The latest political issues are causing more and more protests to occur by people who want to make a point at the expense of others. Recent protests have caused others to be inconvenienced when they have blocked the freeway or pathways to important locations. Recent TV coverage shows them blocking freeways for hours while the police are just standing by doing nothing while they cause problems for others. Why can’t the police just remove the protesters in a timely manner so others can proceed with their trip? Isn’t it against the law to do this? Probably many have been injured because of delays to the hospital or airport.
Thanks, Rick
Hi Rick,
Thanks for your question.
In policing, we call these types of activities passive resistance. A passive resisting protestor is a person who engages in a form of nonviolent resistance or civil disobedience. Passive resistance involves being uncooperative with authorities as a means of expressing dissent or opposition to a cause they feel strongly about. This form of protest typically avoids physical confrontation or aggressive behaviors.
Passive resistance can take various forms, such as sitting or lying down in a public space or linking arms with other protestors to form a human chain. The goal of passive resistance is often to draw attention to a cause, raise awareness, and make a statement without resorting to actual violence.
While their actions are nonviolent, they are certainly unlawful. However, it requires a certain response from policing agencies to address these demonstrators. Legal considerations, policy decisions, and the specific circumstances of each situation will dictate how police departments respond to these situations.
In the United States, the First Amendment affords people the right to assemble and express their opinions peacefully. Policing agencies respect these rights, and forcibly removing passive protestors could be seen as a violation of their freedom of speech and assembly. If we have the opportunity to engage with the organizers of the demonstration before the event, we will often provide a specific area for them to express themselves in a safe way that creates minimal impact on the rest of the community.
Police departments have specific use-of-force policies that outline the appropriate level of force that can be used in different situations. State law dictates that police officers may only use force to prevent escape, overcome resistance, or affect an arrest. The force used must be proportional and reasonable. Removing passive protestors may not meet the criteria for the use of force outlined in the use of force laws and policies.
Historically, we’ve seen instances where removing passive protestors has escalated tensions and led to violence and further resistance. Depending on the situation, police agencies may choose to prioritize de-escalation techniques to maintain public order and prevent confrontations. Further, aggressive tactics against non-violent protestors can lead to negative public perception and damage the relationship between the police and the community. As with anything in policing, maintaining a balanced and measured approach is crucial for maintaining public trust.
So, do we just leave passive, nonviolent protestors to inconvenience the rest of the community without consequence? Absolutely not.
The protestors will eventually surrender after they feel their voices are heard, then they are identified, and the appropriate legal charges are filed against them. If convicted, they may also be asked to pay a fine to recoup the cost of the emergency response.
Thanks for your great question, Rick. Please keep your questions coming Seal Beach! Email us at askacop@sealbeachca.gov today!
