It's a choice. It's a choice of morality.

A junior in our school just asked me if the police not working for his superiors is a choice when the whole family have to suffer in poverty.

Let us go for it in different perspectives.

Legally speaking, what the police have done on the night of 28th Sept is exceeding "suitable defence". If you have read the news in Hong Kong or CNN or whatever, you might have known that the police has excessively used pepper sprays and tear gas. The pepper sprays should not be used continuously for more than one second, while we see that the time is, say, three seconds. The police has also used tear gas bullets for 87 times in one night. It isn't any ordinary tear gas or pepper spray; it is for military use. According to International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 25 says 

Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:

(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;

(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;

(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.

And in Article 21,

The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

From Article 25, we see that our rights of having a leader of own own is deprived. It is a basic human right, the political rights. And from Article 21, we see that a peaceful assembly should be recognised. It does not matter if the police agrees or not, as long as it is peaceful, the police has not the right to object.

Further, under the Numerberg Principles Article IV, we have

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him

This means once they are prosecuted, they cannot say they merely obey the superior's orders.

Now, they have their own mind. How would they choose is of themselves. Not changed by anyone else. Not even the government. The same dilemma happened in some of the police during this incident as well. What did they do? Eventually they joined in the forces of the students. Not looking, not attacking, but helping. It's just a choice under your morality. Even if you do not support Occupy Central or Umbrella Revolution, it's still your choice to choose how to treat people, as people, not as targets.

Ethically. Well. Ethically. There are different kinds of ethics, and let's talk about it one by one.

Virtue ethics states that character matters above all else. Living an ethical life, or acting rightly, requires developing and demonstrating the virtues of courage, compassion, wisdom, and temperance. It also requires the avoidance of vices like greed, jealousy, and selfishness.

To do the right thing. As we can see from books (and real life), people choose not to fulfil their need for power, or for fame. Courage to stand up and go against the wrongdoings of the authority should be praised, while cowardice, doing things at the demands of wrongdoers should be confronted.

Utilitarianism holds that the amount of happiness and suffering created by a person’s actions is what really matters. Thus, acting rightly involves maximizing the amount of happiness and minimizing the amount of suffering around you. Sometimes you may even need to break some of the traditional moral rules to achieve such an outcome.

The majority of people, both online and real life, support universal suffrage. Occupy Central Movement is the last resort for the people to act. More people will be happy to live in a free society with a little sacrifice than to live in a society full of things but freedom. Because if we do not have freedom, we have nothing.

Kantianism emphasizes the principles behind actions rather than an action’s results. Acting rightly thus requires being motivated by proper universal principles that treat everyone with respect. When you’re motivated by the right principles, you overcome your animal instincts and act ethically.

The principle of the clearing of sites is to clear the roads and restore order. But without a proper government, how can you have freedom? And how can we know we are having freedom and order?

Contract theory proposes thinking about ethics in terms of agreements between people. Doing the right thing means abiding by the agreements that the members of a rational society would choose. So for contract theorists, ethics isn’t necessarily about character, consequences, or principles.

The agreements between people is "we are family and we should not hurt each other". The protesters are acting rational; why shouldn't the police?

Care ethics focuses ethical attention on relationships before other factors. As a result, acting rightly involves building, strengthening, and maintaining strong relationships. Acting rightly thus displays care for others and for the relationships of which they are a part. To care ethicists, relationships are fundamental to ethical thinking.

Similar to the previous one, the relationship of civilians and policemen is of utmost importance, as well as that between the government and people. Clearly, by using excessive force, the relationship is hindered.

Yes, it is a choice. It's a choice of morality. Would you want to have a lifetime of guilt or to suffer in poverty for, say, a year? The answer is obvious.