[weberc2]

> There is a long history of blocking crucial infrastructure during civil unrest and protesting. Its used as a tactic because its effective. Nothing about it is new or specific to today's society.

What does this have to do with anything? Is this supposed to justify the tactics?

> How does that justify potentially infringing upon the protected rights of the protestors?

Why do you think police need justification to enforce the law without infringing on the rights of protesters?

[crazypyro]

>What does this have to do with anything? Is this supposed to justify the tactics?

Original commenter specifically mentioned "at time..." which I took as an implication that there was something special about today's society.

>Why do you think police need justification to enforce the law without infringing on the rights of protesters?

Because you don't lose your rights when you protest, even if you break the law? The police don't have ultimate power to enforce the law. There are purposeful limits to the power of the police. That's the point of having certain rights enshrined into the legal system. Do you disagree?

[weberc2]

You misread my statement. To be clear, the police don't need extra justification to enforce the law so long as they are respecting the rights of the protesters.