VOA Chinese, Jan 6, 2015 www.voachinese.com/content/xiaox ... 150106/2588045.html
("纽约历史上唯一的一位黑人市长、1990年上任的丁勤时（David Dinkins [1927-; NYC mayor 1990-1993]）与警察的关系恐怕更糟糕。 * * * 1992年9月16日，上万警察在下班后举行抗议。数千警察包围了市政厅，另外有几千警察将交通要道布鲁克林大桥堵塞了一个小时。在抗议的警察中，有一个引人注目的面孔，那就是丁勤时在第二年 [sic; should be 次]竞选中的共和党对手朱利安尼。这次在警察活动中出头，对于他在次年 [November 1993] 的选举中击败丁勤时、赢得市长宝座起了相当重要的作用")
My comment:
(a) At Boston, there were anti-police protests in the wake of two grand juries recently declining to indict police officers who killed unarmed civilians at Ferguson, Missouri and New York City. Protesters intentionally blocks streets, in different locations and occasions. But police made no arrest on that ground (but some arrests on other grounds). I was wondering why the leniency (two stated reasons, by police, were not to 火上加油 and to wait out the protests). Now I learn, from this VOA report: "有几千警察将交通要道布鲁克林大桥堵塞了一个小时."
(b) When I read
法律窗口：在美占街警察施暴会吃官司. VOA Chinese, Oct 17, 2014 www.voachinese.com/content/occupy-central-20141017/2487833.html
(in reply to 崔哥, "警察 [replied]：武力清除，甭废话！还记得2011年占领华尔街吗？")
, I thought VOA was wrong, because
(i) there is no need to 施暴 (excessive force, proscribed by due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) or use of 武力 (resisting arrest is another crime).
(ii) 占领华尔街 in various cities of US (including in Boston) did not block traffic. Instead the protesters camped in the parks. More important, the protesters in various locations all had a pre-emptive strike and went to state courts to obtain a series of temporary restraining order (TRO; which last ten days each, and can not be appealed--unlike an injunction, which is immediately appealable) against the cities (whose agency a police department is). They did not go to federal courts, simply because First Amendment right to protest (words) excludes unlawful ACTIONS.
(iii) I now conclude, if a person blocks the traffic, police will remove the person right away. On the other hand, if a large crowd does it, police would be overwhelmed.