so where was the un-peaceful part? I wasn't listening with sound but looks like they were just sitting there. Guess it's as un-peaceful as these guys taken from: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/11/police-bludgeon-peaceful-occupy-uc-berkeley-protesters.html
If you get pulled over and the officer asks you to step out of the car and you decide to just sit there, what do you think is going to happen? Disobeying police and blocking their path is NOT peaceful protesting.
+1 peaceful doesn't always refer to lack of physical violence. I also LOVE how the students always seem to chant something along the lines of "stop beating students", all the while they are basically "asking" for it between the obscene chants and language along with the passive aggressive behavior. It's like a drunk chick at concert who gets raped because she is dressed in next to nothing while flirting with every other drunk idiot at the concert, what did you think would happen!? You knew damn well the severity of your situation and what was going to happen or the possibility exists if push met shove.
I guess you could call it more Civil Disobedience. It really depends on your definition of peaceful. I did not see any protesters throwing objects or striking at law officers. Maybe there was resisting arrest or tresspassing, but that qualifies as civil disobedience (as taken from wikipedia). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience#Theories I don't agree with all protests, but everyone has the right to protest nonviolently. Even if it means blocking my walk to the coffee shop.
Protestors outnumber cops 3-1 and higher in some of these videos, I could see how a cop would be sketched out if a huge group started chanting at him and encircling him and his 3 deputies. Some cops are still dicks tho
I agree, it definitely depends on your definition of peaceful. I would argue that simply being non-violent does not necessarily mean you are being peaceful. In this particular case, they were ALL trespassing. Berkeley officials and police both made it clear that camping was not allowed and the protestors ignored them. Why does their right to protest come before your right to not be harassed or the business owners right to operate freely? I have no issue with protesting, but when people start setting up camp a whole host of other issues starts to come in to play: impeding traffic, health/sanitation, damage to property, etc. I don't see how this is considered protesting:
Who decides where you can and can't protest? The people getting protested always wants the protesters far away. I didn't see any tents in that Berkely videos, but trespassing is still trespassing. The cop clearly was able to walk around freely without much trouble, I saw one video where he stepped over the line of protesters (before he pepper sprayed them) on Berkeley campus. Protesters are like any other person wanting attention. If you don't agree with them, ignore them. They march in streets and block access to get attention. Violent acts against protesters will do nothing but increase their numbers. We've been there done that before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_army (there was a positive if you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_army#Aftermath it shows how Roosevelt fixed it the 2nd time.)
god i wish this was the 50s theyd be begging for pepper spray after the beatings the cops would give thoose fucking hipsters
