I happen to agree with you, in a sense; I have the utmost respect for civil disobedience, but civil disobedience implicitly invites certain legal consequences, and should therefore not be attempted by those unwilling to accept those consequences. In addition to coining the term "civil disobedience," Thoreau went to jail for practicing it, and quarreled fiercely with his friend and mentor, Emerson, when the latter paid the fine securing his release. The whole point of passive resistance is to not just refuse participation in a flawed system, but passively resist it, accept the consequence of that and thereby expose and spotlight flaws one seeks to change. Martin Luther King did the same, and Gandhi, and pretty much all the heroes of civil disobedience and civil rights, and none of them resorted to hurling things at police or soldiers in the process. People who just show up to hurl insults and projectiles at policemen then claim the resultant arrests are inherently abusive are not activists, but just the very malcontents, malingerers and muckrakers many OWSers are accused of being. Those actions are destructive, not constructive, worsen rather than remedy social ills, and are therefore unworthy of support.

That said, painting every demonstrator with that broad brush is unfair. As noted in my response to Cannoli, it is a disservice to the legacy of men like Thoreau, Gandhi and King to lump them in with every shiftless disgruntled vagrant who would rather pick a fight with the nearest cop than get a job. Sometimes greivances are valid, which is why the Constitution explicitly asserts Americans right both to petition for their redress and to PEACEABLY assemble for that and other reasons. Many of the greivances from OWS are valid. Unfortunately, too many of those protesters too often express them in offensive and pointlessly confrontational ways, and seem largely lacking any constructive suggestions on how to remedy the social flaws they perceive, but seeking legitimate goals in illegitimate ways makes only the means, not the ends, unacceptable. Deliberate provocation undermines their effectiveness, but pretending it invalidates all their arguments is the same kind of oversimplified, willful and counterproductive ignorance of which they are guilty. When 10% of the country is unemployed and nearly as many cannot get enough work to pay their bills, telling them to sit down and shut up when they complain about it only worsens the problem.

It is also a little hypocritical in people who defend the rights of demonstrators with whom they sympathize to warn the Fed Chairman to avoid TX because he would not be safe there, or insist there is nothing wrong with a rabble rouser telling her followers "don't retreat, reload." I naturally see that threat police "WILL be treated in the manner deserved of enemy combatants the world over" in the same light, but anyone who deems that kind of language acceptable from partisans on their own side should have no objection to it from those on the other. For my part, it is wrong in all cases, and that I expected it from OWS for many of the same reasons I expected it from the Tea Party is much of why, despite sharing many of their political views, I had no desire to lend OWS my support. Beyond that, all I can say is that at least they are not publicly advocating treason or secession, which is more than I can say for Todd Palin or Rick Perry.