> Do they have the right to block the road while doing so? For hours?
Phrasing it as "blocking the road" is dragging in a bunch of assumptions. Another way of looking at it is that the protestors are using the road to the exclusion of others, in the same way that a parade or even rush hour traffic does. This is a judgment call, but given that protests aren't terribly common, I think the large group of people doing work to air their grievances deserves the benefit of the doubt. Remember, the entire point of a protest is to express outrage in a way that may be uncomfortable for everyone else.
> Eventually the police say that it's enough. They either order the crowd to disperse, or try to arrest someone. The crowd, being by this time mostly troublemakers, won't disperse peacefully and won't accept having one of their members arrested without going the rounds with the cops
This is the crux of the problem - the police asserting that they have the right to say "that's enough", declare a protest over, and then commit violence against anyone in the area. The dynamic is accelerated since the protest is explicitly against the police.
The police need to either stick to arresting specific people committing crimes, or withdraw and accept that their authority has become overwhelmed in an area. Escalating the lawlessness by committing violence against the entire group is unacceptable in a society based around individual freedom.
Well, as the law is written, the police do in fact have the right (under certain circumstances) to declare a gathering to be a riot, and to demand that it disperse. Those who refuse are in fact breaking the law, and can therefore be arrested, even under your criteria.
And I argue that it should in fact be that way, at least in some circumstances. If you have a large group of people, some of whom are committing, say, vandalism, and the group's boldness is growing as they see that they can get away with such acts, and the group is making kind of a compact body, so that it's difficult for officers to reach and arrest any individual who has committed a crime, then... what? Just let it go on, because it's "just vandalism" (so far)? Then what do you do when it isn't just vandalism (if in fact it continues to escalate)? Or do you just trust that it won't continue to escalate? "Just trust people who are already breaking laws" doesn't seem like a reasonable police approach. Or do you just let it escalate however far it's going to, because violence by the police is unacceptable in all cases?
> I think the large group of people doing work to air their grievances deserves the benefit of the doubt.
I do, too... but not forever. That is, they want to block a road for a protest? Sure. It's inconvenient, but they have the right. They want to block it every day for two months? That's a bit of a different question.
The rule of law inherently relies on society buying into the concept, and most everyone doing their part to enforce it. Most crime is prevented by people themselves choosing to follow societal norms and people keeping each other in check. Lack of respect for this dynamic is a large part of how the rule of law has been slowly undermined - eg use of the legal system to force outside norms onto subcultures, known as the "war on drugs".
When a large group has collectively decided to abandon some laws, the rule of law has already broken down. Citizens rightly outnumber police, and looking for a top-down response is fallacious. The real question to be asking is why have so many citizens become so disenfranchised as to start rejecting laws? For protests, answering this is quite straightforward - the entire point of a protest is to tell you.
At what point are police justified in attacking a rowdy group? At the very least it needs to be equitable. If the group is committing property crimes such as vandalism and graffiti, responding with physical violence is itself a significant escalation.
Furthermore, I don't think it's fair to assert that the group will continue to escalate - just because they have abandoned respect for some laws does not mean the group has abandoned all moral code.
As I started off saying, the real solution to policing low level crimes is to deploy small units of officers distributed throughout the group. If those officers are attacked, only then do they have the right to defend themselves with force. What the police have been doing in the name of control has mostly been a state sanctioned counter protest, complete with battle lines.
> the entire point of a protest is to express outrage in a way that may be uncomfortable for everyone else
It sounds like your idea of a protest is necessarily aggravating. That may be non-violent, but it isn't peaceful.
> unacceptable in a society based around individual freedom
The mob aren't acting as individuals - which is the point, and any actual individuals are no longer free to use the road, which has been taken to the exclusion of others - your freedom has to end where in limits mine.
Also, a large component of the threat posed by the mob is the anonymity it grants individuals to commit crimes; No society based around individual freedom should allow that kind of freedom.
> It sounds like your idea of a protest is necessarily aggravating. That may be non-violent, but it isn't peaceful.
"No justice, no peace". Yes, protests obviously aren't peaceful. They're also generally responses to conditions that are not peaceful. If this is supposed to be a condemnation, then I'm happy that online petitions suffice for you.
> individuals are no longer free to use the road
Just like parades or rush hour traffic, as I said.
Phrasing it as "blocking the road" is dragging in a bunch of assumptions. Another way of looking at it is that the protestors are using the road to the exclusion of others, in the same way that a parade or even rush hour traffic does. This is a judgment call, but given that protests aren't terribly common, I think the large group of people doing work to air their grievances deserves the benefit of the doubt. Remember, the entire point of a protest is to express outrage in a way that may be uncomfortable for everyone else.
> Eventually the police say that it's enough. They either order the crowd to disperse, or try to arrest someone. The crowd, being by this time mostly troublemakers, won't disperse peacefully and won't accept having one of their members arrested without going the rounds with the cops
This is the crux of the problem - the police asserting that they have the right to say "that's enough", declare a protest over, and then commit violence against anyone in the area. The dynamic is accelerated since the protest is explicitly against the police.
The police need to either stick to arresting specific people committing crimes, or withdraw and accept that their authority has become overwhelmed in an area. Escalating the lawlessness by committing violence against the entire group is unacceptable in a society based around individual freedom.