That isn't the reason why it's fine and acceptable; it's ok because not all rules need to be enforced at all times no matter what.
Of course I didn't say not all rules need to be enforced at all times no matter what. What I did say is that rules need to be enforced unless they're unjust, and this doesn't seem to be an unjust rule. I just thought you should know that you're constructing another strawman.
No human being this side of a coma is lacks the capacity for violence. Yet we don't go around accusing everyone of sinister intentions. I was able to gleam it by observing the part where a bunch of college protesters with no indication of becoming violent and chanting "we use words, you use weapons".
I'm not accusing them of sinister intentions, I'm saying we have absolutely no idea what their intentions were. Indicating they won't become violent is not evidence that they will not become violent. I don't care how much they didn't appear to be violent or what your personal opinion of them is. It doesn't change the fact that they were an unknown that had to be dealt with.
On a related note, I wonder if Occupiers are more or less likely to attack police officers than the average criminal population.
It's not related, it's an attempt to change the topic of discussion from "can they become violent" to "will they become violent".
I'm complaining they did a ****** job of it. Especially the "evaluating" part.
Well I respectfully disagree and don't think you've provided sound enough reasoning to support this position.
They were certainly more agitated afterward. With the screaming and surrounding the police and all.
They had surrounded the police beforehand in a clear show of force. You can attempt to argue otherwise but I frankly don't believe there is any other reason to surround a force viewed as hostile invaders other than intimidation.
I find it unlikely that a cop would be more afraid of a dozen or so people sitting still than a hundred+ people surrounding them after you just hurt their friends. But if we take you take that the mood didn't change, it wouldn't be right to say that the spray "pacified" the crowd.
It pacified the individuals they were arresting, which is all that I would be concerned with pacifying at the moment. You'll also note that the police didn't act until reinforcements arrived and these individuals were actively controlling the crowd, in full riot gear, while arrests were being made.
Oh certainly it is a degree of difference, but not of kind.
You believe that attack dogs and water canons are synonymous with pepper spray? I'm starting to see how you can come to your conclusions.
And there is a difference between attempting to arrest a perp that you have casually observed for a minute or two and exhibited zero signs of violence, and a stranger in a car.
And in both cases you should always be prepared should they attempt to resist violently.
Nothing guarantees anything.
Which obviously means the police should never attempt to pacify a potentially violent crowd. Well except that you're arguing there is no possible way these people could've ever became violent so I guess pointing that out is a moot point.
Why do police sometimes refrain from spraying or tazering nonviolent but noncompliant people?
They do what the situation warrants, if you're dealing with a lone unarmed drunk then an officer and his partner/backup tackling/cuffing him might be enough.
You'll have to take this up with the other posters complaining about the publicity stunt aspect, and that they were determined to get arrested. They have no motivation to turn violent since it would accomplish the exact opposite of their goals!
I certainly don't believe the officers, without full benefit of hindsight, were aware of that. But this another attempt to divert into the "will they become violent" territory.
I've made a number. Leave them be, step over them
Not an option, they're violating the law and need to be removed. Ignoring them may just encourage observers to make the situation worse.
try to be more diplomatic than opening with a threat
That's just silly, they were made aware of the consequences of failing to comply. As you can see
from the video in this post, several attempts were made to talk the protesters out of their course of action.
selective spraying (what threat would the others pose? With the human chain broken, they could be dealt with like any other nonviolent but noncompliant person), try to pull them apart in a manner that is less harmful that spray
Which is just nonsense. Had the police tried any of these and one of the protesters was concealing a weapon you'd be singing a different tune had some poor law enforcement officer leaned down to move him and s/he responded by jamming some pointed object in his neck. Spraying them all removed all of their ability to violently resist in any sort of effective manner. If you don't believe me then ask yourself why boxers don't fight blind-folded.
wait until they get tired and leave...
Unless I'm mistaken, did they not have tents set up/planned on setting up tents? I don't believe they intended to leave. Allowing them to stay just invites more people to join them. Then when the situation warrants removing the encampment they have a bigger mess to clean up.
These aren't civil rights activists and there were no attack dogs or water cannons.
indeed! I am totally 