Your pithy argument supports my impulsive reaction to the police attack on #occupyBoston that the militarized police vs. non-violent protestors who challenge the state's whims made me think of Gwangju in 1980, and to a lesser extent 1968 Chicago, as well as Seattle in 1999. I viewed Gwangju's memorial this summer and thought about the media complicity with Chun Doo-hwan: claiming the protestors were spies from North Korea, communists, etc. People there vividly remember what happened and told us of the military repression and violence, the protests (started over dress codes and hair length: civil rights and freedom of expression) and the failure to report deaths, the military denial of using deadly force. The US government supported Chun and continues to treat its perceived enemies, whether foreign or domestic, with military response and media cover-up complicity. The actions of the Oakland Police Department only confirm my reaction.
It is my understanding that in some cities (Seattle, for example), the police are advising mayors on legal issues of #occupy . Are cities so underfunded that they no longer have city attorneys? Perhaps it's time for come community pro bono legal advice: the police and the city are responsible and liable for being the real threat to public safety.