So the part of that which isn't paywalled simply says that doing something illegal, or doing something legal in a threatening manner, can be broken up by police.

Maybe it's in the full-text, but where does it say police can attack non-violent bystanders? Because I'm not seeing it in there.

I did not see behind paywall to, but here's a relevant quote:

> However, the second element is more difficult because it concerns gathering for lawful purposes and only becomes a violation when the gathering turns violent, boisterous, or tumultuous.

After it turns violent, police generally issues an order to disperse, and then proceeds to anti-riot measures. If you don't disperse after that lawful order, you are violating the law, which even most educated people don't seem to understand.

You have to have an account with that site to see the full text, otherwise it cuts off at about paragraph 4 or so.

But anyway, to respond to your statement -----

>but where does it say police can attack non-violent bystanders? Because I'm not seeing it in there.

> but where does it say police can attack non-violent bystanders?

That's the general point of police. They do not only attack violent people, but anyone, who violates the law. In this case it is the law of unlawful assembly.

Let's turn the discussion, as I think you have some predispositions there. How do you think police should prevent looting and damage to property on the street (like parked cars, shop windows, etc) during 95% peaceful protests, when the protestors form a crowd, and the peaceful folk refuse to disperse, because "they are just peaceful bystanders"?

P.S. Regarding the paywall. It seems to cut at your screen height, so the more vertical space you have, the more text is available.