3 ms·
In this case, there was a significant possibility of danger to the authorities. The protesters refused to leave voluntarily, so force had to be used. They had n
by marcoperaza 9y ago
In this case, there was a significant possibility of danger to the authorities. The protesters refused to leave voluntarily, so force had to be used. They had no way of knowing what kind of resistance they could expect, or if there were armed elements among the resistors. If you defy the lawful authority of the state, don’t complain when the state has to resort to brute force. It must be that way if we are to have the rule of law. And don’t be surprised when they choose overwhelming force over putting themselves at risk.
There is a right to protest, not to obstruct the lawful functioning of society. We’ve had plenty of debate, we’ve had elections, we legally decided to build this pipeline. If you want to protest, find another place, one that doesn’t physically block other people from doing what they are legally entitled to do.
- maxerickson 9y agoIn the first picture you can see the one guy reaching for a feather. I think in the case of the US doing something against the wishes of a tribe of Native Americans, high minded arguments about legal authorities discard a little too much history.
- germinalphrase 9y agoIsn't the whole point of protests to make it inconvenient for the more powerful to ignore the needs of the less powerful?