The courts, that's why we have them. You might also like to recall that at least some of the occupy movements involved violent and wholly unecessary destruction of private property, eg Occupy Oakland. Sure, that was only a few fringe anarchists who had attached themselves to the ideologically pure movement, but that's little different from the 'few bad apples' excuse that is sometimes advanced to forestall criticism of police misbehavior.
You are absolutely right about it being the responsibility of the courts. But when government, police and courts are all lined up against the people, then that which was formerly unthinkable - such as armed revolt - should become seriously considered options. When, and only when.
In the case of Occupy Oakland, it is worth noting that the Oakland police were the first to escalate to violence. This is one of the central paradoxes of policing. It is the job of the police to see that the peace is kept. Surprisingly often, preemptive force is an ineffective means to that end.
Incidentally the phrase "a few bad apples" originally meant the opposite of what it means now. Originally it was a recognition that a single bad apple would spoil the whole barrel, so if you found a few bad apples your default assumption was that the whole barrel was at risk. It, therefore, was an argument that if you find some bad apples, there is cause for increased scrutiny.
But when government, police and courts are all lined up against the people, then that which was formerly unthinkable - such as armed revolt - should become seriously considered options. When, and only when.
I've visited several totalitarian countries. We have a hell of a long way to go before I take such suggestions seriously in the context of the US.
In the case of Occupy Oakland, it is worth noting that the Oakland police were the first to escalate to violence.
I live in Oakland and paid careful attention to the Occupy protests. The local anarchists did not attack the police first, but they were perfectly happy to trash buildings from coffee shops to convenience stores in furtherance of their disbelief in the idea of private property. Earlier last year, similarly minded people were perfectly happy to protest the shooting by police of a wanted criminal who produced a gun while running away from a transit fare inspector by trashing a subway station in San Francisco and smashing the ticket and fare machines: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2P5LIrFDXc
The person who got shot was on the run from Washington state, where he had raped and killed his ex-girlfriend. When challenged by a fare inspector he ran from the bus, produced and brandished a gun, then tripped and shot himself in the neck. The resulting protests, though ostensibly about police brutality (non-existent in this case), were organized by the same people who oppose any kind of transit fare increase ever and are continually trying to gin up civil disobedience actions with slogans such as 'can't pay - won't pay.'
I'm more familiar with their ideology than I want to be because they make a habit of plastering my neighborhood in Oakland with their 'revolutionary' agit-prop (using plaster makes them almost impossible to remove and creates an eyesore as the paper rots away over a period of a year or so). They also like to plaster and spray-paint their views on top of local community art projects like murals, on the theory that their revolutionary messages are 'more important.'
Fuck these people. This isn't armed revolt against a just cause, it's malicious vandalism.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Occupy_Oakland it was the use of tear gas and beanbag rounds on Oct 25. This resulted in Scott Olsen (ex-marine and Iraq veteran) suffering a skull fracture and needing to be hospitalized.
That timeline gives Nov 2 as the first truly violent act by protestors, namely the setting of a police barricade on fire while the police were attacking the protestors with tear gas, etc. (I'm not counting the tearing up of deposit slips on Oct 22 as violent - and the protestors cleaned up the mess that they caused on that occasion.)
...whose sovereignty is what backs a constitution, which is what courts derive their authority from. Devoid of institutions, 'the people' are no more than a mob, which lacks anything more than a pretense of moral authority.
From the point of view of the minority, that's still all "the State" is: a mob. "majority rule" is just a euphemism for "tyranny of the majority" or "mob rule". And even a representative republic system still can't guarantee that the majority don't violate the rights of the minority.
Let's say you were an innocent man, wrongly convicted of murder by a jury. Would you feel that the State truly was justified in imprisoning you for life or executing you? I mean, the "institution" of a court and judge and a jury decided to do it, so does that make it OK?
