Get a cup of coffee, it's a long one. Because like so many other things, it's not a simple issue.
*************
Let me start by saying I'm not interested in
arguing lofty ideals, listening to people squeal
in outrage that the world isn't fair, hearing about justifications for civil
disobedience and, of course, being told about evil conspiracies meant to
oppress us. Us being we who have the highest
standard of living in all of human history. The
'why' of the "occupy" protests is not my concern -- and
that includes the rationalizations of why
breaking the law is 'all right in a noble cause.'
The purpose of this article is to acquaint you
with some of the finer points of police use of
force and the limits of 'protest.' (That is to say,
where it bleeds over into other issues.)
For the record, I'm not against free speech or the right
to assemble. And I especially am not against
petitioning the government for redress of
grievances. While we're at it, I'm not looking at
the world through rose-colored, capitalist or
conservative glasses.
I will be the first to admit there are beau coup big problems with how
things are going in business, the economy, government and society. Things
have become systemic in our ways of 'doing business' that are causing these
problems. (As an aside, while it is easy to blame 'evil' and greedy
corporations, I see money grabbing all over the place -- including under the
guise of noble and humanitarian causes.) I will acknowledge all
these serious problems -- with a stipulation.
That stipulation is these issues are way more
complex and involved than can be solved by
pundits, media sound bites, Internet intelligence,
blogs and, most importantly, protests.
What I am here to talk about is:
1) The standards of police use of force against
people who are refusing lawful orders
2) Why said use of force is both legal and within
policy
3) How the 'outrage' certain people express about use
of force is out of sync with the way a majority of
folks feel.
The first fact you need to know is the "Occupy
(Wherever)" protests have done an interesting
thing. They have tried to sell us a 'new'
definition of protest. It is a definition that has
crossed a line and has resulted in police using
of force against the protestors. (The irony is this 'version' has been tried
before and it was responded to with force back then too.)
The blogsphere is all
aflutter over these incidents of brutality,
oppression, suppression of free speech and
interference with people's 'right' to protest.
But, that is not why the police are using force.
It's what people are doing under their 'expanded' definition of protesting
that is getting
them pepper sprayed, tasered and having the cops kneel on their
heads as they are handcuffed.
The second fact directly relates to use of force.
There is a big difference between pain and
injury.
This isn't sophism, it is a medical fact. You can have pain without injury, but injury is usually painful. Pain is a sensation. Injury is things getting broken, smashed, cut, crushed or ruptured.
This difference is something most people do not know, much
less understand. More than being inexperienced with physical violence, many
assume that pain is injury. They hear someone screaming and crying "you're
hurting me!" at the police, and they don't recognize there has been no
permanent injury done by the officers to the screamer. In fact, that
brouhaha is
a pretty good indicator that there is no serious injury.
When people are seriously injured, they tend to be quiet. Instead of screaming,
they're more invested in rallying their resources to protect the injuries,
breathing and basically staying alive. Then there's the whole going into shock
thing. The noise to injury ratio isn't always the case, but it's a good rule of
thumb -- especially when it comes to arrest and control tactics.
Pain vs. injury is an important component in
understanding 'use of force' standards. Actions
likely to cause physical injury (broken bones, concussions, internal
hemorrhaging, etc.) are considered a higher level of force. Therefore,
the use of these levels is more restricted and
require the presence of greater danger to the officer (or others). If there
is no immediate danger, these tactics are not allowed to be used.
Whereas, inflicting non-damaging pain is deemed a lower level of force.
Third, many police departments practice 'ask,
tell, order' when it comes to verbal tactics. Even
though it is 'talking,' these still are integral
steps in established 'use of force' policies practiced by
law enforcement across the country.
As it was explained to me, ask, tell, order
verbalization are a nice bit of public relations,
they keep the peace, articulate what the officer
did before taking it to the next level, explain why it went there and
set up legally defensible patterns of behavior. The ducks are in a row on this one and you better recognize that.
Let's take ask, tell, order and apply it to
someone stopped for suspected drunk driving.
"Could you please step out of the car, sir?" (ask)
"Sir, step out of the car." (tell)
"Step out of the car, NOW!" (order)
The next step is known as 'make.' As in, you've
been asked politely, you've been told, you've been ordered, now an officer
is going to make you do it.
But for now, let's focus on the talking. Asking
is a nice bit of requesting compliance. It's all
polite and reasonable to get you to do what the
officer wants. It doesn't get your little duck
feelings hurt because he's politely asking you to
cooperate with him in the execution of his duties.
Often this sugar-and-spice approach works very
well -- especially when it comes to minor and
less dangerous situations.
Having said that: If an officer -- in the execution of his duties -- tells
you to do something, it is not a request.
It is what is known as a 'lawful order.' Refusal
to follow a lawful order from a law enforcement officer (LEO) in the
execution of his or her duties is not a right. Failure to comply is breaking
the law and legally permits the officer to use a higher level of force in
the execution of his duties.
Many people, who believe they have the 'right' to argue with a cop, find out
about this escalation of force the hard way. I will also tell you if a cop
directly tells you "I'm ordering you to..." the I's have been dotted and the T's
crossed for what is coming. The word 'order' is one of those keyword you need to
be listening for in what an officer is saying.. This includes an announcement
over a bullhorn -- especially when there's a bunch of cops in riot gear standing
there. Refusal? Well you can do that, but it won't be fun.
I'd like to explain a related point. In one sense, it doesn't matter how you refuse: If you argue. If
you just don't do it. If you try to run. If you stand there and scream
obscenities at the cop. If you try to punch the cop. If you sit down, cross
your arms and hold your breath. If you throw
yourself on the ground and kick and scream in a
tantrum.
These all constitutes refusing a lawful order from
an officer in the execution of her duties. When
you do this, your legal footing has just become
quicksand. No matter how morally or emotionally justified you feel you are
in doing so.
Fourth, such a refusal kicks it up to the next
level. The officer can now use physical force to
'make you.'
This is where how you refuse a lawful order becomes real important.
We'll talk more about that in the next point. But, for right now, know that use
of force practices are overwhelmingly about 'compliance.' That is getting
someone to either stop doing something or to do something (back to that 'order'
thing again). It's also about getting someone into a position to handcuff him or
her.
The first level of force is known
in some departments as 'soft hands.' While it doesn't always, it can include, on the part of the officer,
joint locks, take downs, arrest, control and cuffing techniques. I can be
non-painful or it can be painful. It depends on the level of resistance. But
let's be real here, making someone do something they don't want to do often involves
some discomfort to the person.
And that brings us to the subject of pain. Pepper spray and tasers, although
extremely uncomfortable, are
considered to be part of this lower level of force because they aren't
likely to cause physical injury. Physical injury is caused by striking or
shooting someone. Yes, two hours later your eyes will be red and inflamed after
you have been hit with pepper spray, but odds are you won't be in lying in a
coma in a hospital.
If you've ever caught a fish hook in your finger, you have suffered the physical
'injury' commonly caused by a taser.
Pain, on the other hand, there's a boatload. Being on the receiving end of these items hurts like hell, and they are
really good
at convincing people to change their mind about not complying.
That brings up something else you should know. Use of these items has become
more and more popular with law enforcement. That's because going 'hands on' with
people always increases the chances of the situation escalating and
heightens the chances of injury. This, to both the person and the officer. If
people think they can disobey lawful orders, it's a small step from there to
physically resisting being touched by the officer.
Physically fight the guy and risk injury or taser him? Guess what? The taser is
faster, easier and safer for everybody. After you've been zapped, odds are
you're going to let the cop cuff you with no more fuss or bother. Know you are going to
encounter this attitude if you choose to resist or disobey a lawful order.
Fifth, there are several versions of resistance to
lawful orders.
Let's start with passive resistance. While that includes a drunk sitting
down and holding his breath, it also can be a coordinated and intentional
strategy. For example, protestors sitting down, locking arms or chaining
themselves to something. When dealing with
passive resistance, officers are not generally
allowed to use levels of force that can cause
injury. For instance, they can't beat passive
resisters over the heads with clubs.
What is allowed to use is pain
to force compliance. That's where pepper spray and tasers can come into play. It is a noninjurious
use of force. But, oh boy, do you want to stop doing
what you're doing when you're zapped.
Got
a bunch of passive resisters to a lawful order?
Hosing them in the face with pepper spray is both
legally and departmentally approved use of force. By
the time it gets to that point, the whole ask,
tell, order policy has run it's course, and there is no doubt that it is
willful disobedience to lawful orders.
Passive resistance is one thing. Trying to fight a
cop, run away or stop him from cuffing you is
what is known as 'active resistance.' While any
active resistance is frowned upon, if your active
resistance is aggressive, it presents a higher
risk to the officer. And attacking the officer is a
good way to get injured.
While passive resistance might justify 'soft
hands,' active resistance justifies the officer
using 'hard hands' (higher level of force). These
are actions that can result in physical injury to
the actively resisting person. Now we're talking
about striking, clubbing and other things that can
bust your head.
If people are getting injured by the police, look for active resistance --
if not outright physical attacks on the officer (or someone else). That is
the only time police are permitted by both policy and law to use such
tactics. Odds are good, those methods will not be used on a 'peaceful'
protestor or even a passive resister.
There is another level of force after this and
that's lethal. This is a level that an officer can
only legally use when his or her life (or someone else's) is in danger.
Again, it is based on what the other person is doing to create an immediate
threat. This isn't intended to injure or gain compliance, it is designed to stop danger. And
it just so happens to be fatal a lot of the time. Thankfully, these protests
haven't gotten to this point yet.
Sixth, protestors are being trained how to exert
the highest level of passive resistance without
bumping it up to the point where the police would be legally justified to
use a higher level of force.
This is why it's important to know the difference
between a 'peaceful protest' and passive
resistance to a lawful order. One is a
legitimate -- and protected -- right. The other is a deliberate act to
provoke use of force by the
police.
Why? It's public relations (PR). Protestors are quick to exploit any
incidents involving the police by claiming they are 'peaceful protestors'
being brutalized and
oppressed by law enforcement while exercising their
rights. And, as the outrage in the blogsphere and
social media sites demonstrate, people don't know
the difference between peaceful protestors and
passive resistance in defiance of lawful orders.
This is where the squeals of 'police brutality
against peaceful demonstrators' start. It also is
exactly what the protestors want. It engenders
sympathy, pity and horror in the public, which they capitalize on to promote
their agenda. Basically, knowing that they won't be physically injured
(they'll just suffer some discomfort) they actively engage in a behavior
they know will result in police use of force against them. Hence, they can
claim to be victims.
There is something you need to know about this
expanded definition of 'protesting.' The
strategy of organized passive resistance is to
create as big a bottle neck as possible. This is a deliberate strategy to
jam, obstruct and impede others, and cost people time and money. Ideally, it
brings the entire environment to a stand still by shutting it down (this is
important to the seventh point).
This is a form of passive aggressiveness that not unlike mold on the floor.
It creeps farther and farther into other people's space, until there is no
option but to step on it or be cornered. When you step on it, the screams of
brutality and victimization begin. And these, in turn, are used as 'proof'
of the evil and
oppressive system.
Passive aggressiveness is a big part of this kind of protest. It is
a deliberate interference with the environment that is being justified as
'free speech' and lawful assembly. Not just peaceful
assembly, but lawful assembly. While there's a
lot of overlap, those are two separate issues.
And that brings us to the seventh point. The
issues causing the police to use force do not involve protests. They are
about other things.
One of the biggest is camping. More than
that, it is camping on public, private and
semi-private land. In this expanded
version, we are told 'camping, trespassing and creating public safety,
health and nuisance issues are legitimate forms of protest.' The protestors
are pretending their 'right' to protest extends to squatting on both public
and private land.
I cannot stress this point enough: It's not the
protest that is getting them pepper sprayed and
arrested, it's the camping and refusing lawful
orders to remove these illegal camps and tents.
That last point is bigger and deeper than you
might think.
The first amendment of our constitution grants us the rights to peacefully
assemble and speak freely. At the same time, these 'rights' are balanced
with the rights and needs of others -- especially when it comes to safety.
That guarantee of 'rights,' however, has a much more specific and limited meaning than people think it does.
Let's start with the biggest point of ignorance
about the 'rights' we assume are ours. I have a favorite 'demotivational
poster' that reads: "Bill of Rights. Didn't read.
Too long -- but will use half-assed understanding
to demand 'freedom' for stupid behavior."
For those of you who fall into the 'Too Long, Didn't Read' clique, we'll
keep it short and limit it to only one of the first 10 amendments to the
constitution. Here is
the First Amendment in ye olde Bill of Rights:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances."
Notice that first word. It's important. In fact,
it's really important. That's because it very
specifically identifies that 'congress' cannot
pass laws restricting free speech, religion, the
press or your right to peacefully assemble. This
has since been expanded in conventional opinion to include 'government.'
That amendment clearly states the government can't
stop the listed behaviors. In practice, that means the government can't stop the Nazis from marching in Skokie. Nor can it
pass laws to keep the Westboro Baptist Church from
spreading its religious hate and bigotry. In the
same vein, it isn't allowed to say the Occupy
(Wherever) or the Tea Party can't hold a rally.
What the government can do, however, is establish
parameters for public safety, health and to minimize nuisance during these
assemblies. That means there are standards of behavior you can engage in and
those that you can't.
This is important for three reasons:
1) it ensures safety
2) it limits damage to private and public property
3) in a democracy, not everyone is going to agree
with (or even be interested in) what those who are
assembling have to say
Setting these boundaries is not suppressing the
rights of free speech or freedom to assemble. In
fact, here's something a lot of people don't know.
Legal protests, rallies, demonstrations and
marches are, in fact, helped and supported by
the police. More than that, there are accepted
public venues that can be used. The city will give you
a place to assemble.You file for a permit, and the police coordinate the traffic and parking.
And, by the way, the requirement to file a permit to hold a demonstration is
not a suppression of free speech. It's a step in getting police support
because logistics for an assembly take time and planning. Extra officers,
traffic control, routes for marches, public safety and services, all of
these need to be organized so you can have your rally.
These also are things the city do in order for people to exercise their
'right' to protest. Things that allow everyone to get their needs met,
including
the rights of people -- who don't agree with the
protestors -- not to be bothered by them.
Wow, that's pretty neat. You get your rally,
protest, demonstration or what have you, while
everyone else gets to go about their business with
minimal interruption, safety or health concerns. I'm okay with this idea.
A point of interest, though. By using this system, free
speech is not free. By that I mean, the city ends
up paying for overtime, police presence, rerouting
traffic and clean up. This, in turn, means the
taxpayers are paying to support your right to
peacefully assemble. Still, it's a pretty good
deal.
Having said all this, the 'rights' to assembly and
free speech do not extend to a whole lot of other
things -- including corporations or private
property. For example, you do not have the right
to 'protest' on private or semi-private property.
You can be forcibly removed for trespassing. You
do not have the right to block traffic or access.
You cannot interfere with or harass those entering
or leaving a governmental or business establishment. This is why picketers
or those on strike must stay on the sidewalk in front of the business or
organization
with which they disagree. Not in the street, not on private property and they must keep moving.
Another example of this is the private park
where the original Occupy Wall Street started and the UC-Davis campus. These
are private properties that
allow public access. That is not the same
as public property (e.g., a public park). If
the owners or trustees of these properties 'allow'
the protest, fine. If they say no, that is their
'right.' This includes the right to withdraw
permission if a crowd gets out of hand.
An important point about public or government
property is where protests are permissible. This
comes back to permits. Recently, several arrests
of 'Occupy Denver' folks occurred when protestors
decided to take their show to other locations. Then they
decided to refuse the lawful order to leave those new areas. The police
didn't tell them that they couldn't go back to the
park (where they had permits to assemble). The
police said, "Okay over there, but you can't
protest here without a permit." Some of the
protestors said, "Oh yes we can!" and arrests resulted.
This seems like a small point, but it's a big
public safety and nuisance issue -- especially
when protestors start coming up with 'good ideas'
as they roam the streets. (Remember the WTO riots
in Seattle?) There's a reason permits are location
specific.
This brings us to free speech
Let's start with the fact case law has established
the 'right to free speech' does not extend to
'falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater' (Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes,
Schenck vs. United States, 1919). That point has been pretty well argued
and established in the courts.
Beyond that, free speech is a pretty contentious
topic, especially when hate speech, fighting
words, slander, libel and 'encouraging others to
engage in criminal and destructive acts' get
thrown into the mix. Just because someone claims what they are saying is
'free speech,' doesn't mean it is. (And yes, you can apply that idea to what
constitutes 'peaceful protest,' as well.)
Where people really don't understand that their 'right' to free speech does
not extend is to corporations, private businesses or John Q. Public. A newspaper
(a company) is not violating your rights if they choose not to publish your
ranting manifesto. That is not censorship, that is
either an editorial or business decision by the
company.
The First Amendment says the 'government' can't stop you from talking,
blogging or starting your own newspaper. That doesn't mean, if people don't
want to listen to you, your 'rights' are being violated. The government didn't do
it, other factors are involved -- including the likelihood that people think
you're wrong.
There are actions that have been through the
legal system and have been deemed expressions of free speech. Just as there
are acts that have been shot down as not being free speech.
For example, in 2007 Elizabeth Book won her appeal regarding protesting topless in
Daytona Beach. Her gripe was women were being ticketed for public
nudity (and other things) at the annual biker rally for 'showing their tits'
(a tradition in the biker community). In 2004, her form of
protest was to protest topless. It was a planned
event, the media was alerted and, sure enough, she was arrested for public
nudity. The court upheld her
contention that it was an expression of free speech.
Disorderly conduct charges, however, relating to a
different incident stood up.
In contrast, to Ms. Book's 'success,' nude
sunbathing or just flashing one's boobies (even at
Mardi Gras and biker rallies) have consistently
been rejected as acts of freedom of expression (free speech). People doing
so are regularly cited for public nudity, disorderly conduct and as public
nuisances. Whereas, strip clubs -- private property, limited admission and
not in public -- have been found to be
protected as artistic expression.
Confused yet? Welcome to how complicated the law
and 'rights' can get. But it is very important in establishing the standards of
free speech.
This is, in part, why the redefinition of camping
as part of a protest has caused problems. At this
time, camping has not been legally recognized as a
valid form of freedom of expression, free speech, or protest.
(Oh, BTW, remember I said this redefinition of protest to include camping
has been tried before? The 'Bonus Army' tried occupying Washington DC in
1932. It wasn't cops who broke it up, it was the US Army. Turns out camping
wasn't accepted as part of a protest back then either.) This failure to be legally
recognized means it is not an accepted form of protest that must be tolerated.
That puts us in another realm. In particular, existing health and safety laws.
During this latest round of protests, police in various areas let slide placing sleeping
bags and setting up food tables.
Actually, those were more political decisions by
the powers-that-be. It's one of those technically
illegal actions, but enforcement would open a can of worms because of the
claim that it is 'part of the
protest.' The powers-that-be drew the
line at pitching tents, however. At first glance, this
might seem arbitrary. It's not.
You cannot legally 'camp' on public property
(that's why cops run bums out of the park). While
we're at it, you cannot 'block' a public
thoroughfare or road -- without permits or for an
extended period of time. Again, this is why
protestors must keep moving on sidewalks or rally
only in designated areas. This allows traffic to
flow around them. A person in a sleeping bag can
get up and move. Tents don't move easily. The tents became obstructions.
Whether they were intentionally set up to be so or that was just the
effect, doesn't matter. They were in the way.
There are a lot of people who dismiss the 'inconvenience' the protestors are
causing to other in the pursuit of their rights (an attitude that should
make you go 'hmmmmm' about someone else volunteering your time and inconvenience). The same
folks also to dismiss health and safety issues as either inconsequential or alarmist.
My position is a little different due to personal experiences. Ever been in a
crowd when someone starts shooting a gun? I have. Not fun. Ever been in a crowd when a
fire breaks out? Again, I have. And again, way not fun.Ever been caught in a riot? BTDT. Add it to the list of not fun things to do. Ever work events or crowd control? I have.
Things can go real bad, real quick in a crowd. And when they do obstructions
make them all that much worse. Whenever you
get crowds, health and safety IS a big deal.
Again the 'dismissers' will claim 'those things
won't happen. But speaking as someone who worked crowds professionally, I can
assure you they do. Way too often. The only reason 'those things' don't happen more often is because there are
people working their asses off to keep it from happening.
The final point about 'free speech' involves your fellow citizens. Now we're
getting into 'my right to swing my arm ends where my neighbor's nose
begins.' (Zechariah Chafee, "Freedom of Speech in Wartime", 32 Harvard Law
Review 932, 957 (1919). This includes other
people being 'inconvenienced' and endangered by
self-appointed 'protestors.'
This isn't a case of a 'protest means whatever I think it means' issue. Nor
is it conveniently dismissed by the claim of 'what I'm doing isn't hurting
anyone.' We've moved into the realm of cause and effect,
safety, health, unintentional consequences and
property damage.
For example, a few years ago, protestors in
Washington state threw bricks and garbage
at passing cars and pushed roll-away trash bins
out into traffic. Was this free speech? Was this a
legitimate form of protest? Or did it create
dangerous and problematic conditions where injury
and property damage were likely? Realize that these
conditions weren't just created where the dumpsters
were being pushed into intersections, but extended miles
down the streets and in multiple directions. These
actions affected people who never laid eyes
on the protestors. Oh yeah, and throwing objects
at moving cars? Great way to cause wrecks -- also
illegal as hell for endangering other people.
That is more extreme than what this latest batch
of protestors are doing, but it illustrates a
point. The behaviors of these Occupy folks have become public health and
safety issues. People aren't getting pepper sprayed for engaging in peaceful assembly.. People are
getting pepper sprayed and arrested for refusing
lawful orders to take down their tents and
impeding the law enforcement in the execution of their
duties as public safety officers (taking the tents
down). Some of this resistance is passive, some of
it is active.
And remember, actions that cause danger to the
police or others can be legally and justifiably met
with a much higher level of force to put a stop to
them.
Keep that in mind when you hear about
incidents of 'peaceful' protestors getting injured. You have to ask, what
was that person doing that officers -- on the scene -- deemed a level of
force likely to cause injury was warranted. (And that's another well
established legal precedent a lot of people don't
know about. It is the professional assessment of
the officer on location that determines if a
behavior poses a danger. It is not what the commentator on Youtube or Facebook
thinks. To make you feel all warm and fuzzy, this
assessment is based on established external
standards of known dangers. [It's called
'jeopardy' -- acting in a manner that is known to
be dangerous.] So the officer isn't making it up on the spot to justify his
or her actions.)
I'm sure by now some apologists are trying to
frame an argument about how camping and peaceful
protest do not justify police use of force. My
point is that is not the issue.
The issues are violating health and safety laws, disobeying lawful
orders, passive resistance and the level of force
legally allowed against passive resistance.
Just as importantly, the level of force
allowed when that resistance becomes both active
and a danger.
Yet this behavior has it's defenders. A common
'monkey brain' wiggle is how 'breaking the law is
okay if it is for a noble and idealistic cause.'
If you try to point out these nuts-and-bolts
problems regarding health, safety, disorderly
conduct and public nuisance, apologists will
immediately jackrabbit off to wax poetic
about social injustice and tyranny. If you let
them get a head of steam going, they will tell you
about their outrage against social inequality. In
the meantime, ignoring the facts that a hundred people
camped in a park and peeing on trees is neither
free speech nor particularly sanitary.
Another common subset of this red herring defense
is 'the wrong we're protesting is greater than the
wrong we're doing, so that makes it right.'
I actually saw someone try to justify the millions
of dollars Occupy Wall Street has cost the New York City by pointing out the
supposed trillions that 'big business' had 'stolen.' What? Really? That's
what you call 'logic?' Oh, BTW, the $6 million figure
does not include the cost of time of people who work in the area and loss of
business local shops and restaurants have suffered because people are
avoiding the area. This is the 'inconvenience' that 'dismissers' wave away as
inconsequential. It's okay. Those people being inconvenienced are either
part of, or supporters of, 'the great evil' the Occupy folks are protesting. So
they deserve what they get.
Another red herring is to claim pepper spray and tasers are 'torture.'
A friend pointed out it's not. That's because 'You can't make torture stop.' You
can, however, stop the pain police are inflicting on you by the simple act of complying to the order you are
disobeying and resisting.
I thought about this and added that torture is 'involuntary.' You can't stop it from happening to you.
People come into your cell and drag you to the torture chamber. On the other hand, you can prevent being pepper sprayed by simply
complying with a lawful order. That's why the 'torture' argument falls down, the pain these folks are undergoing is
entirely voluntary. They are in control if it happens and when it stops. (Boy could I run with some BDSM jokes).
Two final points in closing. I've heard people
strenuously object to force being used on
protestors as though they were 'criminals.' I find
this position to be not only ironic, but
downright funny in its hypocrisy. To understand why, I first have to tell you a quote I recently heard: In the
eyes of the law, all are equal.
However, those who apply the law may not do so
equally.
That statement acknowledges that things can be
handled in a less than perfect way by the
authorities. In fact, you can even go so far as to
say there can be bias in many cases. Point ceded
without argument.
That bias statement, however, is a two-way street.
As in, many people are saying, "These protestors
should be treated differently for breaking the law
because their motives are pure."
Stop and think about that for a second. It is an
incredibly elitist, self-serving and arrogant
attitude. One you'll see regarding this topic
because it's sitting right there in plain sight.
Police are not allowed to exercise judgment and selective enforcement
between who is a 'criminal' and who is a 'protestor.' They must react according
to the circumstances. This includes the fact the law applies across the board
(in the eyes of the law, all are equal). As does enforcement and the responses
to refusal of lawful orders and resistance.
Camping and trespassing are prohibited, and it doesn't matter who or WHY
someone is breaking these laws. The same goes for blocking thoroughfares and
being a public nuisance. The police are duty bound to resolve these issues. If, in
executing this duty,
they encounter passive and active resistance,
these conditions will elicit pre-established and
departmentally approved responses. This is how the
police treat everyone who actively and willfully
disobey lawful orders.
This is where the hypocrisy comes in. When people
are squealing about protestors being treated like criminals (being pepper
sprayed for passive resistance and refusing a
lawful order), what they are objecting to is
everyone being treated equally.
For folks who are
protesting the inequality and injustice of our
society, they certainly are claiming some special
treatment for themselves, dontcha think?
My last point is to ask how much of this is a PR battle?
One that the view from the streets says the Occupy folks may be strong in
the blogsphere and certain Facebook circles, but they're losing the bigger battle.
A simple truth is that because these are
'organized protests' (like I said most of them
even have permits) the powers-that-be have,
by in large, held off doing anything about the
protestors and the problems they are causing.
Basically, although there have been lots of
minor issues, people in authority have told the police not to act. Ordering
the police to act is a serious turdburger that government has wisely
hesitated to bite into.
When it comes to knowing how to 'play the
game,' however, the powers-that-be aren't stupid. In fact, by letting the
protests go on, they've allowed a
counter position to grow. A position that really
isn't that sympathetic to what the occupiers are
doing, how long they've dragged it on and how much money they've cost.
Again, while support is strong in the blogosphere
and social media for Occupy (Wherever), that isn't the case with the general
public. People either don't care or are getting sick and tired of it. People
in coffee
shops and progressive areas might be for the
occupation and what it stands for, but in truck
stops, McDonald's and Black Angus restaurants
across the country, there really isn't that much
support.
(Do me a favor 'dismissers,' don't you dare tell me the opinions of these, your fellow citizens, don't count.)
What little support the protestors might have had has waned
as the protests drag on and costs mount for the taxpaying public. (This, in
addition to the number of incidents where members of the
so-called 'peaceful protest' decided to stop
passively resisting and engage in active
resistance.) While sections of the Internet get
all aflutter with news releases and videos of the
police using force, there's a lot more folks out
there who are shrugging and saying, "About time."
I may be a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal, but
even I can see there's a lot more to be considered
here than a bunch of protestors claiming they
shouldn't get pepper sprayed when they cause health and safety issues, refuse lawful orders
and, in some cases, create active threats. Now that you know these things
about use of force, you have a much stronger way to explain to the
next person, who is all aghast and horrified exactly why the police used force on those sweet, innocent, peaceful protestors.
M
Outstanding article.
ReplyDelete