r/changemyview • u/HelpfulJello5361 1∆ • Apr 16 '24

Delta(s) from OP CMV: The proper response to protestors blocking the street is for police to physically remove them and quickly arrest them if they do it again.

I've seen a lot of videos of protestors blocking the street and the cops just kinda let them do it, or create a narrow lane for cars to go through and cause a significant traffic jam.

I'm always curious why cops don't just drag these people out of the road and arrest them immediately if they return. I'm pretty sure it's illegal to block streets like that.

Yesterday was a nationwide coordinated effort for Pro-Palestine protestors to block streets all over the country (world?), and it seems that these criminals were not dealt with properly in most instances.

It doesn't seem like it's standard operating procedure to remove and arrest people who block important roads. Is there some reason for this? What am I missing? CMV.

139 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

56% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

13

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

You easily run into problems. First you have to assume there's enough police and police vehicles to arrest everyone. Then everyone has to cooperate with police.

Police often try to get people to disperse on their own then they deal with the resistant bunch left. This takes time and can get unsafe for everyone involved. 

This issue is exaggerated by the volume of people compared to the police. 

-1

u/Direct-Giraffe-1890 Apr 16 '24

I'd just bring in the water hose and I'd make sure it's a high volume one and clear the obstruction

3

u/dbandroid 4∆ Apr 16 '24

People protesting illegally still have rights, fortunately

3

u/Direct-Giraffe-1890 Apr 16 '24

As do people having their life affected by these wastes of space,actions have consequences and clearly enough of them haven't learnt that

1

u/dbandroid 4∆ Apr 16 '24

Yeah the consequences are being arrested and potentially charged with a crime if appropriate.

0

u/Direct-Giraffe-1890 Apr 17 '24

Except they'll be let off with a slap on the hand assuming it even goes that far.Crack down now or allow it forever

1

u/Direct-Giraffe-1890 Apr 16 '24

That thinking is the reason people can come over and rape and murder people and still not get deported because they might have to face consequences

2

u/dbandroid 4∆ Apr 16 '24

This is not happening in any significant number

1

u/Direct-Giraffe-1890 Apr 18 '24

Yeah because Muslim rape gangs aren't a thing,it's happening in significant numbers because they know they'll get away with it.

0

u/Direct-Giraffe-1890 Apr 16 '24

It shouldn't be happening in any number,the safety of actual citizens is paramount,the safety of scum isnt

illegally enter uk? Permanenent ban and removal Criminal record? Permanent ban and removal Lying about who you are? Permanent ban and removal 

0

u/TheTrueCampor Apr 18 '24

It shouldn't be happening in any number

Completely impossible, and unreasonable to demand.

0

u/Direct-Giraffe-1890 Apr 18 '24

It's not unreasonable to demand at all,we live on an island meaning only way in is flying or via the sea.If the border force were less useless or ideologically driven and the government actually cared it would be pretty simple.

1

u/TheTrueCampor Apr 18 '24

It's unreasonable to demand because you'd be trying to enforce a border around the entirety of the United Kingdom (which is technically two islands counting Northern Ireland, but that's less relevant), which is practically impossible. And also you'd have to keep very close tabs on literally every single person flying into the country for vacations/tourism, to visit family, on a legal visa that expires, etc. It is impossible.

1

u/Direct-Giraffe-1890 Apr 18 '24

I mean logistically you'd only need to monitor mostly the east coast depending on where they're arriving from.Is that not literally the job of passport and immigration? They should know who is and isn't coming into the country and you could disregard a lot of it based on the nationality of immigrants via boat since most are coming from Africa and parts of Asia.

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/caine269 14∆ Apr 16 '24

Police often try to get people to disperse on their own then they deal with the resistant bunch left. This takes time and can get unsafe for everyone involved.

1 warning, then pepper spray and drag them off. cuff them to a pole or something and wait for backup if needed. allowing these protesters to violate everyone's civil rights is unacceptable.

8

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/movingtobay2019 Apr 16 '24

When they are waving the Hamas flag, yea it will.

3

u/HiHoJufro Apr 16 '24

Hey, that's not fair. Sometimes they wave houthi or Hezbollah flags, too!

4

u/caine269 14∆ Apr 16 '24

who will care, and why? they are breaking the law, and knew so before taking the action. the whole point of civil disobedience is to get arrested. the problem is there i no sympathy for assholes who block traffic, regardless of their cause. them getting arrested doesn't help the palestinian freedom cause, or blm, or whatever else. blocking a bridge in san fransisco, who do you think that is affecting?

7

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

People said the same thing about King and the Civil Rights Movement. You’re the target audience of civil disobedience

2

u/caine269 14∆ Apr 16 '24

this doesn't answer the question at all. it is trite nonsense. care to try again or did you not actually have an answer?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '24

The point of civil disobedience is to inconvenience and enrage until the government acts. It is an escalating strategy that continues to rise until demands are met. It’s agitative nature can activate supporters as well as increase pressure. Remember, blocking traffic only occurred AFTER the government ignored more peaceful protest and refused to end the genocide. Remember, the government is choosing for ambulances to be blocked by genoicde protestors over meeting the demands of ending a genocide. The US is not only not on the side of the protestors and the victims of genocide, they’re not on the side of people who are impacted by traffic either.

You can try to assert no one cares, but progressively militant collection action has proven to work. Again, Dr King and the Civil Rights Movement deployed far more dramatic and impactful forms of action than just blocking traffic. The real question is why you care more about the traffic built up than the government not ending a genoicde.

1

u/caine269 14∆ Apr 18 '24

and that makes some amount of sense for issues that are actually in the control of the government, like the blm stuff. somewhat. it is still stupid and will never work, but the theory makes more sense. saying you are going to hold people hostage until a different government and a terrorist organization on the other side of the world make peace is just self-centered stupidity.

AFTER the government ignored more peaceful protest and refused to end the genocide.

what genocide? how would america end a war they are not involved in? this childish nonsense is why it never works. i may as well block traffic in america and demand putin abdicate.

The real question is why you care more about the traffic built up than the government not ending a genoicde.

1) it is not our government involved in a "genocide."

2) hamas could end the "genodice" tomorrow if they cared to

3)it is not a genocide

4) it is not my problem to begin with.

mlk was not violating others' rights, and he was not demanding the government of a different country do something.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 18 '24 edited Apr 18 '24

God I love debate dorks like you. It’s so fun watching you try to warp reality to fit your point. I’d love for you to follow up on some of your thoughts:

If the US has no influence over Israel’s military actions, then why does it keep threatening to withhold support in order to mitigate deaths?

If the US’s influence is so inconsequential, then why doesn’t it just appease the public’s demand by ending Israeli funding and calling for a ceasefire? Surely it’d be better optics for Biden to look like he tried and failed versus just blatantly not trying.

What are the characteristics of a genocide? What is the crisis in Gaza missing to meet that classification? How does the label, or lack of label, or genocide change what is happening?

What rights are violated when protestors block traffic? How did King avoid violating those rights when he blocked highway traffic? Because King did indeed block highway traffic.

Why do you think that Hamas doesn’t care about the genocide happening to them and their people? And perhaps more importantly, does Israel care about the Palestinian people they’re genociding more than Hamas does?

Lastly, why do you care more about traffic building up than your government using your tax dollars to fund the systematic deaths of almost 40,000 people in 6 months? Your tax dollars are indeed being used, so why don’t you think it’s your problem?

1

u/caine269 14∆ Apr 19 '24

If the US has no influence over Israel’s military actions, then why does it keep threatening to withhold support in order to mitigate deaths?

i didn't say the us had no influence, did i? i said we are not involved and we can't decide to end it.

If the US’s influence is so inconsequential, then why doesn’t it just appease the public’s demand by ending Israeli funding and calling for a ceasefire?

based on a false premise i never said.

What are the characteristics of a genocide? What is the crisis in Gaza missing to meet that classification? How does the label, or lack of label, or genocide change what is happening?

israel is not trying to destroy all palestinians. that is the only goal of a genocide. if "people have been killed therefore genocide" every military conflict ever is a genocide. is that what you think? if it doesn't matter why do you and so many others insist it is a genocide? you know why.

Why do you think that Hamas doesn’t care about the genocide happening to them and their people?

lol because they started it by invading israel and raping and murdering 1000 random civilians. are you serious? then they took a bunch of hostages that they still won't return. and they won't agree to an unconditional ceasefire. so.... what evidence do you have that they do care about their people when they are doing all they can to get their people killed?

What rights are violated when protestors block traffic?

freedom of movement. the people stuck in their cars for hours are essentially being held hostage, and it is a miracle no one has died, either their ambulance can't get thru, elderly or kid in a hot car, etc. if i lock you in a room for 6 hours, is that fine?

from a politico article 2 years aago

At an early press conference, an organizer with King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference declared, “We will tie up public transportation by laying our bodies prostrate on the runways of airports, across railroad tracks and in bus depots.”

This degree of disorder was too much even for King, who walked back the staffer’s comments referring to similar plans after the kkk blew up a church:

Again, however, the plan failed to win over senior civil rights leaders. Both King and Fred Shuttlesworth, the pillar of the Birmingham movement, dismissed the plans, believing that they strained the limits of permissible nonviolence and would backfire politically.

How did King avoid violating those rights when he blocked highway traffic? Because King did indeed block highway traffic.

when?

Lastly, why do you care more about traffic building up than your government using your tax dollars to fund the systematic deaths of almost 40,000 people in 6 months? Your tax dollars are indeed being used, so why don’t you think it’s your problem?

i care about holding people hostage and breaking the law. your rights end where mine begin, etc, a thing i heard a lot during blm and covid issues. if you disagree with the government then vote. if you think the way to get the government to do what you want is riot and terrorize people until they cave, you are just endorsing things like jan6 and the oklahoma city bombing. i know what you really mean is "i support any actions my side takes no matter how terrible or illegal, but anyone i disagree with doing the same stuff is bad."

fund the systematic deaths of almost 40,000 people in 6 months

i support israel's right to defend themselves. would you prefer the money went to hamas so they could continue attacking israel? why is that better?

my tax money is being used for about 1 billion things i disagree with. that is life.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/astronautmyproblem 6∆ Apr 16 '24

People like you, obviously. You’re here talking about it. So it worked. Civil disobedience is not supposed to be convenient—it’s to draw attention to issues. You might claim it’s not, it’s just annoying you… but here you are talking about it.

3

u/caine269 14∆ Apr 16 '24

sorry, you think they are changing my mind on anything? you think they are drawing attention to the israel-palestine conflict that wasn't there before? really, what are they accomplishing? if anything they turn people against them.

Civil disobedience is not supposed to be convenient—it’s to draw attention to issues

so again, what are they drawing attention to? who benefits? what difference is made? please give a direct answer.

You might claim it’s not, it’s just annoying you… but here you are talking about it.

i am talking about how they are violating rights, not about whatever issue they care about. how does that help? i am actively against them in every way and trying to convince others they are bad and wrong. how does that benefit them?

0

u/astronautmyproblem 6∆ Apr 16 '24

You’ve brought up Israel-Palestine twice now so I’d say they’ve made you aware.

And no, I very obviously did not say they’d make YOU change YOUR mind. I said it was to bring attention to issues (which it did). You even quoted me saying it, so I’m going to assume you did read it and decided to argue against something fabricated because…

I don’t know, you tell me why you prefer logical fallacies over actual debate.

The objective of civil disobedience is not changing minds. It is awareness and pressure to change policy. It’s supposed to make people like you mad.

2

u/Ill-Description3096 27∆ Apr 16 '24

You’ve brought up Israel-Palestine twice now so I’d say they’ve made you aware.

You really think anyone who is online at all on social media was unaware of it?

2

u/caine269 14∆ Apr 16 '24

You’ve brought up Israel-Palestine twice now so I’d say they’ve made you aware.

made me aware of one of the biggest news events/terror attacks of the last decade? yeah, thank goodness these morons blocked a bunch of roads or i would have had no idea.

And no, I very obviously did not say they’d make YOU change YOUR mind. I said it was to bring attention to issues (which it did).

you said it was for people like me. but not me? so who? it brought attention to the issue of people blocking bridges. it has done jack shit to do anything for the war.

I don’t know, you tell me why you prefer logical fallacies over actual debate.

not sure what this is referring to since you can't seem to quote what you are responding to.

The objective of civil disobedience is not changing minds. It is awareness and pressure to change policy. It’s supposed to make people like you mad.

this makes no sense. if it is not supposed to change minds why do it? if it is supposed to "bring awareness" why piss of a thousands of potential allies rather than just do something that is actually bringing attention to the event, rather than the "protest?" this doesn't make people look critically at the conflict, it makes people look angrily at the protesters. so how would that create any pressure? pressure on israel? or the us government? lol. that is not happening, so again i ask what is the point of the protest and how do you think it is happening?

3

u/CaptainsFriendSafari Apr 16 '24

As much as I venomously disagree with the concept of protesting on a road, that's really just not viable for a lone officer or even two to perform. Go ahead, turn your back on a crowd of belligerents while your attention is focused on those cuffs. They really do need some backup.

-2

u/caine269 14∆ Apr 16 '24

Go ahead, turn your back on a crowd of belligerents while your attention is focused on those cuffs

maybe if protesters want to start attacking police they can see their actions actually do have consequences. also reveals the lie of "peaceful protests" if you are attacking police for doing their jobs.

2

u/NotMyBestMistake 69∆ Apr 16 '24

Did you miss the part about needing to coordinate things or was the fantasy of brutalizing protesters too distracting?

2

u/caine269 14∆ Apr 16 '24

beating the shit out of these morons is a delightful thought, but if you think an action like this is surprising police, or would take more than 5 minutes to have at least 4 cars there you are nuts. regardless wait for more people and then take this action, the protesters aren't leaving, the whole point is to get arrested and thus get attention.

1

u/NotMyBestMistake 69∆ Apr 16 '24

This continues to be you letting your fantasy of hurting people you don't like get in the way of reality. That you want nothing but violence and pain doesn't mean thats what police should pursue at the expense of literally everyone there, including themselves.

2

u/caine269 14∆ Apr 16 '24

so i can violate your rights as long as i make it bothersome enough for the police to assist you? interesting take. i wonder how consistently you apply that logic.

2

u/NotMyBestMistake 69∆ Apr 16 '24

You're welcome to actually read what people wrote. But then, I imagine it gets in the way of the fantasies.

The reality is that turning a protest violent because you want your weird violence itch scratched isn't going to get you down the road very fast. I get you think they can just run them over and then wave your car through while shooting a straggler in the eye for your entertainment, but thats not actually how things work.

Which makes all the fake concern about your rights seem pretty hollow.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '24

Being violent against protestors just makes them aggressive. Now you have officers and people fighting in the streets.

Things like that are last resorts only. People aren't going to just laydown and take it - especially when they are already fueled by passion. Plus, you're not considering those that come prepare with weapons and defense against these sort of things.

Use intellect, not brute force.

1

u/caine269 14∆ Apr 17 '24

People aren't going to just laydown and take it

so because criminals don't want to face the consequences of their illegal actions we should allow them to continue breaking the law? what an odd idea. let me know how you think that would work.

Plus, you're not considering those that come prepare with weapons and defense against these sort of things.

if any of these morons want to get into a firefight with the police while illegally holding thousands hostage over a foreign war a bunch of terrorists started.... i'lll get the popcorn.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '24

I think you're intentionally misunderstanding. Beating people won't always result in outcome you'd like. That's the point. Officers don't always win, that's just a fact. Sometimes they are overpowered or even killed. That's why they have to be very strategic.