Hey, Jack. I want to take a moment to comment on your recent remarks.
I understand where you're coming from. The police were ordered by the city to remove the protestors out of the park. When you have a few protestors (a few, not the general crowd) throwing bottles and rocks at the police officers, that's certainly inappropriate.
However, there are a few additional details in this situation:
1. The police removed the protestors in full riot gear. That's an intimidating presence to suddenly show up, when previous protestor movements have not had that kind of police response.
The officers were there to lawfully remove the protestors from the park, not to simply maintain order or a perimeter. There were 1000 protestors. Helmets, face shields and extermally worn body armor is defensive in nature. But I agree that the appearance of 500 officers in riot gear is intimidating. It is supposed to be.
2. When you have police officers in full riot gear, it invokes fear into a crowd of people. With varying different types of personalities and behaviors, a few individuals will impulsively switch into a violent mode to protect themselves and "drive away" such a force. That's just human nature, and for the police to dress up in full riot gear in anticipation for such behavior, did not warrant what I address next.
Policing is accomplished mostly by willing cooperation of citizens. Secondly, it is accomplished by a fear of force. Think about it. Why do you not speed when you see a marked police car? Because there is a very real possibility that you will be stopped and summonsed. Now given that, what does a rational person do when he sees a cadre of officers telling him that he's in violation of the law and to leave the park? The rational person leaves. Yes, there are people who will react inappropriately as you've described. Particularly in a large group dynamic. It's not predicated on the officers attire, but the anonymity provided by the group. They think they won't get caught.
3. The use of chemical weapons like tear gas, rubber bullets, etc. as a response to bottles and rocks is obviously disproportionate. These protestors weren't in riot gear. They had no molotov cocktails or similar weapons to fight back. Proof of how peaceful they were was evident in how most people who were arrested that night went peacefully. The police had hardly any problems arresting people. So there was no reason for them to use such weapons against a crowd of peaceful protestors. The fact that one of those weapons has almost killed an Iraq war veteran speaks proof to the unnecessary and embarrassing force that was used by the Oakland police that night.
I've discussed the use of force continuum previously, but it bears repeating. Then law allows police to use one level of force over what is being offered. It is, and has been for decades, appropriate to use teargas on crowds refusing to move when ordered to do so. The use of chemical irritants makes people leave with haste accomplishing the objective with little more than discomfort. Others have been critical of the use of "military" weapons whatever that means. The fact is, if these less lethal means are not available, then the officers will utilize more lethal forms of force. A rock is weapon that can cause serious bodily injury and death under certain circumstances. People can be shot for hurling rocks. That is a brutal truth. So, would you prefer being hit with a rubber bullet or a real one?
As a society, we need to come to terms that this Occupy Wall Street movement is not going away. These people deserve more respect than this.
