[rtkwe]

> And they see this people is using P2P technology which is almost impossible to control, so they use all legal means at their disposal. I'm not a legal expert but I'd bet that going through the terrorism route is the only way they have to do something about it.

Framing it another way they're using trumped up terrorism charges to invoke powers that were not meant to be used against protests. Police powers are intentionally limited so that the full force of the state doesn't come crushing down on people speeding and using over blown charges to access those additional powers is very reminiscent of past slides away from democracy.

> I don't think it's reasonable to expect the police forces to do nothing.

That's the problem there's always more a police force can do, restricting that impulse to order and action is important to resist the slow slide towards police states.

[lostphilosopher]

This is a fundamental question any government or citizenry has to ask itself:

Under what circumstances, if any, should the police stand down?

[rtkwe]

It's a very tough question and not one that's ever really answered formally. The US Constitution has a vague definition but the line has been redrawn and erased so many times.

[smsm42]

In theory, it's an easy question: when nobody's natural rights are being violated, police should not intervene. In practice, of course, no police force ever limits themselves to that, so the question becomes - how much the citizens would agree to tolerate and under which sauce? Experience shows, that the first is "a lot" and the second is "depending on how much you scare them, if you are good at scaring, you can pull off practically anything".