Anonymous wrote:So if pro-lifers block the sidewalk "in peace" to an abortion clinic, the police should just ignore them? Just playing devils advocate here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i'm perfectly ok with police using non-lethal methods to disperse crowds who are breaking the law, provided you give them plenty of advance warning. in fact, I just don't "get" the uproar. if protesters were blocking a street and causing me to be late for work or late for picking up my child, I'd hope the police would move them out of the way.

Dr King broke the law, the cops turned fire hoses and dogs on them. And now history judges the police for their actions. I guess we know what side of history you would have landed on.

MLK (is he still a doctor? I thought BU took the ph.d. away because of cheating?) was a great man, but at the time he was breaking the law. clearly the attention he and his movement received from the arrests and the fire hoses helped his cause, as the attention these kids received from the pepper spraying is helping their cause. so I think it works both ways. (1) ok to use non-lethal force to remove protesters. and (2) ok for the protesters to benefit from the resulting outcry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i'm perfectly ok with police using non-lethal methods to disperse crowds who are breaking the law, provided you give them plenty of advance warning. in fact, I just don't "get" the uproar. if protesters were blocking a street and causing me to be late for work or late for picking up my child, I'd hope the police would move them out of the way.

Dr King broke the law, the cops turned fire hoses and dogs on them. And now history judges the police for their actions. I guess we know what side of history you would have landed on.

MLK (is he still a doctor? I thought BU took the ph.d. away because of cheating?) was a great man, but at the time he was breaking the law. clearly the attention he and his movement received from the arrests and the fire hoses helped his cause, as the attention these kids received from the pepper spraying is helping their cause. so I think it works both ways. (1) ok to use non-lethal force to remove protesters. and (2) ok for the protesters to benefit from the resulting outcry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i'm perfectly ok with police using non-lethal methods to disperse crowds who are breaking the law, provided you give them plenty of advance warning. in fact, I just don't "get" the uproar. if protesters were blocking a street and causing me to be late for work or late for picking up my child, I'd hope the police would move them out of the way.

Dr King broke the law, the cops turned fire hoses and dogs on them. And now history judges the police for their actions. I guess we know what side of history you would have landed on.

Anonymous wrote:i'm perfectly ok with police using non-lethal methods to disperse crowds who are breaking the law, provided you give them plenty of advance warning. in fact, I just don't "get" the uproar. if protesters were blocking a street and causing me to be late for work or late for picking up my child, I'd hope the police would move them out of the way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i'm perfectly ok with police using non-lethal methods to disperse crowds who are breaking the law, provided you give them plenty of advance warning. in fact, I just don't "get" the uproar. if protesters were blocking a street and causing me to be late for work or late for picking up my child, I'd hope the police would move them out of the way.

Most of them probably would not have budged even if warned.

Anonymous wrote:i'm perfectly ok with police using non-lethal methods to disperse crowds who are breaking the law, provided you give them plenty of advance warning. in fact, I just don't "get" the uproar. if protesters were blocking a street and causing me to be late for work or late for picking up my child, I'd hope the police would move them out of the way.

Anonymous wrote:So if pro-lifers block the sidewalk "in peace" to an abortion clinic, the police should just ignore them? Just playing devils advocate here.

Anonymous wrote:So if pro-lifers block the sidewalk "in peace" to an abortion clinic, the police should just ignore them? Just playing devils advocate here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ok, how do you want the police to move protesters out of the way? Do you want them to physically pick them up and throw them in a police car? I honestly am curious. You cannot allow people to block public spaces illegally - so you need some non-lethal way to move them. What is the preferred method?

They were blocking a walking path in the middle of a park. The police could have just ignored them. The police were not trying to make the path passible. Rather, the University administration wanted to prevent a camp from being set up in the park.

Have you even watched the video, though? I can't believe that you are actually condoning that sort of use of pepper spray. The police were eventually chased out of the park. Even if you think the use of pepper spray was justified -- and you really have to be pretty sadistic to think so -- you have to admit that it was self-defeating.

agreed it certainly wasnt effective in this instance, thanks to the reaction from the protesters. Great example of non-violent effective civil disobedience.

But I am asking there are times when police rightfully need to clear protesters out of a public space, and what is the best method to do so? pepper spray works and is non-lethal.

It's a time-honored tradition to arrest people. If they don't get up on their own, they have to be carried. Really, this is not news. This approach has been used for years. I committed civil disobedience in the 70s and chose to walk to the bus but others in my group had to be carried. We were only doing what people had already been doing for decades.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ok, how do you want the police to move protesters out of the way? Do you want them to physically pick them up and throw them in a police car? I honestly am curious. You cannot allow people to block public spaces illegally - so you need some non-lethal way to move them. What is the preferred method?

They were blocking a walking path in the middle of a park. The police could have just ignored them. The police were not trying to make the path passible. Rather, the University administration wanted to prevent a camp from being set up in the park.

Have you even watched the video, though? I can't believe that you are actually condoning that sort of use of pepper spray. The police were eventually chased out of the park. Even if you think the use of pepper spray was justified -- and you really have to be pretty sadistic to think so -- you have to admit that it was self-defeating.

agreed it certainly wasnt effective in this instance, thanks to the reaction from the protesters. Great example of non-violent effective civil disobedience.

But I am asking there are times when police rightfully need to clear protesters out of a public space, and what is the best method to do so? pepper spray works and is non-lethal.