Is it your opinion that law enforcement isn't allowed to use physical force to coerce anyone breaking the law to comply with orders to disperse until they've been the targets of similar physical force?

Say 300 people gather in a public park, and the ordinances say no overnight camping.  You tell them 100 times to pack up and leave, or they will be arrested and their tents removed and destroyed.

The campers don't have to initiate any violence.  You ask them, then you tell them, then you reason with them, then you order them, then you explain what happens next.  At what point is does it become the protesters' fault for the consequences they suffer?

Cops are allowed to use reasonable force to get someone to comply with their orders.  If, when force is applied, they still won't comply, you turn up the force level.  If they resist, you have the right to keep elevating the amount of force exerted. 

Is it your belief that the Cops have a limit as to how much force they can use to coerce compliance after which they should let the noncompliant law breaker/s win? 

We've seen protesters chain their wrists together inside lengths of PVC pipe to prevent the chains and locks from being removed.  They refuse to stand and walk creating a dead weight that takes lots of people at once to carry them away.

I think the Cops should be allowed to use as much force as necessary if the crowd is not complying with lawful orders. 

If they are being removed in violation of free speech rights however (no behavior other than words and in a place they can legally be), then that's a matter for the courts.  Sue the government actors involved for that. 

Ignoring the police when they are doing crowd control or clearing an illegal campsite won't end well.  They have a duty to keep the peace and enforce the laws.  You can't put up a tent where you shouldn't and then claim it can't be touched because "free speech."

If I'm ever in such a situation, it'll be because I want a confrontation with police.  Since my brain works, I understand the concept of consequences.

#FAFO

It's clear that you support a police state as long as it lines up with your beliefs.

It's always been clear you hate all government and all law enforcement.

It's clear that you support a police state as long as it lines up with your beliefs.

The question that needs to be asked is were they being violent enough to deserve such treatment? If we start to cheer on police state tactics to suppress free speech then we are basically giving them permission to do it to us when it's our turn to stand up for something.

How dare you accuse HB of that!

I thought I am the only one that despises the Power Okole and its militarized domestic police that is there to keep its subject citizens under its boot.

The question that needs to be asked is were they being violent enough to deserve such treatment?
...

Expanding this a bit further; it is also my observation that he and many other anti-democrats support the US imperial proxy wars of aggression to Russia and China as well as anti-freedom domestic policies such as denying free speech that goes against its imperial policy as long as it aligns with their personal biases and most importantly does not take away their gun rights.

The United States of America:  EU's Ally 

More like Fair Weather Friend.  Who needs those.

Similar to the US empire blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline, you are totally 100% right.

I really get tired of your "US empire".
It is the Democrat empire, don't include the rest of us with those
reprobates.
 

Similar to the US empire blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline, you are totally 100% right.

Me, too.

OMG...

We have one of them here!!!