Wall Street protesters: We're in for the long haul

[Berkut]

Those Syrians really have to stop doing that to their own...wait....that's not Syria is it?

Yeah, because pepper spray and bullets are the same thing.

They both tend to prevent people from exercising their  rights to demonstrate and protest.

But all rights are limited, correct?

I don't have the right to do anything I like as long as I label it "demonstration and/or protest", correct?

For example, you would agree that I don't have the right to break into a store and steal a TV as part of a protest, correct? And you would have no problem with the police using force to stop me from doing so.

At what point do the police have the responsibility to enforce the law by removing people who are breaking it as a form of protest? This goes beyond the current protests of course, and speaks to the G8 protests and such.

And on the other side as well, Tianemin Square for example - certainly we can all agree that the Chinese used ridiculously excessive force in putting that down.

I don't think there is any easy answer, and I don't think it is fair to hold up the police as the evil side as a matter of course. There is a line *somewhere*, and it seems to me that overall the US has been pretty damn tolerant of these protests, and that is a good thing. We *should* be pretty damn tolerant, a little social disruption is not a bad thing.

[Valmy]

The article is quite good, but his conclusions make no sense. He states the problem, and then just assumes that the current "solution" is deficient, but does not provide any alternative, just like everyone else.

Providing a solution to serious social problems is something that even the most brilliant minds in world history have been stumped by.  It would be awesome if magazines like the Atlantic were coming up with excellent ones all the time but it hardly seems like something that should be expected.  That just strikes me as a pretty tall order.  Heck, as you said, I am just impressed when somebody really understands a problem these days much less has a bunch of solutions in mind.

[Berkut]

The article is quite good, but his conclusions make no sense. He states the problem, and then just assumes that the current "solution" is deficient, but does not provide any alternative, just like everyone else.

Providing a solution to serious social problems is something that even the most brilliant minds in world history have been stumped by.  It would be awesome if magazines like the Atlantic were coming up with excellent ones all the time but it hardly seems like something that should be expected.  That just strikes me as a pretty tall order.  Heck, as you said, I am just impressed when somebody really understands a problem these days much less has a bunch of solutions in mind.

I am not talking about coming up with solutions to societies problems, I am talking about an alternative to the use of pepper spray.

The article in question illustrates why the "negotiated management" strategy failed and was replaced. There is actually a video of the Miami protests where everyone in this thread advocating that the police should use physical force to remove protesters can lead to - a bunch of protesters with linked arms getting the shit beat out of them with guys with batons. That is what you get when you insist that the police do not use something like pepper spray - THAT is the alternative they are advocating, and I think it is a lot worse.

But the article damns the current strategy, while providing no alternative, it is a case example of what I am talking about. The authors complaint is really that the police are doing anything at all. If they had used the strategy suggested (physically removing protesters by officers assaulting them) they would complain about the resulting injuries from that as well.

[Ideologue]

Yes, but I think you know what I mean. Why is using physical contact somehow less likely to do actual permanent harm? I bet dollars to donuts that it is LESS likely to actually injure someone, which is almost certainly why it is used instead.

No, you're right--there's some indication that it's less likely to injure suspects (though it can injure and can kill in some situations), which I suppose is good in ordinary policing situations.  It adds a new component to the spectrum of force, and in confrontations where external considerations are important a fuller spectrum of responses is certainly worthwhile.  Just ask Robert McNamara.

Here, however, debilitating but non-lethal, less-injurious measures are a godsend for a repressive strategy.  You neither make significantly sympathetic martyrs--as you would with the unavoidable fatalities or severe and photogenic injuries accruing to fists, batons, firehoses, and bullets rubber or otherwise--and you reduce risk to officers, and you still achieve the goal of hurting and frightening people (rather badly, as I understand it) and forcing them to disperse or submit to arrest.

As for physically restraining individuals, that happened immediately after pepper spray deployment anyway.  The risk of injury to the suspect is, I imagine, quite similar, especially as they are likely blind, certainly in pain, and often in panic.  The principal tactical goal of the action at UC Davis appeared to be to cow the students who'd come to add their presence and voices, but had made no otherwise threatening move.

[garbon]

Well, I'm not the one to argue the other side.  I don't accept the moral legitimacy of the laws that make police action permissible in the first place, the laws that ludicrously criminalize the capacity of citizens to use the space that surrounds them (since very little purely public space is left) for political expression.   Once you've got those laws, the police have a mandate to enforce them, and then, jeez, it's hard to figure out what exactly they should do.  

Which I think is what Berk is getting at. There's no way to dissipate the outrage unless you just let protestors do whatever they'd like.

[Berkut]

Well, I'm not the one to argue the other side.  I don't accept the moral legitimacy of the laws that make police action permissible in the first place, the laws that ludicrously criminalize the capacity of citizens to use the space that surrounds them (since very little purely public space is left) for political expression.   Once you've got those laws, the police have a mandate to enforce them, and then, jeez, it's hard to figure out what exactly they should do.  

Which I think is what Berk is getting at. There's no way to dissipate the outrage unless you just let protestors do whatever they'd like.

And I think sometimes that is exactly the right response - let them do what they like.

But there is a limit to that. You can argue whether that limit was reached or not, but we all agree that there is SOME limit. I don't think it is fair to blast the police because they are doing what they were trained to do. Now, if they are doing things they were NOT trained to do, then throw the book at them.

But everyone accepts that at least in theory, there comes a point where "protest" is no longer a legitimate justification for some actions. At that point the police are expected to do something. What should they do is not an easy question to answer, and I am generally unwilling to sit here and claim I know that some action is evil/terrible/brutal/etc., and it annoys me to no end when it seems clear to me that those making the argument about police brutality are cherry picking clearly emotional examples, rather than attacking the policies and procedures themselves. That suggests to me that the motivation really has nothing to do with actual concern about people getting hurt.

[chipwich]

Or maybe the police should not have used a weapon against a guy sitting on the ground.

[crazy canuck]

Or maybe the police should not have used a weapon against a guy sitting on the ground.

This.

I am not sure why some people here think the usual protocol of arrest and moving the protestors away should not not be used in this situation.   The long recognized purpose of civil disobedience is to invoke this kind of response from authorities.  The protestors for their part are willing to be arrested to make their point and there is no reason for the police to escalate the level of violence needed to deal with the protestors unless the protestors themselves escalate the situation.

[Berkut]

Or maybe the police should not have used a weapon against a guy sitting on the ground.

Is that a general principle, or specific to protests?

I mean, that sounds so obvious and simple, but it pretty much misses the point.

It is cheap to say what the police should NOT do (and of course it is always whatever it is they DID do that they shouldn't), but what they should do to deal with the guy sitting on the ground?

[Berkut]

Or maybe the police should not have used a weapon against a guy sitting on the ground.

This.

I am not sure why some people here think the usual protocol of arrest and moving the protestors away should not not be used in this situation. 

I bet the police did use the "usual protocol" as defined in their standards manual. I am not sure why some people assume they did otherwise. Cite?

Again, why is the police physically attacking the protesters with their hands (and all that leads to, the inevitable physical confrontations, fights, and people getting more seriously injured) assumed to be a better outcome than pepper spray in the general case?

[chipwich]

Is that a general principle, or specific to protests?

Always. This shouldn't be difficult for non-sadists

It is cheap to say what the police should NOT do (and of course it is always whatever it is they DID do that they shouldn't), but what they should do to deal with the guy sitting on the ground?

Ignore him. If they can figure out who he is, give him a huge ticket and repo his stuff if he doesn't pay.

[fhdz]

I'M LEAFING.

Nah. It's just...not as fun. It's not that it's lifeless.

Maybe this place has stayed the same and I'm the one who's changed. That certainly could be.

[chipwich]

I think it's because we don't have a My Little Pony thread and are therefore less bright than most of the internet.

[Ed Anger]

I'M LEAFING.

Nah. It's just...not as fun. It's not that it's lifeless.

Maybe this place has stayed the same and I'm the one who's changed. That certainly could be.

I hate the internet.

[crazy canuck]

I bet the police did use the "usual protocol" as defined in their standards manual. I am not sure why some people assume they did otherwise. Cite?

There is a picture of a police officer pepper spraying a group of people sitting on a road way.  Is that the usual police protocol where you live?

Are you being serious or is this another Berkusian/Grumbleresque semantics bs session?