[mason240]

>A protest is an organized expression of dissatisfaction, not anarchy--they're obeying the law as much as everyone else.

No on is disputing this, the key part being "obeying the law."

>Critical infrastructure almost always has redundancies, and in case there isn't one (e.g. a protest in front of a hospital), the police should just clear a route with minimum force and no legal actions afterwards.

And here is the bait the switch. Now the protesters are no longer law abiding.

>Absolutely. Conservatives, reactionaries, and fascists have exactly the same rights that I do.

So you supported the Oregon protesters that occupied Federal land in protest?

[hx87]

> And here is the bait the switch. Now the protesters are no longer law abiding.

You mean bait & switch. It isn't--in many cases marches and protests are lawful even if they block roads. If they aren't, use muscle, batons, and shields so that the law is no longer being violated. Don't go after them afterwards.

> So you supported the Oregon protesters that occupied Federal land in protest?

Absolutely, up to the point where guns became involved.