I could only watch about a third of that video before the Occupy protesters started to annoy me. In that time, I didn't see anyone throw any rocks. The loudest comments were things such as, "You don't have to do this, officers." That was a peaceful assembly. Context changes nothing. Those officers maced peaceful protesters who were sitting on the ground. There is no context which makes that acceptable.

A few idiots got pepper sprayed for impeding the police in the pursuit of their duty.

I'm ok with that.

Really? You're ok with cops using pepper spray simply to force compliance even in the absence of any threat to the safety of officers or the public? (No, a bunch of college students linking arms and sitting on the ground while others chant slogans at you is not a credible threat to safety. And there's nothing in the body language of those cops to suggest they felt it was.)

Creating a disturbance, unlawful assembly and refusal to stop blocking what looks to be a thoroughfare and all they get is mace?

I considered that getting off easy and applaud the use of non-lethal force.

Really? You're ok with cops using pepper spray simply to force compliance even in the absence of any threat to the safety of officers or the public?

You're conflating the enforcement function of the police with the punitive function of the courts, Taskiss. You disapprove of the protestors' behavior and feel they deserved some punishment, so you feel it's ok for the cops to get a little rough with them. That's not the proper function of the cops in our system of due process.

So, if it was a bunch of Buddhist monks blocking the sidewalk in front of the Chinese embassy to protest the occupation of Tibet, or some retirees blocking the sidewalk in front of the SS Administration to protest benefit cuts, or (drawing from history) Martin Luther King and others blocking the sidewalk in front of an Alabama courthouse to protest Jim Crow laws, you'd be equally fine with the cops using force to obtain compliance? The political views and personal characteristics of the protestors are completely irrelevant to you when it comes to the use of force? And, more to the point, you think the political views and personal characteristics of the protestors would be completely irrelevant to the cops' decision about whether, when and how to use such force?

So, if it was a bunch of Buddhist monks blocking the sidewalk in front of the Chinese embassy to protest the occupation of Tibet, or some retirees blocking the sidewalk in front of the SS Administration to protest benefit cuts, or (drawing from history) Martin Luther King and others blocking the sidewalk in front of an Alabama courthouse to protest Jim Crow laws, you'd be equally fine with the cops using force to obtain compliance? The political views and personal characteristics of the protestors are completely irrelevant to you when it comes to the use of force? And, more to the point, you think the political views and personal characteristics of the protestors would be completely irrelevant to the cops' decision about whether, when and how to use such force?

RD, what those protesters did was stupid. Now, no matter how sympathetic one can find themselves being on the "why" they were doing what they were doing, the "how" of it was stupid, and I don't see you getting much traction arguing that stupid shouldn't hurt.

not contentious or quarrelsome

Main Entry: peace·able Pronunciation: \pē-s-bl\Function: adjective Date: 14th century 1 a : disposed to peace : not contentious or quarrelsome b : quietly behaved 2 : marked by freedom from strife or disorder — peace·able·ness noun — peace·ably \-blē\ adverb

Ill let folks decide for themselves.

Free from the character of force, violence, or trespass; as, a “peaceable entry” on lands. “Peaceable possession” of real estate Is such as is acquiesced in by all other persons, including rival claimants, and not disturbed by any forcible attempt at ouster nor by adverse suits to recover the possession or the estate.

Read more: PEACEABLE | Definition of PEACEABLE (Black's Law Dictionary)

What I take issue with is (i) the view that the cops are the legitimate authority for doling out those consequences; and (ii) the cops use of force (other than the "force" that is incidental to arresting someone) as a compliance tool when there is no reasonable threat to officer or public safety.

I agree that what the protestors did was stupid, and I agree that it's legitimate for there to be consequences for that stupidity. What I take issue with is (i) the view that the cops are the legitimate authority for doling out those consequences; and (ii) the cops use of force (other than the "force" that is incidental to arresting someone) as a compliance tool when there is no reasonable threat to officer or public safety.

Peaceably is not synonymous with peacefully. The Constitution guarantees the former, not the latter. Unfortunately for all of the police officers involved, the protest as shown in that video is peaceable. Of course, none of that matters because Congress and the Courts have vacated almost the entirety of the First Amendment already.

I could only watch about a third of that video before the Occupy protesters started to annoy me. In that time, I didn't see anyone throw any rocks. The loudest comments were things such as, "You don't have to do this, officers." That was a peaceful assembly. Context changes nothing. Those officers maced peaceful protesters who were sitting on the ground. There is no context which makes that acceptable.