Use of Force 

circlecloud11 What are you talking about? Several of my professors who still are on duty cops and detectives carry a revolver.

Even though revolvers are seen to be "obsolete" nowadays, with the prevalence of semi automatic intermediate cartridge firearms, the revovlers use is not seen anymore, a revolver is a perfect option for an armed security guard, or Non-Patrolling constable who is fixed to stand sentry, it actually might be a better choice as a sidearm, at this time, glocks and semi autos were still used, but mostly for patrolling purposes, in fact, a lot of agencies still use revolvers due to their price, a revolver, when compared to an auto loader is cheaper to manufacture, they also carry heavier loads, which would be ideal for a "one on one" conflict, the only thing a revolver doesn't do well is prolonged combat, where a longgun would be used as an alternative, but you are very correct in saying that the use of force continuum is a gold standard

centurion205 Lol

Citizens actually can use necessary force. If a robber pulls a knife on you, you can pull a gun on him. Making an arrest however is a more complicated situation than a police making an arrest.

90's

1993

What are you on about

First, that wasn't the point of this video. This video was showcasing all of the levels of force. Second, the agent did a great job and showed empathy towards the protestors and even told them how they should correctly protest. He did not escalate the situation ever and the protestors are at fault.

It's a protected freedom, BUT NOT at the EXPENSE of the rights of others. The Supreme Court recognizes a simple, common sense standard... "the rights we enjoy rightly, END where the rights of another person begins." I have a right to call you a fool. I do NOT have a right to block your rightful freedom to travel unimpeded, to get right in your face, and tell you that you're a fool. In this case, the protestors are blocking entry to a building... their presence may be UNDULY intimidating to those who wish to pass to engage in legitimate business in that building. THAT makes their presence THERE, illegal. If they went across the street... or maintained clear access and protested peacefully... (i.e. picket signs rather than militant shouting), so that their presence did NOT interfere with the rights of others... then their presence would be lawful. We should exercise our rights under the Constitution... but we need to always remember and observe the rights of OTHERS as we do that. That's the entire purpose of the Constitution... to ensure EVERYONE'S RIGHTS are upheld and protected.

yes but blocking entrance to a public or government owned building is illegal,

Those lawyers in the black bathrobes (federal judges) have long held that time, place and manner restrictions on the First Amendment are OK with them.