From the article: "In addition, numerous BART police officers and other BART personnel were present during the planned protest, and train intercoms and white courtesy telephones remained available for customers seeking assistance or reporting suspicious activity."

So, to answer your question, BART police would have detained him, or someone would have used one of those phones to call for help.

Regarding your first question, what are you implying was their motive for doing this, if not for safety?

>Regarding your first question, what are you implying was their motive for doing this, if not for safety?

Disrupting protest would be an obvious motivation. The less effective the protest, the less bad press for the transit authority.

Read what happened last time there was a protest by this group: http://sfist.com/2011/07/12/bart_protesters_chant_vandalize_...

This is not your typical peaceful protest - BART was probably more concerned about preventing trains from being blocked, vandalism, and safety. And about safety - in this case, it's not some euphemism for control. These are train stations where people stand on a platform inches away from trains going at high speed. A rowdy crowd in a space like that is definitely a threat to safety.

I think of it BART taking away one of its amenities in order to maintain its core services and responsibility to safety than a draconian abuse of force. It's like a coffee shop that turns off its wifi because of abuse. Cell 'towers' placed in BART tunnels and stations are provided for the convenience of customers (as previously pointed out, not for safety).

For what it's worth, I ride the BART twice a day, every week day. I would choose train service over underground cell service any day.

This makes perfect sense to me, and I agree. The crowd that was protesting is just a bunch of 20-something hipsters who see rioting and revolution in the rest of the world and want in on the fun.

If you threaten the life of a police officer, expect to be shot. That's all there is to it. These people are just looking for something to cry over.

To people saying BART did this to prevent bad PR: I'm not convinced of this. Everyone knows that doing this would cause an uproar, simply based on the fact that they get their panties in a bunch over acceptable police action.

If you want to protest, go to the streets. You don't have to clog up commuters' travel and make their day shitty. Kmart doesn't have to let you congregate inside their stores. BART doesn't have to let you congregate in the paid area.

Also, I think it's a bit ridiculous that people can write off any claim if it has to do with safety. You guys really think that it would be safe to have protesting in a train station?

>If you threaten the life of a police officer, expect to be shot. That's all there is to it.

If that's what actually happened, sure, but it's interesting that they refuse to release video of the event.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-07-05/bay-area/29737621_1_ba...

I don't have a position on this, but I don't agree with comparing it to a coffee shop. BART is a governmental entity paid for by taxpayer dollars, shutting off a service that was provided by said mandatory tax dollars is different than turning off an additional service at a private business.

Claiming it's for safety is what we in the business call "bullshit".

They address the safety of people on the platform, but what about people that didn't have a few dozen cops nearby?

I have ill family members, and need to be able to be on a plane in a few hours notice. Avoiding some bad PR photos justifies missing that important inbound phone call?

Simply put, the primary purpose of bart is to run a train service and maximize availability of that service. Cell service is a non essential (and until a few years ago, nonexistant) enhancement of that service.

The theory here is that if they allowed cell service to continue then protesters would have disrupted train service. So then the more pressing issue becomes getting people to the airport, not cellphone availability.

So yes, you missed your important call, but that's better than others missing their important flight.

Your important call would have been cut off as soon as you left the station anyway.

BART has continuous cell service even in tunnels.

Cell service usually drops between 16th and civic center (I frequently see people get cut off). And 3G service on Verizon seems to drop off for at least 50% of the way between 24th and montgomery (personal experience, iPhone4).

What happens if you need to be on a plane when you're already on a different plane?

People have used subways for over 100 years and dealt with "crazed lunatics with knifes" without cell phones for all but the past 10 of those years. Cell phone != safety

Having worked in emergency services as well as lived in countries without such services, services like 9-1-1 have absolutely increased the safety and security in developed countries. Just because people dealt with things in a less-than-optimal way before is no justification to return to those times.

Cars didn't have airbags and safety belts for a long time, too.