My opinion about "Occupy"

Bear with me cause this is a very touchy subject. I'd just like to give some food for thought.

I don't agree with the Occupy crowd. I think if you protest, you have an agenda and you attempt to accomplish something. This is the most disorganized mess I've ever seen for a protest, and it has turned into a "protest the police" protest. My friends on facebook have given me many reasons why they back the protesters and tell me what agenda the group, as a whole group, have. Unfortunately, I have not heard any of it from the group itself.

But, that's not the reason I want to give my opinion. The reason is from the recent events where the police have used force. Many people have made the police the bad people and called the use of force "chilling." So here goes:

You can protest peacefully and nobody will stop you. As a matter of fact, it is encouraged in our society. But, you gotta follow the rules.

The protesters at UC Davis, Berkeley, Oakland, etc. knew the rules going in and decided on civil disobedience. If that's the decision you make, here's what happens.

First, you are asked to leave. Not by the police, but in front of the police by those in control of the property that has the rules. Even on public proerty and public places, there are rules. These rules are passed by owners of private property. By Commissions, Boards, Cities, States, or the Federal Government, or by "the People" for public property.

If you do not leave, you are now trespassing. That means you have now committed a crime. You are no longer a peaceful protester, you are now a suspected criminal. This is not about your right to free speech. You have moved past that and on to purposeful criminal actions.

You are then told you are under arrest. This arrest can be as simple as a "ticket" or you can be taken into custody. You will get your day in court. But you still have to leave.

Instead, you lock arms sitting down or other so called passive resistance (some call it "peaceful" resistance in an attempt to make it seem less criminal. Whatever.) You are now committing another crime, resisting arrest. Like it or not, the police now have to decide how to take you into custody.

Use of force experts decided a couple decades ago that oleoresin capsicum (pepper spray) was a good non-violent compliance tool for passive resistance.

Under the FBI's nationally recognized "use of force continuum," and in Supreme Court cases (Graham vs Connor being the most important so far), the amount force necessary is what the "reasonable officer on the scene" feels is needed to effect the arrest. If batons are needed to disperse a crowd, it is authorized. After it's done the lawyers, media, and we can take all the time wanted to disect it.

That being said, I often preach "risk management." Think out the risk, before taking the action. If you are someplace you're not supposed to be, doing something you're not supposed to be doing, don't be suprised when bad things happen. I believe each of these incidents could have very easily been avoided by following the rules. Some absolutely hate the comparison, but the Tea Party protests are a good example. Some occupiers know this and did it anyway, because they knew what would happen. They also knew that the media and the liberals would use it to their favor in redirecting the blame to the big bad "authorities."

I've always been told that when you complain, try to have a solution. If you think the police used excessive force, give a viable alternative method that you feel would work better. Ignoring the law breakers is not a viable option. Email me.