I guess it all boils down to what people consider to be peaceful resistance and what the appropriate response to that is.
Personally, I don't think pepper spraying kids who aren't considered a threat (the police turned their backs on them several times just before spraying them) is appropriate.
I think, though, that there's a disconnect here somewhere.
What do you propose the police do instead? Allow them to continue to disobey and "occupy" the park? The police don't have that option. "Peaceful resistance" is not and automatic ticket to do whatever you want. If I speed on the highway and get pulled over, I can't "peacefully resist" my way out of a ticket. If students camp in a location they aren't permitted to camp in, they can't "peacefully resist" their way to a free illegal campsite, no matter how many of them there are, nor how just their cause.
I'm quite certain that if you told the police how to remove them from the park and enforce the law without using pepper spray, baton, etc, then they'd be all ears.
I've asked that a few different times and a few different ways throughout this thread and so far everyone declines to answer.
Do you have an answer?
It doesn't matter that they pose no threat. A person doesn't have to be posing a threat in order to require police force.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
If the protestors don't resist, the police won't use any force.
If the protestors only resist a little, individually, the police will use a little force.
If the protestors lock arms and resist strongly, en masse, the police have no option but to use an equal amount of force.
The protesters are in charge of the amount of force the police must use.
There are abuses, and that is unacceptable, but in general pepper spray has fewer long term effects than many other methods they could use.
But I'm very interested to hear your take on what the police should do instead.
