I really do not want to get between ya'll (though I probably should; I know moondog a HELL of a lot better than you do (clearly)) but must note that definition of "force" is WILDLY at odds with any accepted meaning of the word. A cop pepper spraying someone can add an assaulting an officer charge if it blows back on him?!

The idea passive resistance INITIATES violence is dangerous. If a vagrant asleep on a park bench refuses an officers order to move, is he "forced" to use pepper spray? What if the "vagrant" was shot three times while being mugged and only got to the park bench before collapsing into unconsciousness due to blood loss?

Some level of force is legitimate, even justified, in some cases. I still cannot decide if the pepper spray was such a case (though those cops surely have a written policy on the subject ) but physically removing protesters is. However, force is NEVER compulsory, and the notion motionless impassivity makes it so, that simply refusing to move excuses beating someone as long as an office shouts, "STOP RESISTING111" in the process... that POLICE might indulge such dangerously skewed beliefs is a great additional reason the public should be able to tape public servants publicly performing their public duties. The fact no one has any expectation of privacy for acts performed in public is more than sufficient, but thanks for the excellent clincher.