally understood sign of nonviolence.

I don't argue that that is how it is generally interpreted.

Prison guards who use pepper spray after an inmate is sitting down, even if that person was actively engaging in violence just moments before, are fired for excessive use of force.

It very well could have been, contextually, the wrong decision to use pepper spray. That doesn't mean that the situation can be, or often is, different.

Your response to the police using these tactics on seated, nonviolent, nonaggressive protestors is seriously going to be "it's just pepper spray"?

Just because it doesn't physically hurt anybody doesn't mean it is not resistance, and to say otherwise is completely wrong. The people are really quite fortunate that they do not need to use violence to be in resistance. It's the moral high ground to say "I wasn't hurting anybody!" and furthers their legitimacy, regardless of how much of an entrapment it was.

That is not always my response, but in this instance, yes. It is just pepper spray. It was not meant to injure anybody, and it didn't. People will, of course, turn their nose up at it because they don't understand that pain is not always used maliciously.

The idea that this violence is justified by the fact that the protestors are not "cooperating" with a request to evacuate a public space is precisely what they're protesting in the first place. "Do whatever we say or we will use violence against you" is not supposed to be how this country works. The fact that you see nothing wrong with this mindset is terrifying.

The people of this country, regardless of how I feel about it, have given the state a monopoly on violence by allowing the police to exercise it to maintain the status quo by enforcing it's laws. That is exactly how this country has probably been since we've had police.

What people want to do to change it is fine, I don't really care that they're resisting and I say more power to them. However, their resistance is implicit in that it supposed to be aware that they are allowing the police to exercise their judgement in how to disrupt them as they break the law. And it is complete bullshit, knowing this, for the protestors to blame the instruments of that end state.

I think our major disagreement about the justification or legitimacy is that we have different understandings of what violence means.

[Grausamkeit]

Versus, I'm glad that I'm not the only one that can see a different perspective on these situations.

I do wonder, though. Do these protester's ever stop to think what the vandalism or the street clogging they do in some areas is doing to disrupt the lives of others? Do they give a fuck about anything besides their 'peaceful' protest? If they cause a building to be shut down that they have vandalized and someone can't get medication they need to survive(and that person subsequently dies) will they rightly admit to causing someone's death?

I don't give one fuck about the protest. People can protest all they want and suffer whatever it brings. So long as it's not harming anyone I know.

[Versus]

Originally Posted by Grausamkeit

I do wonder, though. Do these protester's ever stop to think what the vandalism or the street clogging they do in some areas is doing to disrupt the lives of others? Do they give a fuck about anything besides their 'peaceful' protest? If they cause a building to be shut down that they have vandalized and someone can't get medication they need to survive(and that person subsequently dies) will they rightly admit to causing someone's death?

I think that their protest is justified to disrupt any of that. The movement is really important. It's merely an inconvenience for most people, and I don't blame them for using any of it as a tactic to get attention.

[Grausamkeit]

If it didn't affect people I know, I really wouldn't care. I just don't want it to cause harm to anyone I love.

[wolf moon]

Originally Posted by Versus

Really?

Yes, really. That was a completely serious question. How familiar are you with the tactics that have been used for decades in nonviolent protests? Your responses seem to indicate that you aren't, particularly. You seem to think that sitting and linking arms is something that was just invented, or that can be interpreted in various ways.

We have a right to resistance. That seems to be the fundamental thing we disagree about. You seem to be arguing that the police have the right to meet with civil resistance with physical force, because protestors aren't entitled to resist. They are. I'm not arguing that they aren't "putting up resistance", I'm arguing that they have every goddamn right to be doing so. The fact that you continue to claim that the issue here is that people were calmly resisting instructions is, once again, really fucking terrifying. Aren't we supposed to be defending freedom here?

And what do you mean it didn't injure anybody? You do realize some of those people are still in the hospital, right?

You're not doing anything remotely revolutionary by trying to see things from the side of the police officers involved. The police have been engaged with throughout the process. An NYPD officer did an AMA on reddit, for goodness sake (it's since been deleted). Many, many people have had the opportunity to engage with officers who are actively working the protests. Many have asked how they feel, what their job is like, how they personally hope things will go. I've spent a pretty decent amount of time reading, watching, even asking these questions. I've yet to encounter an officer who says they ever felt threatened. Not one. This guy sure as hell doesn't look scared.

[wolf moon]

Originally Posted by Grausamkeit

If it didn't affect people I know, I really wouldn't care. I just don't want it to cause harm to anyone I love.

But this is precisely what makes this so important. Four days ago, police officers in full riot gear told some university students who have been sitting in protest in the quad of their own school that they needed to leave. The students responded by linking arms and saying they weren't going to. The officers calmly and deliberately coated the entire group in pepper spray, while they held still and tried to cover their faces without letting go of each other. If this is acceptable, what does that mean for people you love? What would happen if a police officer asked someone that you love a question, like "Can I come into your house?" or "Hey, will you please take your clothes off?" and they responded by asking for a warrant? Would the officer then have the right to violently force them to comply? What if it was your mother or grandmother who went downtown to see what all the fuss was about and walked away like this:



Quietly hoping that systemic, state-sanctioned violence never makes it into your house is more likely than not going to be a losing battle. It's either okay or it isn't.

[Grausamkeit]

I don't think Versus is saying the police have the 'right' to use force on the protestors. He's saying they're just doing their jobs and being demonized for it, to boot.

[Grausamkeit]

Originally Posted by wolf moon

But this is precisely what makes this so important. Four days ago, police officers in full riot gear told some university students who have been sitting in protest in the quad of their own school that they needed to leave. The students responded by linking arms and saying they weren't going to. The officers calmly and deliberately coated the entire group in pepper spray, while they held still and tried to cover their faces without letting go of each other. If this is acceptable, what does that mean for people you love? What would happen if a police officer asked someone that you love a question, like "Can I come into your house?" or "Hey, will you please take your clothes off?" and they responded by asking for a warrant? Would the officer then have the right to violently force them to comply? What if it was your mother or grandmother who went downtown to see what all the fuss was about and walked away like this:



Quietly hoping that systemic, state-sanctioned violence never makes it into your house is more likely than not going to be a losing battle. It's either okay or it isn't.

I think that's a bit of a dramatic scenerio.

If I refused to let an officer into my house asking for a warrant, they would have to get a warrant. I have never been abused or harassed by police so I have absolutely no reason to assume that people doing their jobs are on some power trip and are out to get me.

[wolf moon]

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.

[Versus]

Originally Posted by wolf moon

Yes, really. That was a completely serious question. How familiar are you with the tactics that have been used for decades in nonviolent protests? Your responses seem to indicate that you aren't, particularly. You seem to think that sitting and linking arms is something that was just invented, or that can be interpreted in various ways.

Such as? Say what you mean so that I can respond to it.

We have a right to resistance. That seems to be the fundamental thing we disagree about. You seem to be arguing that the police have the right to meet with civil resistance with physical force, because protestors aren't entitled to resist. They are. I'm not arguing that they aren't "putting up resistance", I'm arguing that they have every goddamn right to be doing so. The fact that you continue to claim that the issue here is that people were calmly resisting instructions is, once again, really fucking terrifying. Aren't we supposed to be defending freedom here?

As adults, the protesters can do whatever they please, and as adults they are also responsible for their actions. The U.S. does not excuse breaking the law for political reasons. Even if their reasons are good ones, they still display criminal intent. To put plainly, the protesters intend a consequence when they can foresee it happening after certain acts (or omission of acts) continue, and that shows a desire for it to occur. Civil disobedience should be punished because it not only encourages a more general disobedience, but also undermines the law itself. HOWEVER, you are correct. A few states do recognize the right to abolish or alter a body of government, and the U.S. in general was founded on that right under certain conditions. But that doesn't change that it's against the law, and completely warrants police intervention because it is the very nature of it's duty.

And what do you mean it didn't injure anybody? You do realize some of those people are still in the hospital, right?

Again, I think our interpretation of the nature of violence and injury differs to the extent that we can not agree.

You're not doing anything remotely revolutionary by trying to see things from the side of the police officers involved. The police have been engaged with throughout the process. An NYPD officer did an AMA on reddit, for goodness sake (it's since been deleted). Many, many people have had the opportunity to engage with officers who are actively working the protests. Many have asked how they feel, what their job is like, how they personally hope things will go. I've spent a pretty decent amount of time reading, watching, even asking these questions. I've yet to encounter an officer who says they ever felt threatened. Not one. This guy sure as hell doesn't look scared.

Someone doesn't need to look scared to feel threatened or intimidated. I'm not saying that he was for sure, because that's not even my argument to justify it. I mentioned it because it could be a contributing factor for the reasoning to employ it.

I was trying to appeal to the fact no one here has the experience of being in law enforcement except Kontan and MurderOfCrows, and therefor it is difficult for you to understand the process. I find even more evidence in that because you have yet to address my question from the criteria that I stated.

How would you have dealt with the situation?

[Versus]

You also seem to be misinterpreting *how* they were breaking the law.

[wolf moon]

Originally Posted by Versus

Civil disobedience should be punished because it not only encourages a more general disobedience, but also undermines the law itself.

...to be honest, this statement is so awful that I don't actually think you're worth debating anymore. Someone else can talk to you. Or you can crow about and decide you've won. It doesn't even matter. This is shameful.

[Versus]

Originally Posted by wolf moon

...to be honest, this statement is so awful that I don't actually think you're worth debating anymore. Someone else can talk to you. Or you can crow about and decide you've won. It doesn't even matter. This is shameful.

How are you going to say that I'm beneath you when you didn't even address my argument in the first place? That's pretty damn rude.

[Versus]

Now I'm angry that I've been ignoring Saya during my waking hours for this bullshit. RAGE.