[JoeRedskin]

I am at work and can't view the clip. With that caveat, here's my two cents:

Given the numbers involved and the fact that protests are all taking place in the heart of very busy cities, I would suggest that the fact that only one protester has been seriously injured is a testament to the restraint of both the police and the protestors. I would suggest that, had the OWS movement tried this stunt in the 50's, 60's or even early 70's, that the level of violence would have been significantly higher. I commend both sides for conducting a mostly civil, mostly peaceful protest that is mostly safe to the property and person of those not choosing to be part of the protest. I do not doubt there will be an investigation into Mr. Scott's injury and, if the police are determined to have acted in an unprofessional manner that caused harm, sanctions will follow (again, crowd control has come a long way since the 60's - as I am not convinced such an investigation would have happened then).

Crowd control by police of large - otherwise peaceful - crowds is an innately tricky, tense affair. Crowds can become mobs quickly and a mob can become a dangerous, powerful force of indiscriminate destruction just as quickly. Thus, what starts as a peaceful protest can quickly turn into an uncontrollable destructive force - have we already forgotten London?

If the police have been heavy handed at times, I would suggest that, in countless confrontations, they have also dispersed disruptive crowds in a manner consistent with the law and with the rights of citizens who either oppose or chose to ignore the protest. As I have said before, non-OWS folks have the right to go about their lives without being subjected to illegal traffic/pedestrian obstructions by the OWS. OWS may have the right to protest, but everyone else has the right to use public property to get to work, school or simply for their own lawful enjoyment of the same. Only a fool would fail to see that, for the police doing so, balancing the rights of these two groups is an extremely tricky and dangerous proposition.

I would hope all agree that some type of police monitoring of any large, organized crowd is necessary - particularly in city settings where close contact with individuals not part of the protest is both imminent and can occur in large volume. Further, in such settings, the congested nature of buildings and people exponentially increase the number of potential "sparks" that could turn the crowd to mob and mob to violence. Obviously, the police themselves also create, by their mere presense, potential conflict and is something that must be considered in determining the size and nature of the police presence.

All of this is simply to say, despite the recent portrayal of the police as a bunch of goose stepping stormtroopers, I believe that they have, in the main, acted with professionalism and have managed a tense situation well. Not perfectly - but well. The protestors have rights but so do the rest of the public and balancing those competing rights on the streets, in the middle of a congested metropolis, day after day is not an easy affair.

Again, in light of all the surrounding circumstances, I commend both sides on the lack of violence, damage and/or injury to protesters, police, property and non-participants.