POLL: Did Police Overreact to Occupy Boston?
Boston police arrested more than 100 Occupy Boston protesters early Tuesday morning. Some have criticized their tactics. Was the police action too strong?
Early Tuesday morning, Boston police arrested 141 protesters who were involved in Occupy Boston protests in the city.
The arrests came after protesters expanded their tent city from Dewey Square into part of the Rose Kennedy Greenway, an area police had asked protesters to stay away from.
News reports and videos taken of the arrests document police engaging in what some have called excessive force.
What do you think? Were Boston police out of line, or did the protesters get what they deserved?
Kasey Hariman
9:40 am on Wednesday, October 12, 2011
What are Patch readers thoughts on this question? Why did folks choose the answer they did? Let's get a discussion going!
Ryan White
1:25 pm on Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Some lost their cool but they're cops, not buddhas. I'm sure most want to make the city proud just as much as some of the protesters
Lauren
2:59 pm on Wednesday, October 12, 2011
I am struggling with this one. Having been there and hearing the diversity of accounts, its seems that some instances were out of line while some instances were reasonable. I know that police had made it clear that occupying that territory would lead to arrest. The protesters did not want to be arrested, so when police are ordered to arrest people who do not want to be arrested, they will need to use some sort of physical force. Some definitely went too far. I don't know what the expectations of the protesters were, if they went limp to resist arrest. Would the police simply not arrest them? Clearly not. I was there, at the other camp because I was told I was needed at the other camp. I had close personal friends running between camps with updates. I chose "yes" in the poll, because I think there was some overreaction by the police, but I struggle with this, because police are human, tension was high, and I've heard so many different and contradictory reports about the events.
Joe Gray
5:44 pm on Wednesday, October 12, 2011
I wasn't there and I'm waffling on this one. A bad situation gone worse and Menino fervently defending/justifying his decisions and police actions all over the news today.
Menino not apologizing, not admitting police did anything wrong and demanding proof, if anyone says that they did.
Eric Yanco
7:30 am on Thursday, October 13, 2011
While I don't agree with their rationale, I am not against the protesters wanting to be heard. But, police and city management have been cooperative and tolerant of them even without permits. When asked to move from the Greenway, they could have showed the same cooperative spirit and moved by they chose to roll the dice. The moment anyone decides to ignore police orders, they go from mere protester to resister. Resisters must be dealt with some force because not doing so can imply weakness and embolden potential agitators. The police also don't know what to expect and must show command and control as quickly as possible and sustain it.
As I've said elsewhere, the police aren't massage therapists. You want to resist, you don't deserve to be slugged but if you get pushed or tossed in an effort to move you along and out, you brought it on yourself.
Kasey Hariman
10:58 am on Thursday, October 13, 2011
How do you feel about the police throwing out the protesters even though the Greenway conservancy themselves approved the protesters camping there? Do the rules about "unlawful assembly" change if turf owners give their permission?
Chris Caesar
11:03 am on Thursday, October 13, 2011
Yo, just to be clear - the protesters were told to leave a second encampment that branched out from the first one. While they have tentative permission to stay at that first encampment, the second encampment had some new renovations and landscaping that I guess were of some concern.
The Exec. Dir. of the non-profit that manages the Greenway came and asked the protesters to respect the second encampment if they decided to stay, to cheers and unanimous consent by the protesters. Some protesters took that to mean she was giving them permission to stay, but that was not what I heard.
Joe Gray
2:42 pm on Thursday, October 13, 2011
There go my union dues. I guess I'm supporting the OccupyBoston protest now no matter what:
http://www.necn.com/10/13/11/Occupy-Boston-getting-support/landing_newengland.html?blockID=576818&feedID=4206