Act differently to different types of protestors.

[Wonder Why]

Those whose protest, signs and voices that attack Jewish people should be arrested and charged with hate crimes if appropriate. Those deliberately inhibiting police from arresting or removing someone should be considered guilty of aiding and abetting a crime.

Those who intimidate others, attack others or commit acts of violence should similarly be treated.

Those who peacefully protest a country's war or mistreatment of it's citizens or citizens of other countries should be allowed to do so.

Students peacefully protesting on their college's property should be allowed to do so.

Non-students should be removed from college property unless they are authorized to be there.

The police need to pick and choose the violators vs mass pushing, arresting or removal without regard to what the individual is doing. If there are not enough police to be able to act in a fair and humane way, then the National Guard should assist but the rules should be the same. That means they must be trained in crowd control and first amendment rights.

Just my opinion.

And this applies to other types of protest.

[Autumn]

1. Wow.

[atreides1]

2. Interesting premise

But trespassing laws don't work like that.

I was in the National Guard before I enlisted for active duty...we're not trained to make a determination on why someone is protesting, we were trained to go in and clear the area and let law enforcement and the courts decide the rest.

[Think. Again.]

5. Yes, LEO training is a major problem in the U.S.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

3. lol what on earth

[Autumn]

10. Does anybody remember Kent State?

[Think. Again.]

4. Are you suggesting Law and Order?

Shocking.

[brooklynite]

6. "Those who peacefully protest"...

...provided that they don't interfere with the rights of others to go about their lives. Blocking roads, bridges, train stations, community meetings, etc. are counterproductive and should be stopped.

[justaprogressive]

7. Nope.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Seems pretty clear to me.

So when the protestors' lives are "inconvenienced" that's ok.

but when YOU'RE inconvenienced it needs to stop NOW!

[Wonder Why]

8. "the right of the people peaceably to assemble". Isn't that what I said? And we do have laws about hate speech.

My point was that the police need to take actions against criminal activity, hate speech, and death threats but not peaceful protestors. I don't understand your point. Aren't you agreeing with me?

[stopdiggin]

12. peaceable assembly

has never included or endorsed ANY action - by any sized group - in any area - on anyone's property ...

thank god the 'framers' were not such total nitwits ....

[BannonsLiver]

9. Several in the thread have made it clear they support or are not bothered by the intimidation and violence

But I agree with your overall point.

[stopdiggin]

11. invariably - the police have been requested to clear a certain area

(supposedly by people with the authority to authorize)
Following this (and ample warning to 'occupiers') those individuals that fail to leave voluntarily are no longer 'lawful' in their actions or presence. And at this point it really doesn't matter if you are a student, faculty, college dean, or random passer by. You've been given a lawful order to 'leave' this particular property or area - and failure to do so makes you subject to arrest for a variety of things (most often trespass, failure to, disorderly, blocking and/or interference .. ). Further - if you are so foolish as to clash and fight with LE, you are also looking at assault, resisting .. etc. All of which are determined by the individual's actions following a lawful order.

Protest obviously can be carried out in a legal fashion. There are times however when that is neither the aim nor intent - and everybody should be aware the dynamic at play - and the consequences therein.

And it should be fairly apparent at this point that LE did NOT just randomly show up at XYZ quad to pick on a particular political group or inhibit free speech. They came because the owner (or other authorized authority) asked them to address illegal activity.