Just my 2 cents here.
People look at Occupy Oakland as a whole 1000 dollar loan today.
Therefor, its not possible to claim an action is non violent, when there are people acting violently or provoking illegal actions that only have the goal of provoking a response.
The same goes for shields and other weapons. When you march with shields, the group sends the message they are going to war. War is an act of violence.
And here is the difference between OO and the sane world. 99% of the people would and do see OO as violent, with constant violent actions.
1%, who will now respond with words of hate, will claim their acts of violence and provocation are non violent, and that its always the police acting as tools of the elected officials who are violent.
Ok, extremist nut jobs : go!
It could be a toss up, but I would side with shields are in no way violent. It’s a very intellegent way to protect yourself from attack.
However, once the group is attacked, it needs to be determined how long to remain being attacked before withdrawing.
If the defense is holding, then going forward may be OK. This would depend on the objective of the action.
If the defense is not holding, then withdrawing would be a wiser action.
Bullshit. “When you march with shields, the group sends the message they are going to war.” That’s like saying if a woman carries Mace in her purse, she’s looking to get raped.