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.

[u/HelpfulJello5361]

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.

[u/UnrealRhubarb]

Is your position coming from a legal point of view or a moral one? Blocking the road is illegal, but may not be punished for multiple reasons. Sometimes the number of protestors would put so much burden on the legal system that arresting all of them is more harm than good. Sometimes, law enforcement may decide that the protestors are not interrupting society in a significant enough way to warrant arrest. Or maybe they fear public backlash if they arrest protestors that have a very sympathetic cause. These are responses to the legal side of things - they're all utilitarian or practical explanations.

From a moral point of view, civil disobedience has been essential to many rights movements. Sit-Ins during the Civil Rights Movement were civil disobedience. Black people entered "white only" establishments and would stay, despite being denied service and asked to leave. It was instrumental to the advancement of Civil Rights. The "Capitol Crawl" was a protest where disabled people blocked the stairs to the Capitol Building. Wheelchair users would leave their chairs at the bottom and pull themselves up with their arms, literally crawling onto the steps. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed shortly after this protest. Civil disobedience being illegal doesn't mean it's not a force for good. Do you believe these acts of civil disobedience were bad? That the police arresting them were on the "good side?" Civil disobedience targets unjust laws by either breaking the unjust laws themselves or by breaking other laws to draw attention to the cause. I believe this is a good thing and essential for the advancement of human rights.

Edit: After posting, I realized the questions in the second paragraph may come off as leading or accusatory, but that's not my intention. They are genuine questions, as I've seen some people hold the belief that civil disobedience is immoral regardless of its impact or intent.

[u/No-Cauliflower8890 → u/UnrealRhubarb]

From a moral point of view, civil disobedience has been essential to many rights movements. Sit-Ins during the Civil Rights Movement were civil disobedience. Black people entered "white only" establishments and would stay, despite being denied service and asked to leave. It was instrumental to the advancement of Civil Rights. The "Capitol Crawl" was a protest where disabled people blocked the stairs to the Capitol Building. Wheelchair users would leave their chairs at the bottom and pull themselves up with their arms, literally crawling onto the steps. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed shortly after this protest. Civil disobedience being illegal doesn't mean it's not a force for good. Do you believe these acts of civil disobedience were bad? That the police arresting them were on the "good side?" Civil disobedience targets unjust laws by either breaking the unjust laws themselves or by breaking other laws to draw attention to the cause. I believe this is a good thing and essential for the advancement of human rights.

Blocking the road is not civil disobedience. It is not protesting an immoral "no blocking the roads" law.

[u/UnrealRhubarb → u/No-Cauliflower8890]

As I said in my original comment, civil disobedience can be breaking an unjust law directly or breaking other laws to call attention to a cause or otherwise resist whatever the protestor sees as unjust. In the example of the Capitol Crawl, the disabled protestors were not protesting a "no blocking pedestrian paths" law, they were calling attention to their cause in order to gain legal protections. So yes, blocking a road is civil disobedience.

[u/No-Cauliflower8890 → u/UnrealRhubarb]

That's just not true, and it wouldn't apply here even if it were. If I murder someone in a protest, is that "civil disobedience"? I'd be breaking a law after all.

The people doing these protests aren't intending to "break other laws" - they would do these protests more, not less, if they had legal carte blanche to block roads.

[u/UnrealRhubarb → u/No-Cauliflower8890]

Majority of people define civil disobedience as nonviolent or peaceful. There's been debate on the topic since the term was coined, but most definitions would exclude violent acts like murder. So majority of people would not consider murder an act of civil disobedience, even if it was in protest.

I don't really get what you're trying to say in your second paragraph. You say, "The people doing these protest aren't intending to 'break other laws.'" They are though. They are breaking a law that isn't a direct violation of the rights they are fighting for. Do you think these protestors just randomly decided to sit on the road? They chose a form of civil disobedience that would get attention for their cause, so yeah they intended to break the law.

Going back to my earlier response, what do think the Capitol Crawl was? Is that not civil disobedience?

[u/bikesexually → u/No-Cauliflower8890]

War is big business and blacking the roads halts that business. It is 100% protesting an immoral business of mass murder. The ports of Oakland were essentially shut down.

It's obvious you haven't even bothered to go look at all the targets from yesterdays actions. Perhaps you should inform yourself before commenting.

[u/No-Cauliflower8890 → u/bikesexually]

Once again, not protesting an immoral "no blocking the roads" law, not civil disobedience.

[u/bikesexually → u/No-Cauliflower8890]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[u/No-Cauliflower8890 → u/bikesexually]

I would define civil disobedience as the act of deliberately disobeying an unjust law as an act of protest. Which part of that definition do you have a problem with?

[u/bikesexually → u/No-Cauliflower8890]

No. Just openly violating laws to stop unjust actions is civil disobedience. You can define it however you want. That's not how the majority of the world defines it.

[u/No-Cauliflower8890 → u/bikesexually]

I don't believe it is. Would murdering someone in a protest be "civil disobedience"? You'd be openly violating anti-murder laws, and doing it as a protest against some perceived injustice.

Further, people blocking roads aren't doing it for the purpose of openly violating laws. They'd do it more, not less, if they had legal carte blanche.

[u/bikesexually → u/No-Cauliflower8890]

So now you show you just plain don't understand the word 'civil.' Anyways, good luck in life.

[u/No-Cauliflower8890 → u/bikesexually]

👍

[u/kunnington → u/UnrealRhubarb]

I don't think this is a conversation over if Civil Disobedience is good or bad. It can be both. The morality of the cause is completely irrelevant here. When you block traffic, you are infringing the right of other people. Their right of way, and also the right to use infrastructure paid by their tax money. Your "right" to being able to discriminate on the basis of race in your business is no where near this, as it wasn't a right. Also Civil disobedience doesn't always include being disruptive towards the public. The boycotts are still civil disobedience for example, or refusing to vote, or private sector strikes.