Police use mace to disperse protesters in downtown Columbus



A protest in downtown Columbus came to an end after police used mace on the crowd who said the protesters were blocking traffic Monday evening.
The Columbus chapter of Socialist Alternative announced the march on the group’s Facebook page.

Members say they are protesting Trump’s policies on everything from immigration to border patrol, minimum wage, police force and the rights of the LGBTQ community.


My guess is that they used pepper spray rather than mace. Anyway, despite what some future posters will inevitably argue, this is a completely legal use of pepper and is employed frequently in situations where people refuse to obey lawful commands. It enables police to disperse large unlawfully assembled crowds without harming anyone or wasting time making arrests.


Why are they protesting GLBQT rights? Are they just throwing that in there?

That would be quite disrespectful to GLBTQ folks if they are…


I’ll never look at a bowl of alphabet soup the same again.

It’s the Vegan alternative to harmful chemicals!


It being legal or common doesn’t make it okay.


So, how would you propose to break up an illegal demonstration of non-responsive/angry protestors? Appeal to conscience? A reminder that they are inconveniencing people who disagree with them? Gift certificates to the local Starbucks? It is called law enforce-ment, not law suggestion-ment. This non-toxic solution is an alternative to the standard police beat-down. Problem with that?


Ah OC…turns tough guys into drooling, crying idiots everytime. I commend the Police for handling these thugs in such a swift, professional manner.


Yeah I do have problem with this vision of a police state. Peaceful protests shouldn’t be broken up.


Sounds like the words other countries use…


Yeah I do have problem with this vision of a police state. Peaceful protests shouldn’t be broken up.


I wouldn’t.


Personally, I’m opposed to the police gassing protesters, but if they decide to do it, that’s pro-choice.

So, you would bow to whichever protest group is unlawfully disrupting streets, interstates or businesses? Notice that this is about unlawful protests.

I guess some would prefer a protester state to a “police state”? But, what number do you call when it’s an emergency and you need a protester ASAP?


Let me take a wild guess: your favourite music group is NWA. :smiley:


This “peaceful protest” was unlawfully blocking streets. I’m curious about your position that “peaceful protests” shouldn’t be broken up:

  1. Did you mean a peaceful protest held in a lawful manner should not be broken up…like on a sidewalk…allowing people to move about their business and not interrupting the flow of traffic?


  1. Do you mean that we should allow “peaceful protests” to block traffic?

Please clarify.


Just like abortion, huh?

The police often are put in a difficult position. If a crowd is blocking traffic and refuse a lawful order to disperse then law enforcement has very few options. In many cases the crowds are unruly and both officers and protestors could get injured if officers wade in and start to physically remove people from the crowd. In those cases the use of pepper spray or tear gas is the least damaging course of action.

The simple solution is for people to follow lawful orders to disperse rather than to continue to break the law.


So you both support people breaking the law while simultaneously complaining about the police doing their jobs? If a burglar just walked into your house then I guess the police shouldn’t do anything either since they are non-violent.


Same for these ridiculous protests


Protests are an integral part of America.


So is the protection of its citizens.

The police acted appropriately. :thumbsup:


Agreed. Protests are indeed an integral part of America…law abiding protests.

The problem with allowing people to block streets is very simple, and to illustrate my point, I’ll give you an example:

My son went to college in California and a friend of his participated in a protest that shut down one of the San Francisco bay bridges. The protesters were calling attention to the mistreatment of Palestinians. Very noble.

The problem was that in shutting down the bridges, it was reported that an ambulance was delayed getting to a hospital with a patient, who later suffered brain damage.

What right does a protester have to say that their protest of unlawfully shutting down a public bridge or road supersedes the right of another person to emergency healthcare?

To broaden my point: What right does a protester have to say that their unlawful protest supersedes the right of a minimum wage worker to get to work on time? Or supersedes the right of a business to have customers freely enter their business?

I’m all for legal protesting and following the rules. I hope you do too, and you see my point.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.