[Goose]

Regardless of one politics you have to be pleased that someone finally said physically seizing another space and defacing buildings is wrong and those who choose to do so should cease to be Stanford students.  Hooray for common sense

I totally agree with you. However, it always amazes me how many people don't agree this is the case.

Having observed up close and personnel lots of student demonstrations and considered the history of many, many more, I believe that whenever an "encampment" or something similar occurs it is not going to end well no matter how "non-violent" the people occupying the site are or claim to be. If demonstrators keep moving they may turn into a mob, but they may also disperse and go home. When they take adverse possession they all remain together. This requires a continuous police presence to ensure there is no clash with opposition forces and to ensure the demonstrators do not become a disruptive mob. The police are almost always outnumbered and are therefore on edge. The demonstrators are surrounded and contained. Dispersing isn't easy and you have to cross a police line to do it.

The demonstrators are often listening to like-minded speakers that are trying to get attention. It only takes a few poorly chosen words to create a mob. Even if that doesn't happen the demonstrators quickly find out that staying in the encampment is uncomfortable and inconvenient.  They get testy. Understandably, they don't like interacting with the police and an adversarial relationship inevitably develops. People gathered in a large group also develop a sense of anonymity. They can throw rocks and shout offensive slogans and nobody will know.  Oftentimes a few people go too far and provoke the police to arrest them. The all hell breaks out. A million ways this can happen and eventually it will. There are also usually a few crazy folks in the crowd that just want to "raise cain".  Often they arrive after the occupation has already started for just that purpose.

Even if none of the above events occurs eventually the people in the encampment realize that their actions are not having the intended effect.  Seldom do the "powers that be" rapidly "give in" on all the "demands". The pressure to "up the ante" becomes strong. The fact that the demonstrators have gotten away with their actions so far reinforces the idea that their actions will have no consequences, no matter what they might be. At least some of the demonstrators inevitably lose patience and decide to "take more direct" action. Eventually somebody does something that causes the "powers that be" to say "enough" and order the police to act. From my experience this is almost inevitable. Cases where this did not happen usually have some exceptional event that caused the demonstration to break up.

[Goose]

Regardless of one politics you have to be pleased that someone finally said physically seizing another space and defacing buildings is wrong and those who choose to do so should cease to be Stanford students.  Hooray for common sense

I totally agree with you. However, it always amazes me how many people don't agree this is the case.

Having observed up close and personnel lots of student demonstrations and considered the history of many, many more, I believe that whenever an "encampment" or something similar occurs it is not going to end well no matter how "non-violent" the people occupying the site are or claim to be. If demonstrators keep moving they may turn into a mob, but they may also disperse and go home. When they take adverse possession they all remain together. This requires a continuous police presence to ensure there is no clash with opposition forces and to ensure the demonstrators do not become a disruptive mob. The police are almost always outnumbered and are therefore on edge. The demonstrators are surrounded and contained. Dispersing isn't easy and you have to cross a police line to do it.

The demonstrators are often listening to like-minded speakers that are trying to get attention. It only takes a few poorly chosen words to create a mob. Even if that doesn't happen the demonstrators quickly find out that staying in the encampment is uncomfortable and inconvenient.  They get testy. Understandably, they don't like interacting with the police and an adversarial relationship inevitably develops. People gathered in a large group also develop a sense of anonymity. They can throw rocks and shout offensive slogans and nobody will know.  Oftentimes a few people go too far and provoke the police to arrest them. The all hell breaks out. A million ways this can happen and eventually it will. There are also usually a few crazy folks in the crowd that just want to "raise cain".  Often they arrive after the occupation has already started for just that purpose.

Even if none of the above events occurs eventually the people in the encampment realize that their actions are not having the intended effect.  Seldom do the "powers that be" rapidly "give in" on all the "demands". The pressure to "up the ante" becomes strong. The fact that the demonstrators have gotten away with their actions so far reinforces the idea that their actions will have no consequences, no matter what they might be. At least some of the demonstrators inevitably lose patience and decide to "take more direct" action. Eventually somebody does something that causes the "powers that be" to say "enough" and order the police to act. From my experience this is almost inevitable. Cases where this did not happen usually have some exceptional event that caused the demonstration to break up.