1. NOW YOU KNOW YOU ARE NOT ALONE – Although the movement against big banks and government corruption has been steadily growing for a number of years, many people who have found themselves in this struggle still felt incredibly isolated from the rest of society. Now, with hundreds and thousands of like-minded people getting together in various cities across the world, activists are beginning to realize that they are not alone. There are now events in thousands of different cities, where you can go to meet other people who are concerned about the future and want to change the status quo. The Internet has exploded with activist information and those of us who were once looked upon as a “fringe community” are now becoming a strong force in the political landscape.
2. THE ACTIVIST COMMUNITY IS RE-ENERGIZED – Since there are so many different issues that are being championed by this movement, a lot of activists are still on the fence when it comes to Occupy Wall Street. However, even those who may not entirely agree with some of the ideas coming out of the Occupy camps are still stepping up their own efforts and getting more serious with their activism. This is similar to the situation that one witnesses when they show up to a nightclub too early. They will typically find an empty dance floor, with a bunch of nervous wallflowers waiting for someone to make the first move. Once someone is brave enough to make that first move, the dance floor erupts within minutes because everyone then becomes less self-conscious. This is exactly the kind of energy that activists worldwide are starting to experience -- now that the first move has been made its time for the wallflowers to dance!
3. IT'S COOL TO PROTEST AGAIN – For some reason there has been a huge social stigma attached to civil disobedience for a number of decades. Since the late '60s and early '70s the visible activist presence had diminished considerably . . . until now. Polls nationwide are showing that more and more people are showing support for Occupy Wall Street and are sympathetic to the anger that the protesters are experiencing. This is actually a huge victory, considering the fact that most of the protests that have taken place in the past few decades were vilified by the media and public alike. Now we are starting to see a fracture between the media and the American public, which is illuminating just how out of touch the mainstream media is.
4. MAINSTREAM MEDIA CORRUPTION HAS BEEN EXPOSED LIKE NEVER BEFORE – The coverage (or lack of coverage early on) that the mainstream media has been giving to the OWS movement has majorly backfired and has exposed the dying institution for the fraud that it is. Many of your average hard-working Americans who spend most of their lives just trying to make ends meet have long relied on the evening news to let them know what’s going on around the world. When thousands of people were camped outside of Wall Street for months and half of the country still didn’t know about it, it raised some new concerns in the hearts of those who still trusted the word of the mainstream media. The fact that the pundits on the news only say what their paid to say, and what they are allowed to say, has been proven on a daily basis since these protests started.
5. THE NEW AMERICAN POLICE STATE IS EXPOSED – For the most part, these protests have been entirely peaceful. The majority of the violence that we have seen has actually been unprovoked police assaults on innocent protesters. Thanks to advanced technology, images of peaceful protesters being maced and roughed up by police went viral on the Internet and showed the world how police brutality works in America. As the independent media began to investigate the details, it was uncovered that J.P Morgan chase alone “donated” 4.6 million dollars to the NYPD. When we follow the money it is plain to see that the police officers aren’t here to protect us, but here to protect the highest bidder. This has been going on for some time, but luckily we now have cold hard proof and documented evidence of the corruption that exists between the financial sector and law enforcement.
6. WE ARE FINALLY STARTING TO LOOK BEHIND THE CURTAIN - After watching Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama systematically destroy our economy and take away our freedoms over the course of various Democratic and Republican presidential terms it has become apparent to the American people that they really have no say in their political system. Americans now realize that going to the polls at election time is going to do absolutely nothing to change the foreign or domestic policies in this country. These policies are dictated entirely by big banks, multinational corporations and international think tanks that operate through Wall Street and the financial district in London known as “the city”. The worst of these organizations -- the Federal Reserve, committee of 300, the Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and the world’s dominant banks -- are not being specifically called out enough yet, but you can rest assured that they are starting to get extremely nervous. If we can keep up the pressure and continue to educate those around us about the intricacies of this struggle, then we have the potential to create an unprecedented change for the better.
The "wallflowers" danced in the Tea Parties. They just didn't trash the streets and urinate on public ground and rape women.
Where were the Occupy Wallstreeters then? Hiding in the woodwork waiting to actually take over America instead of engaging in legal protest to retrieve America's values, looks like.
The men behind the curtain ARE the liberals. Pay no attention to them and maybe they'll go back to their knotholes.
Where have you heard stories of protesters raping women?!?!
I don't think people would be complaining of a lack of media coverage if the media had that to cover (sadly).
If you can provide a link with more authority then Glen Beck, I will be shocked I gotta say
It would also mean your doing the media's job, you might want to apply for a job with them
Will the Huffington Post be a good enough link for you?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/0 … 72367.html
Yeah, for sure, I should ask the Huffington Post anyway for a job. They won't hire me I bet! LOL. I would be much too tolerant(ehh...conservative) for them! It would rock their world too much.
http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2011/ … et-so-far/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/nyreg … crime.html
http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/cri … police-say
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/11/ … occupy-la/
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2 … ladelphia/
ARPANET was such a good idea to begin with but Google made it better.
Yes, please provide a link about these OWS protesters raping women - if you don't have some, then I suggest you stop making things up.
Link is in post above. At least I assume it's from the Huffington Post, since it says so. Who knows what's what anymore, what with all the non-hard-copy that the unstable internet provides?!
Or are you still bent on accusing me personally of "making things up"?
read the story via the link you posted,.... sounds like one bad apple took advatage of a situation to fullfill his own desires,... and if thats the ONLY incedent documented throughout this two month oddesy,.... i jut gota say,... BFD,.... hears a tip for all young girls who decide to joine a campout protes against the man,... "dont sleep in strange mens tents,... DUH!"
the story over all seems to sujest that fellow protesters no longer wished his serices as cook, or his presance at all,.... his arrest may have saved his skin.
sounds like normal people making normal reposnses to abnormal behavior in thier midst,..... to hear some pundits talk,. this has become a sex crazed shit on the flag love-in.
I think it was her tent....
So, apparently there was nonsensical stuff going on on both sides of the issue. That still doesn't make it okay to rape someone! DUH. And the protestors should have enough sense to recognize that they should be business-like instead of letting people camp out like vagabonds for extended periods of time on public property.
Why did you say "BFD"?
Your presentation of these isolated, but terrible incidents as being systematic is as disingenuous and dishonest as the political media noise machines that you're parroting.
It is a simple matter of scale. Get enough people together for a long enough time, you will eventually have a few problems. The Tea Party is not comparable because no Tea Party protest had as wide a range or number of people involved for so long a time as the #Occupy movement.
The only people I see raping women are the police. . .
Brenda, the big banks and the central private bank, the Fed, are determined to exact revenge on the US middle class until it is very weak. They do this by easy money lending, then tight credit right afterward. They cause the booms and the busts. When the Fed loaned out 7.7 trillion dollars to American and Eurozone banks, these banks speculated, so that your gas and food went up massively.
The biggest banks are bigger than they have ever been. They are the winners, along with their handlers.
You saw how Germany tried to fight the banks, only to see their bond auction go bad. They could not sell all their bonds even though Germany was supposed to be a safe haven. That is how powerful the banksters are Brenda.
A strange thing happened today. Sky news actually covered in depth the protest in New York, today. That footage also included Police Officers punching a protester in the head, numerous times. The protester was sitting on the floor (not in anyone's wildest imagination could this be described as a violent act or the behavior of rioter) As distressing as it was to see a protester assaulted in this way, it also felt like a corner was being in turned in that the main stream media were actually exposing police brutality. OWS and OWSLSX are not going away anytime soon.
Mainstream media has HUGE credibility loss to attempt to make up for due to OWS - it's easily my favorite thing in the world lately that the MSM has been exposed as a total fraud to so many people who'd never once known that it was one.
I know why the tea party keeps pushing lies about rapes and other misdeeds, but they have lied so much that they can't stop. This is dog whistle nonsense that resonates only with the minority who are tea partiers.
As for the OWS, Cheers! There is much more to come!
#s 2-5 were already discovered and acknowledged through the Ron Paul R3VOLution.
CNN has a continuous coverage, nothing else, of occupy in New York all morning so far.
Sky news coverage here has been so utterly bias. A couple of weeks ago Kay Burley (such an annoying woman) referred to peaceful protesters as "rioters" someone needs to give that woman a dictionary, she doesn't know the difference. I was genuinely shocked that they broadcast police brutality, though. Genuinely.
Couldn't they all just have found a couple of shoes and made their point that way???
Lordy, I miss Bush!
He had it goin' on. And I mean he had agility on so many (good) levels. Statesmanship material. Unlike what's exhibited in Office now, both in Congressional seats and the Oval Office. And he didn't even cry racist abuse, nor even foul (even though it was evidently most likely both). Unlike, again, what we have now.
That one's been doctored.
I like the shoe-throwin' video better.
Obama can't hold a candle to it.
He only catches helpless flies, not flying shoes! LOL
Obama is just Bush with a bigger budget.
I'm making a mental note that you prefer the worst president in the history of the nation - this will help me to categorize all future text that I read from you.
Oh, no, really: you need to read MORE. I assure you that great amusement will be found.
Some are sicker than others! Some are paid political poster/propaganda machines on this site too!
I have no problem with that. You've already categorized yourself too. Just so ya know. LOL.
No,no you didn't understand, she said she DIDN'T like Obama.
As bad as I think Obama is - I'm certain that Bush was worse.
With all due respect sir, that's crap and you know it! Bush never once implimented a law which states if a government FORCED commercial product isn't purchased than the AMERICAN people will be fined or even face jail time. The man in office now is anything but American. Bush did a lot but he never oppressed the people with laws that force us to purchase products.
haha Repairguy47! You got it right!
Very witty and firm-minded! Just like Bush.
You've got it goin' on too!
the leader beside him reacts like he kinda new it was coming
Fan or no fan, that was funny.
Although I can't help to mention, he missed a great chance on the founder of a new dance move.
Yes I know. He was the majority share holder (I think) but he wanted total control of Sky news. The phone hacking etc. coincided with his wanting to make the bid. He couldn't ha. He wanted it all but can't have it. It's still pretty right wing, though.
Nothing has been accomplished.
These people are angry, but they don't even know how the system works. They have no idea where to vent their anger. Many of the protests across the country are just temporary housing for the homeless.
Nothing has changed at all.
That's how it is, not how you want it to be.
You mean that you REALLY don't appreciate that the media has been exposed so well for NOT covering what is going on, and that the police state has been exposed for what it is either???????
I have to disagree. I believe the curtain has been pulled aside and the truth will continue to flow from that breach, becoming a bigger and bigger breach, until the dam bursts.
Occupiers...Keep it up!!! and Get it on video!!!
Bilderberg agenda exposed in EU parliament!
People are waking up worldwide!!!
The Bilderbergers exposed at the EU!!!!
OWS is getting some things accomplished. Awareness, for the most part. The news can lie all they want but the poeple who are there at OWS, and there are a lot of them, know the news is a pack of lies. What makes me laugh at the news today is the obvious lie that Newt Gingrich is leading the Republican polls right now. He has proven time and again that he is the anti-thesis of Republican ideas, that he is the poster child of what OWS wants to get rid of, has more transgressions against women and little boys than Herman Cain and Penn State combined, and the news actually thinks I'm stupid enough to believe Newt is the front-runner for the Republican primaries.
Wall Street, getting worried and prepared to fight dirty.
http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/ … all-street
They won't pay even a few thousand in extra taxes, but they'll spend almost a million on a disinformation campaign.
“Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” - Thomas Jefferson
First thought: congress and their insider trading.
If you agree with this sort of statement, and you hate bailouts, and you hate all the crony capitalism, then Ron Paul is your man.
If you like company stores, rigged local elections, freedom to discriminate, pollute and adulterate without risk of being bothered by a pesky Federal government, then yes indeed, Ron Paul is your man!
Company stores? ...stores ARE companies... BRILLIANT!
Here's a mind experiment, Pcunix - one that SHOULD make you think... but...
If we need a STATE government to check on LOCAL elections, and we need a FEDERAL government to check on STATE elections, then what the **** checks on the federal elections?
What's that? Your entire argument is just a pointless ad inifinitum that proves there was no thought put into it? OK!
If you are too ignorant of history to know what a "company store" or "truck system" is, that's not my problem. It might explain some of your less sensible politics, however.
I thought you commies were all for that commune crap.
If you're dumb enough to accept the job for fake money, then go right ahead.
(PS - we are all working for money substitutes. Any money that can be created at the push of a button isn't real money)
As a nation, we have competing needs, beliefs and ideologies. We check the excesses of each other. There may not be enough homosexuals in your town to make a stand against discrimination, but there ARE enough nationally.
THAT'S why local government is dangerous.
And I'll add this: the logical end is world government.
No, I'm not naive enough to think we are capable of that today. But someday, when people tire of senseless wars and local atrocities, we will come to that.
Unfortunately, we are likely hundreds or even thousands of years away. The average person is simply not smart enough to see that yet. It WILL come, though.
And people like our resident Libertarians will fight it tooth and nail, of course.
Intolerance starts with an individual, and no amount of government can cure this fact.
People get thrown out of their families for being gay NOT because of a lack of government. It's because people are people. Humans are programmed in a way to generate intolerant beliefs.
It's called discrimination, and it is a learned behavior. However, it's not "learned" in the sense that the individual learns it from their parents (although, intolerant parents do indeed help foster such beliefs), it's learned in the sense that humans learn in a way that generates discrimination.
Piaget and Vygotsky argued that humans go around and play with their surroundings, and eventually equilibrate odd things into their understanding of the world.
For example - things with fangs are generally to be avoided. Children learn this when they play with animals that have fangs and they get bitten. Using this "discrimination", the individual knows that the best action when confronted with a tiger in their bed is to run away.
Do you like McDonald's? Wendy's? Applebee's? Max & Erma's? If you say "I like one more than the other", then you have displayed the simple fact that you have learned to discriminate. Do you really want a government that forces you to eat at one instead of the other?
It's very naive of you to think that a one world government couldn't be corrupted as easily as any local government. Discrimination can't end through government because discrimination is part of being human.
And it's even more naive to think that a single world government would end wars. The absolute worst thing you could ever do with someone who is a discriminating jerk is to force him to be around the things he hates.
Are you straight? Well too bad, you have to marry someone of the same gender/sex. The only non-discriminatory sexual being is the bi-sexual who doesn't care what their partner looks like, smells like, sounds like, or any other factor.
Discrimination is inherent in humanity -- hell, it's inherent to all animals-- and to think that "bigger government" can eradicate it is not only naive, but dangerous on numerous fronts. 1) you'll make people angry, 2) you'll have given up your freedoms, 3) you'll have made life very miserable, 4) if you actually succeeded in eradicating all forms of discrimination, then everything would feel and seem the same.
Don't forget: when you aggregate the electorate, you indeed give the 1 in 10 that are homosexuals / transgendered / bisexual a bigger voice. But you also give the 1 in 10 who are bigoted jerks a bigger voice as well.
The only real difference between bigger and smaller government is the number of people that will be pissed off through a bad decision: 500 or 7 billion?
Really? How many of our 50 States are at war with one or more of the others?
So, your argument is that "having overlords leads to peace", yet I can easily point to thousands of wars where "having an overlord led to war".
So, if you'd like to respond to the arguments I've made about discrimination, I'd love to hear them.
Where do you get "overlords" from?
Do we not have a representative democracy? Why would you think I would want anything different?
The "overlords" right now are the 1% who are corrupting our democracy. That's a flaw that needs to be fixed, but the concept of democracy is not a flaw.
Learn some history. You'll find that small fiefdoms are where corruption hides the longest. The larger the government, the more checks and balances from competing interests.
But never mind. Your mind is closed to reason.
Democratically elected governments are not "overlords." Thanks to the Supreme Court and the power of corporations, our government is not exactly democratically elected. It never was perfect, but it's been tolerably workable.
I'm not talking about dumb families. I'm talking about businesses, landlords, restaurants.. Like the discrimination we had in the South before Federal "interference". That is what your Libertarian foolishness would return us to.
Evan has "drunk the koolade" to the point that reasoning with him if futile. He's a "true believer."
I know. I keep telling myself "He can't help it" over and over.
Libertarians seem to be incapable of understanding what their ideas would do to our civil rights, to our air and water, our food safety, medical research.. The list goes on and on.
They have no apparent knowledge of history. They are unaware of the corruption that ran through local governments, the organized crime that plagued us, the food safety issues, the crappy educational standards, the discrimination, lynchings..
No clue. But, yes, I know they cannot help it.
... said the man who preaches tolerance...
All I've learned from HubPages is the futility of changing minds.
Pointing out ignorance of history is not intolerant. You have a very strange comprehension of many words.
Enjoy the fantasy that your elected officials are angels with your best interest in mind.
Agreed to the fullest I can.
Most people fortunately recognize this.
America has voted liberal on ever major issue in our history. Why do they think this will ever change?
Is it just me or does the rhetoric by neocons and libertarians sound awfully similar to the arguments made against desegregation?
Alright, that's it.
I'm gonna have to black list you.
If you actually think that libertarians are pro-segregation, then you merely have your fingers in your ears.
Debate is futile. Good luck with finding the holy world government angels you desire.
To Rodgers: You sure like to call others stupid and ignorant. Like Clapton says, "before you accuse me, take a look at yourself!"
There's a great book, a bit of a heavy read, called Virginia's American Revolution, by Kevin R. C. Gutzman, which illustrates the ideas swirling around in Virginia at the time they wrote the world's first written Constitution until their feelings of betrayal at the government they helped create.
And now, protesters sitting on the floor is apparently such an illegal act it is justified for a police officer to pepper spray anyone who "sits on the floor"
I suppose depends on where you are sitting, who owns the building or how defiant or compliant one chooses to be. When the unions staged a protest in the Wisconsin Statehouse they fouled it with garbage, graffiti, blocking access to law makers and emergency exits. A little pepper spray for being a jerk is a small price to pay considering I would have loved to see the truncheons come out.
Violent much? Are you a cop?
....or are you just a Fox "news" disinformation junkie?
Fox News is pedantic, not all that different from all other television news. I wonder how many people actually think about the "news" channels they consume. I find it entertaining that so many liberals are incapable of separating gold from dross when consuming news.
I'm not a "liberal." I'm a person wondering how a sane person could support the assault of peaceful protesters.
When people step out of line and infringe on the rights of others, then law enforcement takes over. You can't murder someone because that impedes on that person's right to life. You can't just sit in a group and block public passage ways and call that 'peaceful'. It's outside of your rights. If they don't comply with law enforcement asking them to move, then that is their choice. Anyone acting outside of their rights shouldn't complain about the consequences.
I suppose that depends on your definition of peaceful.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/ … lence.html
Sounds like someone should be choosing more news sources than just the ones sympathetic to "the cause."
Ditto. I think sitting on the floor is pretty peaceful, I don't think punching someone in the head, hitting them with a trunction or inflicting chemical damage to one's skin is in any way peaceful. Maybe you should also think about choosing your sources more carefully and not just accepting them because they are opposed to the cause.
Violence is often a conservative answer to any problem. Pepper spray, kicking, truncheons, bombs.. kill 'em all and let Sky Daddy sort it out..
Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy.
Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
Mao Tse-tung - socialist revolutionary, atheist, hero to the American liberal and Obama administration officials.
Considering the murders, rapes, brick throwing of the occupy numbskulls I violence is common place. Perhaps the bodies of the 100 million people slaughtered by their atheist masters in China, The Soviet Union, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba and all over Africa.
I find capitalism repugnant. It is filthy, it is gross, it is alienating... because it causes war, hypocrisy and competition.
Bloody handed dictator Fidel Castro or American liberal - you make the call.
Neither atheists nor Liberals are communists. Neither atheists nor Liberals have policies that advocate violence.
Quite the contrary, in fact, but you wouldn't know that because your innate hatred blinds you most effectively.
You can blame a lot of the violence on our media, or should I say media opinions. Folks need to watch all the news channels and come to their own conclusions. We need to think, and stop puppeting what we're hearing from our favorite news media. If we're doing well during these trying economic times, we need to imagine how we would feel if we lost our jobs, homes, dignity, etc., out of no fault of our own. Years ago, you took a job and had that job until you retired. Does that happen today? Where have all our manufacturer jobs gone? And who is to blame? My opinion, mistakes made by both Republicans and Democrats as well as, the wanting of more profit by our large corporations who have outsourced our jobs.
The one thing that people don't seem to understand about their rights, is that they don't extend to the violation of other people's rights. Blocking off sidewalks, roads, and buildings is not a right.
Yeah great. Did we have the "rights" to come here? Did we have the "rights" to kill the Native Americans? Did we have the "rights" to slaughter buffalo out of hatred? Did we have the "rights" to use remote control drone planes to murder civilians in Pakistan?
I didn't say anything about Native Americans, buffalo, or civilians suspected of terrorism who are in other countries.
I was talking about the supposed 'rights' of the OWS protesters. If you want to talk about any of those other topics, start a thread and we can talk about it.
"Blocking off sidewalks, roads, and buildings is not a right." Isn't that called private property.
""And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy."
No I started THIS thread to talk about it, but thank you for your "consideration." The point is that government laws aren't always moral, and that they are largely irrelevant when it comes to social change.
You started this thread to talk about OWS. Buffalo have nothing to do with OWS.
The 'governmental laws' you are talking about are the constitutional rights that our nation is founded upon. If you don't like the Constitution, I would suggest you move to a different country.
If you aren't intelligent enough to grasp analogy and historical tales for context that validate a point, then I suggest that you find a forum for people with your low level of comprehension, or that you learn to debate on the level of the people above you.
You are trying to compare constitutional rights to the rights of buffalo. I'm sorry, but it's completely irrelevant. Being able to make ridiculous analogies doesn't make you intelligent.
And neither does your concept of Constitutional rights make you the least bit intelligent!
Ever heard of slavery? It's TRUE!!!! See, a long time ago here in the USA - you could own people, whole families even, and treat them like dogs, or cats or...buffalo.
I'm not making this shit up - I even read about this slavery thing online, so I know it's true!
Really? I'll have to research that...
So you are saying the police pepper spraying people who are breaking the law is just a failing of our laws, like slavery was a failing of interpretation of human rights?
"people breaking the law" - do you realize how utterly worthless that is as a description of various groups of persons?
The Manson family were a group of people like that. Every morning and evening on roads across America there are people breaking the speed limit - which is also a law.
Should the Manson family have been pepper sprayed as a primary response from police? Should speeders be pepper sprayed before asked for License and Insurance?
"When people step out of line and infringe on the rights of others, then law enforcement takes over." You mean like all the fraud that about brought the system down. I believe it was Thoreau who first articulated principles of non-violent protest.
So you think the best way to fight criminal activity is through criminal activity?
'Peaceful protests' can still be criminal, and they are a nice cover for people to do horrible things under as well.
No, peaceful protests are often perceived as civil disobedience, which in many cases is correct. That doesn't necessarily equate to criminality. An individual who engaged in peaceful protest, in the true sense of the word, would not be engaging in horrible acts, those that perpetuate horrible acts would be engaging in criminality, not peaceful protest.. Please do not confuse the two.
If those who are engaging in horrible acts purport to be peaceful protesters, then I'm sure the media will expose them at every opportunity. Peaceful protest, horrible acts and criminality are three separate entites, although I agree that the latter can be defined in a similar way.
The topic I've been referring to is the 'brutality' of police against people who are 'peacefully protesting' by sitting. The problem is where they are choosing to sit. People don't have a right to sit down and block roads, for example. If they don't comply with the police, the police are validated in using things such as pepper spray to clear the street. It is a criminal act, not a 'horrible' act, but it is still criminal.
I agree, the general public need to be fiercely protected, even if this means physical violence and brutality should be employed, from those nasty violent thugs that sit down and block roads. Off with their heads!
Can you try to discuss something without attempting to skew my words?
It doesn't matter if people are 'peacefully' blocking roads. It's illegal. If they choose to continue in their illegal activity, then they have chosen that. The police have a job to do, and maintaining peace and order is one of those jobs.
Please try to maintain maturity in the discussion. I never said 'nasty violent thugs', 'off with their heads', or anything about brutality.
The criminal activity is on the part of the police and the leaders who are telling them what to do.
Mike McGinn Photo
Do you believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights?
Why would you ask? What does my criticism of the campus police at UC Davis have to do with my belief in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution? As I recall, the right of peaceful protest is protected by the first amendment of the Constitution.
Do you think the pepper spraying of students sitting on the ground was proper?
From this morning's NY Times:
"The University of California, Davis, said Sunday that two police officers had been placed on administrative leave after using pepper spray on seated protesters at the campus on Friday during a demonstration aligned with Occupy Wall Street.
"Videos of the encounter, widely distributed over the Internet, showed two police officers in riot gear dousing the protesters with pepper spray as they sat on a sidewalk with their arms entwined.
"Reflecting widespread anger over the police behavior, the university chancellor, Linda P. B. Katehi, said on Sunday that she would insist that an investigation of the matter be completed within 30 days. On Saturday, she said it would take 90 days." More here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/21/us/po … tml?ref=us
Yes, people can assemble. No, they can't break laws in doing so. Example of breaking laws are blocking entrances and exits to buildings, blocking public sidewalks, blocking roads, and blocking private property.
People need to understand that they don't have the right to break laws just because they are doing so 'peacefully'. I don't have a problem with it. Those students were refusing to comply with police. It's no different than somebody resisting arrest if they decide to stand in the middle of a road and block traffic.
Your quoting the article has nothing to do with legality. You conveniently left out the last bit:
Peaceful protest is illegal if it is done illegally. It's ridiculous to blame the police for trying to maintain order. Would you rather have anarchy?
The chief of campus police and two police officers at UC Davis have been suspended over the outrageous pepper spraying incident.
Placed on administrative leave due to the university's request for an investigation.
You avoid the legal issue... calling yourself a peaceful protester doesn't give you the right to break the law.
I just heard on the radio that the Chancellor of University of California reminded all the campuses of the right of students to peacefully protest on their campuses. Also, the chancellor of Davis may lose her job. Even if the protest at Davis had been totally illegal the use of pepper spray was brutal and inexcusable. The big fat cop was a sadistic bully in my opinion.
Jay walking is illegal. Do you think pepper spraying jay walkers would be appropriate? My understanding is that policemen are supposedly trained to use the minimum force necessary to deal with a situation, IF the situation requires action on their part.
Ok, that's your opinion.
My opinion is that people shouldn't break the law while protesting.
Are you even sure they were "breaking the law?" I don't know what the law is wrt peaceful protests on college campuses in California. Do you?
Ralph a friend of mine recently became a police officer here in Ohio. He was not trained in minimum force necessary tactics and actually was told if her had to draw his gun, "shoot till they stop moving" If he had to pull his baton, "Immobilze them in any way necessary" My friend and I talked about it one night. Apparently his instructor or chief or whatever the mans title is was telling my friends class about a protest where he pulled his baton and hit someone so hard in the leg it broke thier shin. He laughed and said that he didn't even bat an eye as he made sure everyone else around him saw the example he had made. Now I stand by the police 90% of the time. They have a horribly difficult job especially now with the OWS protests. But yes the pepper spray was excessive, shooting that man in Oakland with the rubber bullet was excessive. I know nothing about law really but I for one am behind the movement for a few reasons.
I would be more behind OWS if they would protest legally. I have no problem with people getting pepper sprayed when they are intentionally causing a disturbance.
As I've said previously, police work attracts a certain number of sadistic bullies.
To legally protest means to keep up running permits to be on properties, as far as I can tell the majority have been porperty that the tax dollars pay for, and I'm sorry but protesting means getting noticed. These people are not attacking anyone and are shouting and making their voices heard. I stand behind the protest, you sir are totally within your rights to feel and support whom ever you choose. But when the system is set up against the people it's hard to stay legal.
You're really talented at missing each and every point!
Laws are not moral in nature - laws are created by lobbying and donating to the campaign of a politician, and this is done by the wealthy to protect their business interests.
Police break laws - assaulting non violent protesters - but you seem to sidestep that issue as well.
Some laws are natural, they are based off of our natural rights. You have the freedom to swing your arms around all you want, unless they come in contact with me. Then you are restricting my freedoms. Public places are public, and everyone has equal access. Nobody has the right to block access to public locations. That's why you can't sit down in the road and expect not to get in trouble(or killed).
You don't seem to accept that laws are arbitrary and worthless. Again, did those laws we granted ourselves extend to the people that lived here before we did???
FUCK NO THEY DIDN'T!
You equating some sort of morality with law is disgusting.
Are you an anarchist?
Laws aren't worthless. They are the foundation of a stable society. Every American has the same rights, and our laws try to protect those rights.
You just want people who are upset and ignorant to be justified in breaking the law, when it would take almost nonexistent effort to be compliant with the law.
I believe that's what you are doing. People who are upset....are oligarchs who've profited off of the suffering of all who suffer due to the economic machinations over the past decade.
Pepper spraying folks sitting on the ground...if that's not illegal, then there you have your proper perspective of just how worthwhile our laws are.
"Laws aren't worthless. They are the foundation of a stable society. Every American has the same rights, and our laws try to protect those rights."
Good, we agree on that! So why are you not upset at the blatant violation of the protesters' rights?
"You just want people who are upset and ignorant to be justified in breaking the law, when it would take almost nonexistent effort to be compliant with the law."
NO! Nobody said anything about it being okay for the protesters to get off scott-free after breaking the law. If they broke the law (and we don't all agree on whether they did or not), then they ought to have been arrested for breaking the law, and had a speedy, public trial, with access to council and a jury of their peers, like the LAW requires. If found guilty, then they should be fined or incarcerated, in accordance with the severity of their crimes.
But they didn't even get their day in court: they got pepper-sprayed by a cop who seems to have read a few too many Judge Dredd comics.
" calling yourself a peaceful protester doesn't give you the right to break the law."
Neither does calling yourself a University Chancellor or a Police Lieutenant.
If I break the law, I ought to expect to be ticketed, or arrested, depending on which law I broke. If I resist arrest, I ought to expect that resistance to be met with force. I think we agree on that score.
We ought not expect to be beaten with truncheons or pepper-sprayed when offering no resistance to the police, and it ought not to happen.
Cops don't get to beat people up for no good reason.
The Chancellor of UC Davis ought to resign, and University of California, Davis Police Lt. John Pike should lose his badge. He shouldn't be allowed to work as so much as a crossing guard ever again.
The police were trying to remove the students, and they resisted. You can see in the video. Failure to comply with police at the least.
They did resist.
What would you expect to happen if you decided to protest peacefully and block a road? You don't have the right to, so what should the police do? They can try and move you. If you don't move, they can try and arrest you. If you resist, what should they do?
People don't get to break the law and expect there to be no consequences.
"They did resist."
You couldn't be wronger.
There's a pretty darn big difference between "sitting there" and "resisting arrest."
Plus, unless the cops said these words: "You are now under arrest," Then no resisting arrest took place.
"They can try and move you."
Yes, we agree on that.
"If you don't move, they can try and arrest you."
Yup. To arrest someone, they need to say, "You're under arrest," and then they take the person into custody.
"If you resist, what should they do?"
Take me into custody by force.
However, none of the people in the video were resisting arrest, since none of them were ever taken into custody.
Nobody was resisting arrest.
I didn't say resisting arrest. I said they resisted the police. The officer was trying to clear a sidewalk, and they resisted.
Is it really worth using force to arrest somebody when you can also use force to fix the situation? The jails don't have enough space for every ignorant protester who is breaking the law.
I didn't say resisting arrest.
"I didn't say resisting arrest." Nice lawyerball, but no dice.
"The officer was trying to clear a sidewalk, and they resisted."
No, they refused to obey. There's a difference, and it's pretty big: as big as the difference between "resisting arrest" and "sitting down."
If the police give an order, and you do not obey, they can arrest you. They don't get to brutalize you.
"Is it really worth using force to arrest somebody when you can also use force to fix the situation?"
Well, I guess the answer to that depends on whether you value the rule of law or not. If you do, then the cops have to follow the law, and arrest the people who disobeyed the law. They don't get to disregard the law, and give out their own extrajudicial punishment.
If you don't value the rule of law, then I suppose the cops get to open up a can of Whoop-ass(tm) whenever someone rocks the boat.
"The jails don't have enough space for every ignorant protester who is breaking the law."
Doesn't matter. They have rights. Among these are the rights to peaceably assemble, and the right not to be punished without due process of law. They didn't get that.
No, you tried to say that I said 'resisting arrest' when I didn't. I used the term resisting in reference to the police trying to physically clear the sidewalk, and the protesters resisting. After all, that's the definition of the word.
Resist: to withstand the action or effect of. The protester resisted the action of the police trying to physically clear the sidewalk.
Again, I didn't use a legal term such as resisting arrest. I used a common word, resist, to reference 'withstanding the action or effect of'. You are still trying to claim that I meant something that I didn't say. It's bad manners to continue to claim I said resisting arrest when I didn't.
There are situations where just arresting offenders isn't proper, like in the cases of large groups of protesters. Do you know what the law is for what force police are allowed to use and in what situations?
Even peaceable assemblies can be criminal. Would you have police arrest 5000 people who are illegally blocking a street?
"No, you tried to say that I said 'resisting arrest' when I didn't."
Okay: you didn't say "resisting arrest;" you said "resisting." Happy?
You still misused the word.
"The protester resisted the action of the police trying to physically clear the sidewalk."
No: incorrect usage once again.
The protestors didn't push back, or try to prevent the police from pushing them. They merely sat there. They were certainly disobedient. But they didn't do any resisting of any kind.
"There are situations where just arresting offenders isn't proper,"
So, you're comfortable with of throwing out the rule of law when it's inconvenient? Or am I misinterpreting your statement?
"Even peaceable assemblies can be criminal."
Not in the United States, they can't.
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
And that "assembly" is difficult in urban areas where there is no place to assemble except in the street or the sidewalk.
http://www.aclu-wa.org/news/street-spee … nd-leaflet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_v._C … ganization
So you see, emrldphx, it CAN be legal to block streets.
"Wherever the title of streets and parks may apply, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for the purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions."
- Justice Owen I. Roberts (Hague v. CIO, 1939)
Do you want me to find a quote to the contrary? I honestly don't care enough about the subject to go sifting through hundreds of cases to determine precedence.
In this situation, there was plenty of room for everyone off to the side.
You won't find a quote to the contrary. The right to assemble wins, every time.
Just so you know, from your own guide you quoted:
Rights are not unlimited. I really don't want to have to go through the details of the Hague case to show you what Justice Roberts was saying. Freedom of speech and assembly are not unlimited.
Of course they aren't unlimited.
But you have no idea about any of this.
States and cities can enforce what is and isn't allowed. If you are blocking a sidewalk, your freedom of assembly doesn't cover you in doing so.
You seem to think that freedom of assembly means those students were justified in blocking the sidewalk.
No, they probably were not. But their "crime" was small. Assaulting them with pepper spray was a far more serious crime.
That's what you fail to understand.
You also don't understand the crimes that OWS is protesting.
To be clear, OWS isn't protesting anything. Individuals are protesting different things. There's no consensus about what is wrong and what needs to be fixed. There is no 'real' OWS.
Secondly, you keep trying to blame the police. They have to keep situations from escalating. Otherwise, you end up with repeats of other cities with violence and vandalism.
It's stupid to get mad at the police. Yes, pepper spray sucks.
But, those students could have very easily just moved their butts a few feet to be in accordance with law.
And students. Don't forget the students.
Students really commit a lot of violence and vandalism when they're sitting on the ground with their arms linked.
I imagine the UC Davis Police Department is thinking pepper spray sucks right about now...
Any crowd can get violent, especially large ones. It's responsible of the police to try and diffuse a problem while it's small. There would have been NO problem if they just moved off the sidewalk.
But, nobody wants to blame the poor students for being stupid.
If that were my kid, I'd worry about how well I had done as a parent. I'd tell him that he deserved it. There is nothing wrong with believing in a cause. There are severe problems with breaking the law to try to get attention for your cause.
The only way you can justify setting aside the law in protest is if you are looking for an actual revolution... and I hope OWS doesn't think that is what this really is...
Come on. Those students knew it was coming. It wasn't a spur of the moment thing, that's just when the video started. They were getting ready for it. They knew they were defying the police and the consequences.
It's not like the police just walk up and start pepper spraying. But, they have a job to do.
"Come on. Those students knew it was coming. It wasn't a spur of the moment thing, that's just when the video started. They were getting ready for it. They knew they were defying the police and the consequences."
The consequences for defying the police in the USA include "Getting Arrested" and perhaps "Being Charged with a Crime" and "Standing Trial." If found guilty, they can include "Going to Jail" or "Paying a Fine." In the USA, disobeying the police does not (or at least ought not) result in a vicious chemical attack or vicious physical attack.
"It's not like the police just walk up and start pepper spraying."
Uh, yeah, it was exactly like the police just walked up and started pepper spraying. That's what they did, mate.
"But, they have a job to do."
Their job is to uphold the law, not ignore it.
Exactly. Like Caesar's wife, they should be above suspicion.
I'm not one to dump on cops. I know it can be a scary and dangerous and often thankless job.
Where I DO find fault is with this kind of crap and with their fellow officers who know better but keep silent out of an idiotic sense of "brotherhood".
"To be clear, OWS isn't protesting anything. Individuals are protesting different things. There's no consensus about what is wrong and what needs to be fixed. There is no 'real' OWS."
You're actually partly right about that: there's a lot of different things being protested at the OWS demonstrations. Some of the folks there are your stereotypical "rebels-without-a-clue." No argument there. But most of the folks are upset about real problems, and many of those problems have a general (if not unanimous) consensus. You really seem to want the OWS folks to be makers pointless hubbub, and I guess that's cool. But you believing in it doesn't make it real, not even if you clap your hands.
"Secondly, you keep trying to blame the police."
When the police are to blame, as in the UC Davis pepper spray incident, then they ought to be blamed.
"They have to keep situations from escalating."
Yeah, they did a great job of that by pepper-spraying non-violent demonstrators.
"Otherwise, you end up with repeats of other cities with violence and vandalism."
Yes, there have been many repetitions of police brutality lately. Good thing the cops are there to prevent it...oh, wait...
"It's stupid to get mad at the police."
Not when the police are doing wrong, it isn't. When the police are doing right, I'll stand by them. When a cop walks up and down a line of kids who are doing nothing more violent than sitting, and hoses them down repeatedly with pepper spray, that's not 'good police work.' That's a crime. The badge doesn't make them above the law.
"Yes, pepper spray sucks."
Agreed. (I once saw a bonehead at a gun show accidentally pepper-spray himself. I felt bad for the guy. I'd have felt worse for him if he hadn't been goofing around with the stuff just prior, but still...)
"But, those students could have very easily just moved their butts a few feet to be in accordance with law."
If the students were breaking the law, then the cops should have arrested them. A person who breaks a law still has rights under the law. This isn't medieval England, where someone can be cast outside the law. The rule of law is valuable, even when it's inconvenient. I hope folks who do not value the rule of law will remain in the minority.
People can break the laws when they assemble.
It is the righteous duty of all freedom loving individuals to overthrow any law that is unjust, no matter who passed it.
I know Ralph Deeds doesn't quite take this strong of a stance, but I'm with him on this dispute. If the President executively orders a law that is unjust, it is our duty as citizens to overthrow the presidency. The same goes for any other branch of government.
It is completely impossible to argue that "we should follow the bill of rights" and that "people should obey laws" -- the two are inconsistent (unless you consider 'the law' to be that of natural law. You, however, are not making this case).
I highly recommend re-reading the Declaration of Independence (hahaha, yeah right. I know no one on HubPages has ever actually sat down and read it before). The DOI is literally a grocery list of King George's unjust laws and actions that went against Natural Law, and an explanation that it is the rightful duty of the people to overthrow that government.
Here are some of the best parts of the DoI (I still get goosebumps reading it):
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"
Listen, you are misrepresenting the Declaration of Independence by a large margin. Go compare this list of grievances to rising tuition costs:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte … cript.html
It's hardly the same thing. Show a little respect for an important document.
The Declaration of Independence never says anything about how there should be no laws.
Yes, I have read it a few times in my life. Yes, it lists issues. No, they are not comparable to tuition increase.
It is the rightful duty of the people to abolish a government if that government seeks to destroy our unalienable rights and refuses to allow the input of the governed.
We're not there.
Are you actually advocating a revolution?
First and foremost, your response to me is completely off topic. You said that disobeying laws is wrong. I argued "no it isn't, our country is founded on disobeying unjust laws".
Then you agreed with me, while calling me wrong.
Anyway, I love the way that when I quote documents, I'm told I misrepresenting them.
It's a freaking quotation.
Thomas Jefferson is LITERALLY saying that it is the PEOPLE'S duty to overthrow corrupt and tyrannical governments.
Am I advocating this? I'm advocating a peaceful revolution until it's too late.
Am I advocating VIOLENT revolutions? No! Not yet, anyway.
No, you don't seem to follow the difference between working to get an unjust law overturned and overthrowing the government.
"If the President executively orders a law that is unjust, it is our duty as citizens to overthrow the presidency."
The DoI talks about overthrowing a tyrannical government, not overthrowing the government for one bad law. It is much better to simply work to overturn the law if that's what you agree with.
Many of these concepts are multi-faceted, so I can say 'yes' to one and 'no' to another, without contradicting myself.
I said our country is founded on overthrowing a tyrannical government that provided no means to correct laws we don't agree with.
"No, you don't seem to follow the difference between working to get an unjust law overturned and overthrowing the government."
Neither do you, if you think the OWS folks all want to overthrow the US Government.
But hey, you seem to think it's okay for the police to beat people up for peaceably assembling, speaking freely, and petitioning the government for redress of grievances (as long as those people are people you disagree with, anyway), so I guess that's not surprising.
But interestingly, pretty soon, if the response to peaceable assembly, free (if angry) speech, and petitioning for redress of grievances continues to be a tyrannical abuse of power, then eventually a violent response to this tyranny will be justified. And you know what? It' not going to be the protestors' fault. People who agree with this tyrannical abuse of power will be to blame. People like you, mate.
Evan and I disagree on many things, but he is dead right on this issue. Legal doesn't imply moral, illegal doesn't imply immoral. And just because a guy wears a badge doesn't give him the right to commit assault and battery.
That worries me. You are right: it will come to violence and the intransigent fools who refuse to see reality will be to blame.
It frustrates me that so many are so dumb or so stuck in their political views that they can't recognize the real problem of unchecked wealth. They have been taught to turn red and howl at any suggestion that unbridled wealth building is anything but the cancer it actually is.
The problem is that violence, in addition to being horrible because of human suffering, will most likely lead to an overreaction: either a tearing down of all capitalist systems or tearing down of all remaining social programs. Neither extreme is healthy and will only cause more violence later.
We need balance. Capitalism is important, worthy and we need it for a healthy society. But without restraints (progressive taxes, monopoly breakups, labor unions and labor laws) it will destroy us. The same is true for unchecked socialism, of course.
As to OWS specifically, I think it is time to change tactics. I believe flash mobs would be a more effective method now. They could get more people involved and give less grist to the mills of the opposition.
I didn't say all OWS folks do. That was my response to a person saying it is our duty to overthrow government for bad laws.
I never said it's ok for police to beat people up. Pepper spray isn't the same as breaking bones with bobby sticks. Nor is there a problem with people speaking freely, assembling, or petitioning the government, as long as they do so within the law. I'm not even saying I disagree with them.
Listen buddy, when people break the law, it's not tyrannical to try and arrest them. It's not tyrannical to pepper spray someone for resisting police. This is NOT the same thing as occasional incidents we see when the police are extremely violent to submissive people.
If anyone wants to peaceably assemble, they should do so legally. If people are camping on property that they aren't allowed to camp on, and the police show up, they should show their responsibility by complying.
What would you have police do then, when a large group resists? I'll address your other post where you ignore the issue.
Just wanted to point out that Ron Paul has said something remarkably similar in a recent debate:
"[Taking away freedoms for security] is like saying that we need a policeman in every house, cameras in every house, because we want to prevent child-beating and wife-beating.
"You can prevent crimes by becoming a police state. So if you advocate the police state, yes, you can have safety and security and you MIGHT prevent a crime, but the crime then will be against the American people and against our freedoms and we will throw out so much of what our Revolution was fought for.
"So don't do it so carelessly."
"My bank didn't rob me, sorry." Well they did a lot of others. So the robbed should behave by the rules as laid down by the unrobbed.
Do you even know who you are talking about? Arguments against 'the banks' and 'the 1 percent' are pretty handy, except it shows you don't understand what's going on.
There are a lot of reasons why we are in the mess we are. If you have a problem it should be with the politicians who represent you. Citizens have shown they can make their voices heard to pass or deny legislation to make a difference. OWS doesn't understand what it's trying to do, who it's upset at, or how to go about making a change.
I'm afraid Emrldphx, whether you like it or not, they are making a change- the change is awareness. You assume that just because someone does not share your viewpoint they do not understand what is going on. You have a choice here, you can support OWS or otherwise. Presumably you don't. In which case, I really do not understand why you are getting so hot under the collar about a movement you do not support and believe has not, or will not, change anything. Why don't you just ignore it if this is how you feel, after all, if you are correct the movement will have disappeared shortly.
Awareness of what? They take up the call of '99% vs 1%' when that doesn't reflect reality in any way. I have several siblings who are in the 1%, but they have nothing to do with fraud, regulations, or politics.
It's exactly the point. OWS is so upset about... well, they don't really know, but it sounds good to say 99 vs 1 so they do.
The only real awareness is the awareness that they don't understand the issues, or how to fix them.
I'm here talking about this because I enjoy discussion. What's wrong with that? I'm not all 'hot under the collar', I just enjoy debate and discussion.
If your siblings have not engaged in fraud or other criminality they have nothing to worry about. It's interesting that you raise the issue of fraud, regulations and politics, yet you state that OWS protesters do not know why they are upset.
It's difficult to debate with someone who perpetually states they are the only ones that understand an issue. It becomes less of a discussion and more of a lecture without meaning.
Have I ever said I'm the only one who understands an issue? I didn't think so.
I said fraud, regulation, and politics, because that is what I hear most. The problem is these protesters don't seem to understand who it is that caused the problems. So, they just label them as the 1%. They're mad at 'wall-street', although most investors are just intelligent people who try to make money by lending their money to other people, just like banks.
problem is these protesters don't seem to understand who it is that caused the problems
The problem is your doing it again, and don't even realize that you're doing it.
hey're mad at 'wall-street', although most investors are just intelligent people who try to make money by lending their money to other people, just like banks.
You are free to believe as you chose, however, I feel this comment is at best naive.
No, I'm not saying I'm the only one who understands. What I'm saying is the majority of the OWS protesters whose arguments I have heard only demonstrate that they don't know who they are angry at. It's always the 1%, or the government, or banks, or the Fed... they don't present any concise definition of the problem, who caused the problem, or how to fix it. The only thing they clearly express is that they don't like the current situation.
Far from naive... I'm an investor, I work with other investors, I communicate with other investors. The majority(numerically) of investors are just people making a living. The money they invest is used by the companies they invest in. The companies hopefully turn a profit and the investor makes money. It's just another type of loan. But thanks for telling me that it's naive without actually providing any substance to your statement.
You've provided it for me. You're an investor, considering the current situation I believe that makes you extremely naive. You still appear hot under the collar and talk about the "majority" of OWS protesters, the "majority" of investors as if you know them all personally, yet you have not provided any substance either. Did it ever occur to you that you might be talking to a protester? And yet you go on to talk about how protesters don't understand the issues, yet you do. I'm going to bed now, this is tedious.
You think I'm naive for investing my money, helping other businesses to make money, and turning a profit? Ok...
I was clear about the majority of OWS protesters I have seen, and I apologize if I offended you. I am referencing OWS protesters who voice their opinions to various news outlets, and mostly in New York. I didn't say all.
It is tedious when you try to stretch my words beyond what I actually say.
No, you didn't say all, just the majority you have seen.(?) You are a fixed and rigid thinker. Every post you make, on every thread, ends the same way "did i say that, don't twist my words" Everyone else is wrong and you are right.
Only when people extend my arguments to something I didn't say. Assuming I'm republican for saying something against Obama. Assuming I'm liberal for saying something against Bush.
This entire incident with the students is ridiculous. The police were trying to remove them and they resisted. They could have used pepper spray or used a pain compliance hold, but people would be just as outraged at that as they are about the pepper spray. More outraged if it ended with a broken arm or dislocated shoulder.
The students are old enough to know better. 'We were just sitting there peacefully(resisting the police), and they sprayed us. We're just a couple of kids' coming from someone who is 22(paraphrased, but that's the message).
I don't have time today to reply to everyone, but the police are justified in using force when people are resisting.
The campus police in this case were NOT justified in using force.
UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi said she asked police to remove tents from the university's quad but did not direct them to forcibly remove the demonstrators.
"I explicitly directed the chief of police that violence should be avoided at all costs," she said. "It was the absolute last thing I ever wanted to happen."
She stressed that students have a right to demonstrate peacefully.
"Because encampments have long been prohibited by UC policy, I directed police only to take down the tents," she said. "My instructions were for no arrests and no police force."
NO ARRESTS. NO POLICE FORCE.
These officers were acting in defiance to the orders of their boss!
Katehi is just trying to cover her ...
It wouldn't have taken her 4 days to say 'I specifically said no arrests' if she had really said that to police. You usually get the best truth the closer to the story. This is what she said.
"However a number of protestors refused our warning, offering us no option but to ask the police to assist in their removal. We are saddened to report that during this activity, 10 protestors were arrested and pepper spray was used. We will be reviewing the details of the incident.
We appreciate and strongly defend the rights of all our students, faculty and staff to robust and respectful dialogue as a fundamental tenet of our great academic institution. At the same time, we have a responsibility to our entire campus community, including the parents who have entrusted their students to us, to ensure that all can live, learn and work in a safe and secure environment. We were aware that some of those involved in the recent demonstrations on campus were not members of the UC Davis community and this required us to be even more vigilant about the safety of our students, faculty and staff. We take this responsibility very seriously."
Notice she didn't start throwing the police under the bus until her job was threatened.
As a group, the students(not sure if they are all students or not from the reports) were linking arms and resisting police. Another option they would have had(and looks like they did some of this too) is pain compliance holds, but with resisting individuals it can result in broken bones or dislocated joints.
Listen, these are adults who were resisting the police. We've seen these protests escalate all across the country. They were trying to keep that from happening. If an adult resists the police, we shouldn't cry about pepper spray. Seriously, what ever happened to responsibility?
"Charles J. Key, a former lieutenant with the Baltimore Police Department who wrote the department's use-of-force manual, said that officers were clearly within their rights to use it.
After reviewing the footage, Key said he observed at least two cases of protesters actively resisting police. In one, a woman pulls her arm back from an officer. In the second, a protester curls into a ball. Each of those actions could have warranted more force, including baton strikes and pressure-point techniques, he said.
"What I'm looking at is fairly standard police procedure," Key said."
"If they don't comply with the police, the police are validated in using things such as pepper spray to clear the street." Yep that is how it is.
"Do you even know who you are talking about?" So why is the Fed privately owned?
Sometimes I have a hard time understanding what you are trying to say knol. 'Yep that is how it is.'? What are you trying to say?
Is it just the Fed that you are mad at, or is it all banks? Is it CEO's, or just banks in general? Who are your upset at?
I'm not upset at anyone. I been through all this before in the sixties and seventies. You might say I have known them all. "I just enjoy debate and discussion.", as well as certain side-interests.
Probably the best thing OWS has accomplished is getting people to talk about policies instead of personalities.
Campus police chief and the officers involved in the incident are on administrative leave.
UC Davis chancellor is falling all over herself trying to do damage control.
Public sentiment is with the students on this one.
Have you seen the videos?
There was no riot.
There was no threat of violence.
There was absolutely no call for use of pepper spray. None.
This is classic police brutality.
They don't care. They see this as a "liberal" movement, therefore it has to be wrong and it follows that any reaction by police is to be lauded.
Automatice, knee jerk reactions. It never, ever changes.
Haha, not a knee-jerk reaction, just a sensible approach.
Let me ask you this. If you walk up to a police station, and start swearing at cops, making threats, etc, and they tell you to leave or get arrested, are you going to blame them if you keep it up?
Yes, this was 'peaceful', but it was still illegal.
You are merely trying to defend the indefensible. And it shows.
He ((she?) has no choice.
Conservatives often get themselves painted into ridiculous corners because they start off with "These (liberals) must be wrong!" and just can't back away no matter how obvious the reality is.
Perils of being a conservative. Inflexible. Unable to change course even when the big iceberg is in plain sight.
"Let me ask you this. If you walk up to a police station, and start swearing at cops, making threats, etc, and they tell you to leave or get arrested, are you going to blame them if you keep it up?"
I'm not going to blame them if they arrested me: I'd deserve to be arrested. I would blame them if they beat me up. Why the difference? One is a legal response, and the other is not.
"Yes, this was 'peaceful', but it was still illegal."
I'm not sure 'making threats' counts as 'peaceful,' but I see your point. Unfortunately, your point is entirely wrong if you mean that if I walk into a police station and start making a scene that I deserve to have a cop-furnished beat-down. That's not how the rule of law works.
Ah! The two party paradigm!!!! That's the perfect and most enduring example of how powerful mass media is in turning otherwise functional humans into retarded or totally deluded zombies.
I like to think of it as WWF wrestling for adults who'll never grow up and realize that it's fake.
Not all public sentiment. The problem is, nobody calls the mayor and says 'I support what the police did, those students were out of line'. Only people who are mad make the effort.
The students were breaking the law, intentionally, and knew what was likely to happen. You keep apologizing for them like they are poor defenseless young people being brutalized by police.
They're not. They could have moved 3 feet and everything would have been fine.
But no, they wanted to make a point.
What do you want the police to do? Ignore it?
Perhaps the police should act like peace officers instead of corporate whores?
Absolutely! Let the police enforce only those laws that they wish to and ignore people breaking the laws the police don't like anyway. After all, isn't that their job? To decide what is right and wrong? We don't need courts, judges and all that stuff - just let the police make the call.
Personally, when that happens it's time to find another place to live.
Wilderness, despite the fact that I've got a ton of respect for your brain - I feel as though you willfully missed my point.
But as to a police officer's discretion - absolutely! I'm absolutely aware of this, and absolutely endorse it. I'm aware of things that go on regularly under police observation that are allowed to go on....for a reason.
I can sometimes trust that high level, highly educated police officers have the intelligence and wherewithal to realize who people are, what their characteristics are, and what they are up to. Not everyone who's purchasing a pound of pot on the black market needs to be arrested - such things happen, are seen, recorded even - and allowed to "walk" without being disturbed.
I've never in my life, however, known of any good reason or justifiable instance of police assaulting persons who were....sitting on the ground doing nothing.
I think I have to back down on this one - somewhere I apparently got lost between a large group destroying parkland and a small group of students apparently doing no harm and inconveniencing no one. Haven't followed the thread very well, I fear.
"The students were breaking the law, intentionally, and knew what was likely to happen."
There is some disagreement on that score. But if in fact they were breaking the law, there are legal consequences for that, including arrest, and not including unnecessary chemical attacks.
"You keep apologizing for them like they are poor defenseless young people being brutalized by police.
Not defenseless? Maybe, but they deliberately didn't defend themselves.
But they were totally being brutalized by the police.
"They could have moved 3 feet and everything would have been fine."
No, everything would not have been "fine." You don't get it, do you?
"But no, they wanted to make a point."
Oh, maybe you do.
"What do you want the police to do? Ignore it?"
No, I want the police to follow the d@|\/||\| law!
These were CAMPUS POLICE.
The University is backing down (bending over backwards) on their actions.
Charges against protesting students to be dropped.
University to pay for the HOSPITALIZATION of students who were pepper sprayed.
Don't forget, this is Davis. Next to Berkeley, the most liberal city in America.
Even the right wing local TV station is not backing up the cops on this one.
If you saw the video you would know this was not peacekeeping.
Here's a good analogy right here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwMAb_qe … re=related
All you need to know about pepper spray:
"To the American Civil Liberties Union, its use as a crowd-control device, particularly when those crowds are nonthreatening, is an excessive and unconstitutional use of force and violates the right to peaceably assemble.
"Some of the Davis students are threatening civil suits against the university on these grounds. The chancellor has called the use of pepper spray “unacceptable” and has put the officers on administrative leave.
“The courts have made it very clear that these type of devices can’t be used indiscriminately and should be used only when the target poses a physical threat to someone,” said Michael Risher, staff attorney for the A.C.L.U. of Northern California....
"To Kamran Loghman, who helped develop pepper spray into a weapons-grade material with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the 1980s, the incident at Davis violated his original intent.
“I have never seen such an inappropriate and improper use of chemical agents,” Mr. Loghman said in an interview.
"Mr. Loghman, who also helped develop guidelines for police departments using the spray, said that use-of-force manuals generally advise that pepper spray is appropriate only if a person is physically threatening a police officer or another person.
"In New York, for example, a police commander who sprayed several women in an Occupy demonstration last month faced disciplinary proceedings. The New York Police Department says pepper spray should be used chiefly for self-defense or to control suspects who are resisting arrest."....More--
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/scien … ?ref=world
Dorli Rainey, 84, was hit by pepper spray during Seattle OWS demonstration, Seattle Pi/AP/NYTimes
Here's Harvard's approach to dealing with OWS protests (NO PEPPER SPRAY):
z'Faust said the administration decided to bar anyone who does not hold a Harvard ID from entering the Yard based on the behavior of demonstrators on November 9, when the protest began (“Some attempted to enter the Yard by force, and assaulted at least one Harvard police officer, grabbing his gun belt and stealing his radio”), and on Web postings inciting protesters to “confrontation and disruption.” She said the group “included individuals who, according to external law enforcement agencies, have engaged in violent behavior elsewhere with the explicit goal of causing disruption and with little connection to any particular cause.”
“Incidents of violence—including shootings and sexual assaults—have occurred at other Occupy sites,” she noted." Read more:
http://harvardmagazine.com/2011/11/faus … dium=email
I often wonder if conservatives have read Civil Disobedience, or Nonviolent Resistance.
Has anyone watched the Bachman video of her being shouted down? It was hilarious.
Maybe you should watch a little more than just what is 'popular' to watch.
According to this, police warned that anyone who didn't comply would be subject to arrest. There was resistance before the circle even formed. You can see it was more than the '10 or 20' students that people claim. The students did encircle the police.
Again, this isn't a case of some innocent students just sitting peacefully when cops show up and spray them.
They sure looked threatening against those cops in riot gear.
Yeah, because large crowds have never turned violent before...
How hard is it to realize that these students were breaking the law? All they had to do was move and they would have been fine. They knew they were breaking the law, and they knew what was coming.
If we arrested and jailed everybody who "broke the law" there would be few people on the outside.
The police deserve to be "thrown under the bus." So does the chancellor.
We do tend to arrest those who look a police officer in the eyes and then proceeds with breaking the law. We do arrest those who refuse to stop breaking the law when confronted by a police officer. We do arrest people who break the law in full and plain sight of a police officer.
We do arrest people who break the law, with regularity. Surreptitiously breaking the law usually doesn't result in an arrest because it is done quietly and in secret.
That's why police don't always arrest and prosecute everybody. But they still have a duty to maintain the peace. Just because we can't arrest every protester who breaks the law, should police give up and allow protesters to do whatever they want?
Arresting is one thing. Pepper spraying is something else.\
A little common sense on both sides would be helpful. Thusfar, thanks restraint by the mayor, the police chief and the occupiers we have had no confrontations in Detroit. The permit to camp in Grand Circus Park was recently extended for two weeks in order to allow more time to find another place.
Either you think the cops should have just left them there, or you think they should have done their jobs. They tried physical force, and with the students linking arms like that someone would be likely to end up seriously injured.
The common sense says, if you're breaking the law and the police give you 30 minutes to move, you move. I don't think anybody should blame the police one bit for this. It's not as damaging as a broken bone or dislocated shoulder.
The entire feeling toward this is consistently 'those poor children' vs 'those evil police'.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
On top of that obvious point, the police do not have carte blanche to use any degree of force they like when dealing with people who are not putting themselves or others in danger. Suggesting otherwise is ridiculous.
Yes, the Federal Government isn't to pass laws prohibiting speech or assembly. But, just as every other right, it isn't limited. You can't protest on private property without permission, your rights don't extend that far.
You can't block off public areas. Do you know why? Because then you are impeding on the rights of others to have access to those areas. Your rights never extend that far.
The police are absolutely authorized to use force when people resist arrest, or resist police orders to clear an area. Pepper spray isn't 'any degree of force'. You act like they were killing people.
I'll say it again. Those students were in violation of law. They are adults. They were physically resisting the police's attempts to clear the sidewalk. The whole thing lasted an hour. They didn't just walk up to protesters and start spraying.
This whole 'cops are evil, unlimited free speech rights' thing is what is ridiculous.
Nobody has answered me so far. What do you want police to do when people are illegally resisting and locking arms?
Leave them be?
Remove by force(it wasn't working)?
Do you propose that the intent of the constitution is that freedom of speech is limited to only when and where authorities say it can be practiced?
Do you seriously suggest that the level of force deployed in the past two months against the #OWS protests by the police with the assistance of federal agencies is reasonable given the non-violent nature of the protests is reasonable?
Nonviolent protests should not be removed by the police, that is your answer. There is no point in protected freedom of speech if it only applies when the powerful want it to.
And thanks for roping me in with a stereotype. But I'll own that. I
suppose I'd rather be a ridiculous 'cops are evil, unlimited free speech rights' guy than a jackboot-licking fascist any day.
Oh, and cupcake? Tell the pregnant woman in Seattle who miscarried after being pepper-sprayed that it's no degree of force. Ask anyone who has ever BEEN pepper-sprayed.
Listen, anybody with a brain understands that an individual's rights don't extend to the violation of another person's rights. This is the founding principle of America. All rights are limited.
The issue we're talking about is UC Davis. Once again, I ask, what should the police do? You either have to say they should let the protesters continue to break the law, or they should do their job. If they should do their job, how should they do it when the 'peaceful protesters' were actively resisting?
Fire hoses? Truncheons? Pepper spray? Physical force?
Here's a simple question. Can you walk into my house and peacefully protest if I don't want you to?
Nobody with any common sense thinks rights are unlimited. You do not have the right to yell fire in a theater just for fun, because that impedes on the rights of everyone else in the theater. You don't have the right to block access because that impedes on the rights of others.
You really need to learn to be careful what you believe. Just because you see something on the internet doesn't make it true. Go look at the stories about that woman again. Her own mother called her a habitual liar and drama queen. She never told her mother she was pregnant. She claimed to have ultrasounds on her but refused to show them.
Even if it were true, a pregnant woman should be more concerned about her baby than being on the front lines of a protest yelling at police. Even just the stress of those types of situations can be bad for a pregnancy.
I didn't say it was no force, I said it's not 'any amount of force'. You make it sound like pepper spray is the same as shooting someone.
It's very simple. Students were illegally camping at the university. They were given a deadline to comply. Some didn't. Police showed up and told them to leave or they could be arrested. Police started physically removing some of the protesters. The protesters encircled the police, linked arms, and physically resisted.
Don't blame the cops because some immature students weren't willing to protest legally.
This false equivalence you keep tossing around insane. Is your house a public sidewalk? If so, then yes. If not then your comparison is silly and meaningless.
Good work on combining victim-blaming and implication that pregnant women should 'just stay in the kitchen' on one filthy screed. You are a champion, sir.
About the woman, I made two points. One, her story has not been verified, and has extreme doubt thrown on it as well. Two, it is the responsibility of a pregnant woman to provide the best chances for a healthy baby. Drugs, smoking, alcohol, and yes, even stress need to be avoided.
The example of a house is perfectly valid anytime someone claims that their right to assemble is 'unlimited'. I can show you that it's not with that example. Once you realize it's not unlimited, you realize we have to decide where the lines are drawn. Personally, I"ll go with case law.
There are legitimate rules regarding how that assemble conducts itself. It cannot block access or egress. Blocking the sidewalk denies its equally legitimate use by those not protesting, those whose right to pass without harassment and to use the public sidewalk are as precious as the protestor's rights. If the protestors were asked to clear the sidewalk and refused to move I would have preferred that they all be arrested for blocking that sidewalk.
The "Right to Assemble" does not mean the right to block the free movement of other citizens, rights to move about. The "Right to Assemble" was included in the Bill of Rights because it is easy to block the exists to a church or meeting hall or pub and round up those holding meetings inside - as the British had done. It may protect the right to meet with each other but it does not create a supremacy of assembly over travel.
I can anticipate the argument that travel, movement, passage, access/egress are not in the Constitution and therefore are not legitimate rights. The Constitution is a limitation on the power of government. Everything not in the Constitution is the province of individual rights. The rights of individuals are presumed to be limited only by the laws the people institute to govern themselves. The power of government is presumed to be those specifically granted it by the people and only those powers not some penumbra or shadow some demented Supreme Court Justice believes, with out real constitutional evidence, exist in the Constitution.
This we have abandoned and it will be to our ruination as a people.
So what you are saying is that was some mysterious "Death Grass" that passers by would drop dead if they stepped on it or is walking on the grass already Illegal where you live? Blocking egress, puhleeese Trying to defend this action is incomprehensible.
The primary issue, as I see it, is not arrests. I'm fine with arrests. Fill the jails. It only shows the bankruptcy of the system.
The issue is the pepper-spraying or baton beating of the protestors. I'll let you get away with the facts that those students were clearly not blocking the sidewalk, because even if they were PEPPER SPRAY IS NOT A REASONABLE LEVEL OF RESPONSE.
This is not a difficult point. Unless you want to make the claim that any level of police response is valid because police=heroes for freedumz(!) then none of your arguments apply to this question.
Let me reiterate one basic point, a police officers fundamental responsibility is to go home whole and healthy when his shift ends. Picking up and carrying a person who refuses to move risks his health. If asked by the police to disband they should have peacefully disbanded and then pursued a redress in court - that I could wholeheartedly support.
By that logic, why not just shoot the protesters rather than risk inhaling the pepper-spray fumes?
Shooting protestors is not a legitimate response to a non-violent protest. Brick, bottle, rock and bomb throwers - yes - loud and stubborn college students - no. However, pepper spraying those who refuse to disperse beats a water cannon or truncheon. The order by police to disperse should be obeyed and fought out in the court - that is the lawful, reasonable and peaceful way to address the issue. Requiring police officers to physically grapple with those who refuse or resist is an undue risk to the police officer.
This. When people are already resisting, the police aren't supposed to each take one person by force until everyone's arrested. That's extremely dangerous. They always work in groups of 2 or more to take down someone who is resisting.
There were dozens of resisting students. Trying to simply remove them all by physical force would have been dangerous for the police and for the protesters.
The protesters were resisting the police. They were warned they could be arrested if they didn't pick up and leave. They resisted.
What do you want the police to do when people resist?
"The primary issue, as I see it, is not arrests. I'm fine with arrests."
"The protesters were resisting the police. They were warned they could be arrested if they didn't pick up and leave. They resisted.
What do you want the police to do when people resist?"
You answered your own question, genius. If you look at what you posted, you will find the correct answer to "What do you want the police to do when people resist?" (To make it easier for you, I put the right answer in bold italics so you could find it with less effort.)
When a large group is physically resisting the police, how should the police execute such arrests? They can try to physically overpower individuals, but when people resist and have locked arms, that can lead to broken bones and dislocated shoulders. It can also lead to police losing control of the situation.
"how should the police execute such arrests?"
They need to start by saying the words "You're under arrest. Please place your hands behind your back."
If someone refuses to comply, then the person is resisting arrest, and force is justified.
"They can try to physically overpower individuals, but when people resist and have locked arms, that can lead to broken bones and dislocated shoulders."
True, but if someone is resisting arrest (which is what you're doing when a cop says, "You're under arrest, please place your hands behind your back," and you don't do that) then you can expect to be treated roughly. And you know what? I don't have a problem with a little rough treatment for people who are resisting arrest. You don't get to use violence against a cop (and the protesters would do well to remember that, always).
"It can also lead to police losing control of the situation."
They never had control of the situation. They relinquished any illusion of control when they started indiscriminately pepper-spraying people who were neither harming nor threatening to harm anyone.
And do you know that the officers didn't say those words? Do you have footage of the previous 30-40 minutes while they were there?
The police had announced when they first arrived that anyone who didn't comply was subject to arrest. We don't have any footage of what the police actually said when they started arresting people, but you automatically assume the worst.
Haha, they had been there for over half an hour, and people were still not complying. They had already physically removed some of the protesters. It was at that point the protesters encircled the police and linked arms.
Do you even know anything about what happened other than the videos uploaded by the students?
A police man has one over riding responsibility that transcends all others - to go home at the end of his shift whole and well. If a student or anyone else doesn't comply with a lawful order but instead chooses to threaten a police officer in the lawful performance of his duty than that officer is entitled by nature to protect himself.
Riot gear is to protect the police officer. If someone is so stupid as to choose to battle it out on the street with the police it is incumbent on that police officer to protect his own health and life. It is not incumbent upon him to take a thrown rock in the head.
If an assembly is truly peaceful and lawful and the authorities are in the wrong then get the ACLU involved, they love those cases.
Katehi didn't throw her cops under the bus 4 days later to save her own butt.
They were put on administrative leave immediately following the incident pending investigation.
The campus already withdrew arrests of the students and is paying for their medical bills.
If the police action was right and proper, do you imagine UC Davis would do that?
I seriously doubt it.
There were a ton of cops standing right there.
Each cop could have arrested one student.
Instead, John Pike went on a rampage.
The police were put on paid leave when people started calling for Katehi's resignation. It's fairly standard for police involved in incidents to be placed on paid leave during investigations.
The campus is doing everything it can due to pressure, because of bad press. Not because of what is right and wrong. Katehi is completely throwing the police under the bus. If she had explicitly said 'no arrests, no violence' she would have said that in the beginning. Not 4 days later when she risks losing her job.
Again, it's not about right and wrong, it's about pressure on the campus.
Did you watch the longer video showing everything? You say each officer could have arrested one student, but that's not a smart way to approach the situation. Officers work in teams to avoid becoming overwhelmed and allowing a situation to escalate.
Again, what do you want them to do? Do you want them to leave the students there? Do you want them to try pain compliance holds on people who are resisting and have locked arms? What do you want them to do?
The fact that you feel it is ok for protesters assembled peacefully be arrested period and with the use of strong arm tactics no less is sad and says it all.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl … p-20111122
Kent State was OK too right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
It is absolutely OK for police to do their job, and if people 'peacefully' are breaking the law and resisting the police, there are only 2 options.
A - Allow them to continue breaking the law
B - Do something about it.
What would you have the police do? If it's A, then you don't respect the law, and you don't understand the reason for it. As a crowd grows, mob mentality grows as well. The larger crowds get, the more danger and damage become inherent.
If you choose B, then the police are justified. These students were RESISTING police. Pepper spray isn't comparable to Kent State, and if you think it is, then you have some issues with logic.
"What would you have the police do?"
Follow the law and arrest the protestors who refuse to comply.
"If you choose B, then the police are justified."
No they aren't. If the police had done what was "justified," they'd have arrested the students, not brutalized them.
"Do something about it" doesn't only mean "beat the protestors to a pulp and spray chemicals in their faces," and if you think it does, then you have some issues with logic.
Beat the protesters to a pulp? Really? I didn't see any of that, interestingly enough.
Do you understand how irrelevant your response is? I'll lay it out for you.
Q - How should police arrest people who are resisting as a group?
A - They should arrest them.
You haven't actually addressed the question, so don't talk to me about logic.
If the police want to arrest a group that is physically resisting, they have a few options.
Pain Compliance/Physically overpowering
How do you want police to handle the situation? Are you going to defend the protesters and say it's ok to actively, physically resist the police, and the police shouldn't be able to do squat about it?
"Beat the protesters to a pulp? Really? I didn't see any of that, interestingly enough."
Fair enough. But you sure saw them hosing people down with pepper spray.
"Q - How should police arrest people who are resisting as a group?
A - They should arrest them."
You've changed the question to make the answer seem silly. The original question was this:
"How should the police respond to protestors who are 'resisting' their orders?"
If people are breaking the law (if, remember) the cops can order them to stop breaking the law. If the people continue to 'break the law' (remember, it's only an alleged crime so far) then the cops can arrest them (and start the due process of law). If the people resist arrest (which is different from refusing to obey an order to stop, or disperse, or whatever) then the police are justified in using enough force to take that person into custody.
"If the police want to arrest a group that is physically resisting, they have a few options."
You forgot "Grab a guy and put him in handcuffs; repeat until you run out of guys. (Or handcuffs, I guess.)" But that's not terribly surprising, because that's the right thing to do.
"Are you going to defend the protesters and say it's ok to actively, physically resist the police, and the police shouldn't be able to do squat about it?"
I never said any such thing. To say that I did would be rude, wouldn't it? I mean, if it's rude for me to say that you said "resisting arrest" when you merely said "resisting..."
That's not the post you responded to. You responded to a post I made where I was talking about the physically resisting. I had posted a video showing the police tying the hands of the individuals, so 'arrest' was presumed.
EXACTLY. That's what happened. Don't equate sufficient force(pepper spray) to 'beating them into a pulp'.
When people physically resist and link arms, that kind of force will almost inevitably lead to dislocated shoulders or broken bones. It also puts the police in a more vulnerable position.
I started talking about resisting arrest after I posted the video that showed the police were already taking people into custody. If that was misunderstood, then it's no big deal. That's what the police were doing, and that's what the protesters were doing.
So, what should the police have done to the protesters who were resisting arrest?
How should the police arrest someone? Are you joking? the people were sitting down.
You could have just "walked behind them, and closed a pair of handcuffs on their wrists". You HONESTLY couldn't infer that such would be the proper way of arresting someone?
I didn't see a single protester fight, run away, kick, scream (before the spray, that is).
Once the people start doing this, then you use the pepper spray.
Sorry, but you've lost this argument.
No, the protesters had their arms linked. Seriously, go watch some footage other than the pepper spraying.
Initially the police started walking toward the tents. The protesters stood in front of the tents and linked arms. They had already been warned the would be arrested.
Police arrested several protesters until they could get to the tents. Then the protesters encircled the police and again linked arms.
Go look at footage before the spray to see what actually happened.
"what should the police have done to the protesters who were resisting arrest?"
When someone is resisting arrest, force is justified.
"Don't equate sufficient force(pepper spray) to 'beating them into a pulp'."
Did everyone who got drenched in pepper spray (excessive force, btw) get arrested? Somehow I don't think that happened. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Force is justified, but pepper spray is excessive? Make up your mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ePH-1B2 … re=related
They took everyone who was on the sidewalk. Watch from about 1 minute to 2 minutes.
"Force is justified, but pepper spray is excessive? Make up your mind."
Force /= pepper spray. Pepper spray is a subset of force, not the only force. Grabbing the suspects is force. So is a hammer-lock. So is shooting them. One of those examples of force is also "excessive." Can you guess which?
Also, were the people told they were being arrested before, or after, they were hosed down with pepper spray? It's a very important distinction.
We don't have footage of everything that happened. We do have footage of the police announcing that anyone who didn't comply would be subject to arrest at the very beginning.
You don't even know what happened but you are so adamant that the police were wrong. Go do some research on it.
Then why didn't the police just arrest the protesters? Was the pepper spray needed to make an arrest of someone peacefully sitting on the ground?
Um...NO IT WASN'T!
Why do you love police violence?
Because, they were physically resisting the police. The police started making arrests, and the protesters started resisting... it's not a difficult concept.
Look at the footage. Even after the students were sprayed, it took 3 cops to get 1 protester out of the link.
Matt Taibbi on OWS:
The protesters, chirped Supreme Reichskank Ann Coulter, needed three things: "showers, jobs and a point." Her colleague Charles Krauthammer went so far as to label the protesters hypocrites for having iPhones. OWS, he said, is "Starbucks-sipping, Levi's-clad, iPhone-clutching protesters [denouncing] corporate America even as they weep for Steve Jobs, corporate titan, billionaire eight times over." Apparently, because Goldman and Citibank are corporations, no protester can ever consume a corporate product – not jeans, not cellphones and definitely not coffee – if he also wants to complain about tax money going to pay off some billionaire banker's bets against his own crappy mortgages.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne … z1ecwCHjMK
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne … s-20111110
Do you mean the crappy mortgages of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac?
Do you mean the crappy mortgages banks had to make to keep the Justice Departments civil rights division off their back?
Do you mean the crappy mortgages banks made to placate local agitators who threatened lawsuits and trouble if the banks weren't loose enough with their lending policies?
Do you mean the crappy mortgages that federal lending guidelines permit?
Do you mean the crappy mortgages that Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac encouraged by providing a wildly inappropriate set of lending rules for the secondary market?
Do you mean the crappy mortgages that greedy borrowers took on just to get that giant house, you know the one, the one they could never afford if not for the mortgages encouraged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
Surely you don't mean the mortgages whose risk, imposed by external forces, they attempted to mitigate by creating large bundles of low risk and high risk mortgages for investment. It is a tactic that failed. It failed because it could not succeed. It did not fail because every bank is corrupt and evil.
The federal government failed in one of its fundamental duties, to the money supply. It permitted the creation of a financial instrument with out appropriate examination of the risk to the nations financial health.
There is more than enough blame to go around. A constituent part belongs to a government too involved in the ordinary operation of a business and not involved enough in protecting the integrity of the economy.
This is why de-regulation was/is so important,correct? So banks and trading firms can do the right thing? OK
FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair disputes that the CRA was a problem "Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can't afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth ... pure and simple."
Exactly. But these people hate government because it interferes with their "freedom". You know, the freedom to be prejudiced, the freedom to pollute, the freedom to teach your kids that evolution is evil.. the IMPORTANT stuff.
So, they are going to take well intentioned regulations ("If you are going to seek deposits in poor neighborhoods, you had better be willing to loan in those some neighborhoods") and pretend that it was the root cause of the crash.
You can't reason with them. They know what they know and that's where it ends. I'm sick to death of their blindness.
So when the American financial system collapses, again, who will be left to blame? The new system of regulations is driving smaller banks into the arms of even larger more inefficient banks. Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac are continuing the exact same practices that caused their multitude of problems, unabated. But that is ok, as long as banks avoid the Justice Department hammering them and continue to generate no-doc, no margin, no income loans for greedy borrowers who want a house they can never afford.
If you read you will find that I do not recommend total deregulation of the banking industry. In fact, the government is charged with responsibility over the money supply. Fiduciary instruments are part of that money supply because they create economic value. The daily practices regarding lending are not part of that responsibility unless it endangers the value of money or force and fraud exist.
The responsibility of the government does not extend, however, to the requirements to secure a loan such as income to debt ratios, down payments, income stability, credit history, documentation, etc.... It is precisely those areas where Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac consistently loosened lending requirements creating loans to be predicated on fraud. No Doc, No Income verification, interest only loans encouraged borrowers to buy more house than their actual income could justify - these loans were created precisely because Fanny and Freddy had created a viable secondary market for their re-sale.
When lending was made part of Civil Rights policy it stopped being responsible.
Did banks lend against their own best interests, yes. Did they do it with only greed in mind, no. Many banks offered these loans with severely loosened requirements because it was the only way to lend to some who the government was "protecting." Were the banks being racist, no. Lending by a strict set of guidelines would have never resulted in the latest government generated disaster.
The government insisted that those guidelines were discriminatory rejecting that it is a good thing to discriminate between those who can re-pay and those who cannot. Lending guidelines are color blind, sex blind, education blind. Those institutions that practiced the old-fashioned lending style and did not invest in credit default swaps - THIS IS WERE THE GOVERNMENT FAILED - remained solvent.
When government, in its stupid, clumsy, gargantuan, inefficient, ego-maniacal, mindless bumbling fails to discharge its responsibility it is all of us that pay. The economy suffers because the government is stupid. The imposition of new regulations on all things external to government. The grinding on of economic problems that would be over if not for that governments idiocy. Government ignored Bernie Madoff's outrageous business practices for decades. They ignored, facilitated or created the problems in the financial industry.
So...it's a race problem?
Riiiiiighhhhtttt stupid equal rights! How dare they stand in the way of a bank's right to discriminate based on race, creed and gender! Banks are people too!
You sir, are awesome. Never change, you crazy moonbeam.
Do banks discriminate based on sex, creed or race? In my experience as a mortgage loan officer I can tell you the quickest way to get fired is to deny a loan to a low risk borrower. However, I would allow any business to deny service to anyone they want to deny including race, creed and sex because I want to open a shop right next door and welcome those denied. Any business stupid enough to not take a customer's money because the hand that is holding it belongs to a Black man, a woman, a homosexual, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Seikh, etc... deserves someone like me as their competition.
I would love to have the custom of anyone able to afford my service, that is not, however, what the government does. It compels custom with those not able to afford a service for no other reason than to avoid government law suits. I
f my bank is not in a neighborhood with a credit worthy population to whom can I lend without taking an undue risk. My bank provides services like a secure place to keep small savings accounts or pay bills or cash checks or provides counseling on debt/credit. If that bank is in a minority community and cannot find someone credit worthy based on good practices it runs the risk of being accused of racism when the opposite is the case.
Every loan officer is an evil servant of an evil master. The banks don't want your money if you are a woman or Black or a Muslim.
There are some communities in which it is hard to find someone credit worthy enough qualify for a loan based on objective measures of debt, income, credit history, loan to value, etc.... Money is color blind.
Which of the two is the cynical one that reduces people? Thanks for the name calling, that is the awesome part of all of this.
"Do you mean the crappy mortgages of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac?
Do you mean the crappy mortgages banks had to make to keep the Justice Departments civil rights division off their back? "
You keep repeating the "It's all the fault of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the government" mantra--I guess the old maxim is true: if you repeat a big enough lie long enough and loudly enough, people will begin to believe it.
Check it: from Forbes.
Fannie and Freddie were bit players in this catastrophe. Private lenders relaxed standards far more than "required" to by the fair housing act, probably to ensure a steady flow of mortgages to securitize and dump on the unsuspecting investor.
It's de-regulation (at the urging of private--not public or semi-public--lenders), malfeasance, and securities fraud that caused the housing collapse, not over-regulation.
I don't blame you for believing that regulation and government is the cause, though. Lots of people have been spending a lot of money to convince everyone that this is the case, and it's not surprising that many people believe it.
You mistake part of my meaning. It is the failure of the government to discharge one of its fundamental responsibilities that facilitated the creation of credit default swaps. The government, through the SEC, had all the tools it needed to do the job right without adding to its regulatory power but for some reason - probably just the ineptitude and inertia inherent to bureaucracies - especially vast government bureaucracies it did nothing to question the creation of trillions of dollars in fiduciary instruments. It is the same casual disregard for one of the governments fundamental responsibilities that let Bernie Madoff bilk investors out of billions.
You see nefarious purposes. I see strange distortions in the mortgage market and encouragement to expand those distortions from a government rewarding bad practices on one hand and ignoring the adaptations lenders made to protect their investments - at any cost - on the other. Yes it was stupid and reckless. But it was stupid and reckless on the part of all participants. Lenders, insurers, investors, regulators, borrowers all participated in a twisted and distorted market.
------In 1999, a friend of mine and the real estate inspector I was using when I did mortgage loans decried the distortions in market value that he, as an ethical inspector, saw creeping into the mortgage business. All I know first hand is that the secondary market, of which FM/FM were the driving force was reducing requirements and asking for less and less proof of credit worthiness. The companies for which I worked during an abbreviated career have subsequently disappeared. They were scrupulous in their practices, though I was quite aware of those who were not.-----
Government is miserable at its fundamental responsibilities. Expanding the reach of that inept body doesn't make much sense. Allowing the failures to fail rather than rescuing them from their just desserts reinforces the idea that government is not only inept but where it insinuates itself it sows the seeds of further and future disaster.
That's really interesting, UCV.
Unfortunately, the "only the good die young" (survival of the baddest/fattest and all that).
I think that as the distortions became the norm, the scrupulous ones got smacked out of the way while the marginally scrupulous ones got swept up in the current. That goes for all stakeholders you've mentioned, don't you think?
There were no rewards for playing by the old rules once the rules relaxed into chaos.
In the end, the ones at the top of the heap were deemed "too big to fail."
We will never know now if they really were. Will we?
GM and Chrysler were among the too big to fail. We will know what the insulation of those who should have failed from their failure will produce. We can see it in Europe today. Greece was living far beyond its means, as was Spain and Italy. The collapse of the economy is inevitable. It is, in many ways, the repetition of the Great Depression. Government insinuated itself into the market place and stretched what should have been an 18 - 24 month down turn into 20 years of recession, depression, stagnation and distortion. It took until 1949 for the stock market to regain the value it had at the beginning of 1929.
I own 3 Fords. I can't afford to buy anything. Can barely afford the gasoline to get to work each day. Thanks to stupid policies that have destroyed our energy industry and our economy in general.
I'm sure speculation has nothing to do with the price of fuel either.
Not understanding how price speculation works always leads to that answer. The instability of the Middle East, currently facilitated by Obama's ineptitude coupled with the intentional destruction of the Gulf oil industry results in price speculation. The purchasing of future contracts tends to stabilize not destabilize prices.
Price stability occurs at a much higher price because the destabilizing forces will last into the distant future thanks to the foolish short sightedness of liberals and the enviro-nuts they have courted. Increasing all energy supplies in stable countries - like the US and Canada - would do far more to bring the price down than anything in the sham "green" economy silly liberals love.
The billions pumped into dead end alternatives over the past thirty years could have been left in the hands of citizens rather than squandered on 14th century windmills, waterwheels and "solar" power.
Yeah, that's about as short sighted as you can get.
No matter what time limit you want to put on oil, the fact is that it WILL be exhausted and the time to work on replacements is NOW. It doesn't matter whether you think that's 10 years away or two hundred: it's a problem we need to face.
Evey date ever offered for the exhaustion of petroleum has been wrong. New deposits are being found all the time. New methods for its efficient extraction are being developed. New efficiencies in its use are being developed all the time.
You have decided that the time is now so as the liberal dictator of how things are to proceed we must be forced to abandoned this amazingly productive and efficient energy source. You say there is no utopian fantasy but liberals have decided that we all must be forced to live as they would have us live. They have decided that all the rest of us are not only stupid but hateful.
How entertaining it is to watch the hypocrisy. Liberals in Boston and New York spout that garbage about the end of oil while burning filthy, inefficient home heating oil. Time to live the values Northeastern liberals espouse and move to where it is warm, thus eliminating the need to burn all that oil.
California liberals are just as hypocritical, bellyaching about using petroleum based fuels while driving everywhere and eschewing public transport.
The hypocrisy is rampant. Liberals live the same pampered comfortable life as everyone else rather than join one of their most famous Eco-philosophers - Ted Kaczynski - in the woods and off the grid. The prosperity of city life is made possible by the expenditure of vast amounts of capital - primarily energy.
It would be more respectable if liberals lived according to their own values. But than who would know? Living according to liberal values would necessitate unwinding hundreds of years of American civilization and return to the Middle Ages. The implications of the perfect liberal utopia is one of privation and desperation.
To live as liberals would want we would all be waiting in lines for our rations or scratching starvation from the rocks - that is everyone but the party members. They would be driven to their dachas in the only working automobiles.
"Evey date ever offered for the exhaustion of petroleum has been wrong. New deposits are being found all the time. New methods for its efficient extraction are being developed. New efficiencies in its use are being developed all the time. "
That is, the oil supply is sufficient when burned to increase the earth's temperature to a virtually unlimited level. Wonderful!
Ayup. According to the wonderful experts on the Right, we'll NEVER run out of oil. We'll just keep finding more and more and more..
It's amazing how little intelligence it would take to see how ridiculous that idea is.
Organs of the "right"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/opini … wanted=all
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … NTCMP=SRCH
What happened to peak whale oil, peak coal, peak wood, peak peat, peak manure. Everything that has ever been burned for energy has reached a point where its alternative became the more desirable source of energy. It is a natural and direct consequence of real, not compelled psuedo, progress.
And there it is -
"It's amazing how little intelligence it would take to see how ridiculous that idea is."
Stupid and evil conservatives. It is likely that oil will become more expensive - in economic terms - to use than what ever alternative presents itself. As of yet that has not happened.
But you have decided that it is NOW that we MUST live as you say. And you say there is no liberal utopian fantasy relying on empowering a vast central state to force people to live in it. How amusing.
We've decided that you can't go on raping the planet to get at the last few drops of oil, yes.
Get over it. You may not be able to comprehend how important preserving our ecosystems are, but fortunately most of us can.
Pcunix, maybe you should look at this
http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/G … Record.htm
It has a link to a study, you have to register to read it.
"The time lag of the rise in CO2concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions. "
Increasing CO2 doesn't rape our environment.
Did I say anything about CO2? I could have, but I didn't.
No. I'm talking about destroying permafrost, destroying oceans, destroying fish, animals, habitats..
But never mind. There is absolutely no point in mentioning any of that. Drill, baby, drill!
And how are we destroying everything?
There is no problem with working on alternative energy sources, but there is no reason to cripple our economy while we do so.
Do you want all cars to be hydrogen with 0 emissions? How are we going to get the Hydrogen? How are we going to get the electricity to create the hydrogen? Or do you have better alternatives?
Emotional appeal - retreat of those without ideas. Maybe if you round up all the conservatives and isolate them in ghettos - even tattoo bar codes on their arms - we can save the planet from their evil.
Raping the planet. Raping a planet that predates us by billions of years and will be here long after the sun cooks off what ever follows us. A planet that has shrugged off the massive damage from WWI, WWII, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl? You mean that planet. The one where wolves and deer are prospering in the shadow of a Ukrainian nuclear reactor.
or do you mean the planet that survived this -
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … l-cooling/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … saurs.html
Perhaps Gaia likes it rough.
A reference to global warming - really. That still has weight?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor … ng-debate/
Emails are a terrible contributor to global warming.
Time to live your values and stop doing everything that makes living in the frozen and forsaken lands of Massachusetts and Michigan possible.
http://thegreenerme.hubpages.com/hub/gl … ing-causes
"stupid policies that have destroyed our energy industry"
The energy industry is alive and well, especially the international oil companies, coal companies and electric power companies. They are inundating us with TV ads promoting fracking, the pipeline from Canada, drilling in parks, etc.
Exxon profits barely managed to increase by 41% - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j … 73342.html
That's a crippled company, if you ask me. I'd hate to be a majority stockholder - I might have to sell one of my jets and buy a few new ones.
One Million Jobs Lost
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/2 … 19238.html
$1.1 Billion in lost wages(middle income wages)
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/trading/wha … year.html/
Standing in the way of 1 million jobs
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gener … -Jobs.html
Obama has hamstrung the economy and we all suffer. Exxon's profits are often used as an argument. But one number in a vacuum without full reference to the full picture of how energy is found, developed and distributed is only good as a propaganda tool.
As for drilling in parks - as Ralph mentioned. I hope the swing set doesn't get in the way.
Oh, yeah, Obama ruined everything. Don't you EVER get tired of spouting that nonsense?
In the Gulf there is a clear delineation between before Obama and after Obama. The end of oil production and exploration in the Gulf and the resultant impact on the regional economy are clearly a by product of Obama policies.
Of course it was his fault, and for no good reason whatsoever.
Just mean spitefulness. Free enterprise, drill, baby, drill!
What could it hurt? What could go wrong? Nothing..
Escapism beckons like a Busby Berklee musical .
A Busby Berkeley reference - color me impressed. All I will be dreaming of is boom shots of kaleidoscopic dance arrangements.
Honestly, it worries me the attitude people have. The assumptions of what rights we do and don't have, and the unbelievable expectation that people should be able to resist the police and not have anything done to them...
Why don't we just get rid of the police?
"The assumptions of what rights we do and don't have"
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
Originally, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ … sobedience
Keep giving up your rights,,,soon you won't have any.
What rights am I giving up? If I want to protest, I can do so. That doesn't mean I can walk into a congressman's house and refuse to leave. All of our rights have limits.
What do you thin the right to peacefully assemble means? Where ? Rent the Garden? Staples Center? A campus which is rightfully their residence by paying tuition.
No damage or threat was apparent or occurring.
Do you think freedom of assembly means you can camp out on public property? Private property?
Do you know anything about the historical context of the Bill of Rights? The first Continental Congress said this about assembly:
"That they have a right peaceably to assemble, consider of their grievances, and petition the king"
The founding fathers had no representation, and weren't allowed to petition the king, or even to assemble to discuss their grievances with each other.
It doesn't mean you can assemble anywhere you want for any reason.
"For the legislature absolutely or conditionally to forbid public speaking in a highway or public park is no more an infringement of the rights of a member of the public than for the owner of a private house to forbid it in his house. When no proprietary rights interfere, the Legislature may end the right of the public to enter upon the public place by putting an end to the dedication to public uses. So it may take the lesser step of limiting the public use to certain purposes.” Commonwealth v Davis"
Public land, as meaning land owned by the government and designated for public use, is under the responsibility of the government. Essentially, it is the government's 'private property'.
A police force for whom violence is the default response has no purpose in a free society except to destroy it. The purpose of the police force is to protect citizens. The question that you ideologues keep skirting is who was Pike protecting? The sidewalk?
Show your work. Any answer that suggests that the students have fewer rights than X (which covers the entire mess you spewed on this thread) because they were breaking a nebulous law by exercising inalienable rights granted to them in the constitution in excess of what YOU deem proper will not receive credit.
In addition, you will be mercilessly taunted if you suggest that that line of kids was 'blocking the sidewalk' which the photograph clearly shows to be untrue.
Violence wasn't the default response. They were there for an hour. The students refused to comply, some were illegally camping, and they blocked the sidewalk.
Listen, large groups are dangerous. If people want to protest they should show that they aren't dangerous by doing so legally. The police have not only the right, but the duty to disperse unruly crowds. "But they were peaceful!"
Being peaceful doesn't allow you to break the law.
They sat and linked arms in a circle around the police, including across the sidewalk. Before that, they refused to comply with police who were dispersing people who were camping illegally.
Our rights aren't unlimited. I understand you think they are, but they simply aren't. Maybe you should come picket my house to teach me better.
If the police were anything other than corporate bodyguards for exceedingly wealthy individuals...perhaps we'd respect them more?
Are you a policeman by any chance? If not, maybe you've missed your calling. You'd fit right in.
No, I"m not. But I'm glad we have police. Their job isn't easy, and when people like these protesters act the way they do, they only disrespect the police, who by and large are great people who help make our society a place that is one we can all live in.
Without Civil Disobedience segregation would still exist.
The acrid taste left from that era isn't forgotten by many Americans.
It would do you a great justice to read Civil Disobedience and Kings Non violent resistance and Letters from Birmingham.
Every photo of a bloody protester, every video of pepper spray, the movement grows. As does its support.
Since para military tactics and mindset have been brought into the domestic police force, apparently some citizens don't mind non-violent protesters being sprayed in the face, brutally beat upon, etc. Honestly I think many forget exactly what it is we're trying to defend and should defend.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl … p-20111122
another decent read from Matt Taibbi, the video is chilling to say the least..
a quick link to Thoreau's Civil Disobedience http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil1.html
These guys were upset at tuition increase. Yes, let's break the law because tuition went up.
If you don't like how much your school costs, go somewhere else for your education. Or, work within the law to try and make changes.
Don't compare tuition to segregation, it's disrespectful
What law was this? College Campuses now write laws? The college administration should be even more aware of the students right to assemble. This was a gem of yours btw. "Listen, large groups are dangerous." Sporting events should be immediately banned. Also dangerous are kitchen knives,sunlight, crossing the street and so on. It's blatantly clear that you have little understanding of what went on. Again, keep giving up your rights, soon you wont have any.
Large groups who are in violation of law. Happy? I figured it was clear from the context.
The laws they broke were illegal camping, blocking public thoroughfare, resisting police, and I"m sure many others, but I'm not a lawyer.
Again, you have the right to protest, but only within limits.
Please, answer my question. Do you think you have the right to protest in my house?
Become more knowledgeable of what you defend, soon your rights will become more 'limited' as we have slowly seen post 9-11.
In your house is trespassing. Students paying tuition and "Reside" on campus are what? Residents? Open space would be theirs to use wouldn't it. The ones on the sidewalk were doing what? They weren't camping ,they had no tents. Did we see the same video?That coward just casually walked up on the protesters and unloaded the canister and to their credit,The kids didn't flinch. Your logic is flawed and it's not looking like you can sell it here.
Some background http://www.rense.com/general95/whois.htm
Tuition doesn't cover the right to camp on the quad. Do you really think it does? My logic isn't flawed, you think paying tuition means students own the school. As for your background, I stopped at the picture of warthog-cops. Yes, you obviously picked an unbiased source.
Go watch a video that shows the whole thing. The police showed up, and announced the protesters needed to disband as they were breaking the law. They said they could be arrested. They didn't just walk up to some protesters and start spraying.
They were trying to remove tents and campers, and people started resisting. A crowd encircled the police(not smart), then a bunch of kids sat in a circle around the cops linking arms(not smart).
I have been referencing your Youtube clip.
"The University of California at Davis' chancellor, Linda Katehi, is now claiming that in using pepper spray on peaceful protesters the police were defying her orders.
Katehi's statement was issued as public indignation over the brutal incident continues and the Davis Faculty Association called for her resignation on the 19th.
She claims that she has ordered police to standby if an emergency arises while staying out of sight, saying, "They are on call, but they are not visible."" (1)
Annette Spicuzza is the Campus Police Chief, .
"Spicuzza proved to be a liar Saturday as she tried to justify the pepper spray incident by telling journalists the officers were in fear for their safety. This is what she told the Sacramento Bee:
"There was no way out of that circle," she told the newspaper. "They were cutting the officers off from their support. It's a very volatile situation."
This is what she told the Times:" The students had encircled the officers," she said. "They needed to exit. They were looking to leave but were unable to get out."
Did it look like they were trying to get out to you? This was my biased source, two California newspapers. Police are overstepping their boundaries,removal of the tents,fine. Spraying some young adults protesting on a sidewalk,.This whole movement has been almost 100% peaceful,until the police in riot gear show up. Some use better judgement
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/10/24/n … rotesters/
It took Katehi 4 days of being threatened with her job to come up with that story. If it were true she would have said it earlier.
Do you realize that there is such a thing as PR damage control? People make up stories to try and appease the public. It usually doesn't matter what the truth is if the public is mad, people will just try to appease the public.
"the unbelievable expectation that people should be able to resist the police and not have anything done to them."
Nobody expects that people shouldn't face consequences for disobeying the police.
What good citizens expect is that the consequences for doing so will be legal ones: legal arrest without excessive force.
You seem to think that if a cop says disperse, and the crowd doesn't disperse, then it's okay to beat the hell out of the crowd, and the cops who do the beating shouldn't face any consequences for their actions.
There are many possible police responses to disobedience.
1) repeat the order (perhaps a good first response)
2) attempt to physically shove the protestors out of the way (a good second response)
3) Start pepper-spraying and beating people (not justified unless the people are assaulting the cops, or perhaps preventing the cops from reaching someone in need of help)
4) start arresting the protestors who refuse to comply (the legal response, and perfectly acceptable and justified)
5) give up and go home (not a good idea for many reasons)
See, there are plenty of choices besides "do nothing" and "open a can of whoop-@$$."
What is excessive force when a group is physically resisting?
Nobody was 'beating the hell out of the crowd'. It's such a ridiculous thing to say.
The police spent a good 30 minutes trying to talk these people into compliance.
Police started the day off by removing individuals from the group. The group escalated by surrounding the police, linking arms, and refusing to move.
Ok, so the police are trying to physically remove people(we don't know which were being arrested, but they were tying hands so we can assume that was what was happening). When people start resisting that force, you can't just say 'police should arrest them'. The question is, how should the police go about arresting a group that is physically resisting?
Right, but what do they do when people resist?
You keep trying to make it okay for cops to brutalize people who are nonviolent. It isn't. It never. will. be. You are defending the indefensible.
"When people start resisting that force, you can't just say 'police should arrest them'."
Yes, you can. In fact, that is exactly what ought to happen. As you ponted out earlier, the cops have a few options:
1) doing nothing (not a good idea)
2) arresting the people who do not comply (the correct choice)
3) bypassing due process and meting out punishment on their own (both immoral and illegal)
Anyone who resists arrest (different from merely disobeying the cops' orders) should expect to be forced into custody. But that still doesn't mean pepper spray is the first tool you pull out, and once the arrest begins, there's a process that must be followed. You may have heard the phrase 'due process of law?' Yeah, it's that. Pepper-spraying nonviolent protestors bypasses due process.
The position that the cops were justified in hosing down the protestors with pepper spray is morally bankrupt.
Jeff. Try to answer my question.
My question is, when protesters are PHYSICALLY RESISTING, how should the police arrest? You can't just cuff somebody who is resisting and guide them to a cruiser. Your answer to the question is 'arrest them'.
Please, try and answer the question. How are they supposed to go about that? You have to pick one of the following or provide your own answer. Keep in mind that the protesters are resisting and locking arms, so danger for broken bones and dislocation is present.
A - Physically overpower individuals on a 2 to 1, 3 to 1, or higher ratio.
B - Use clubbing
C - Truncheons
D - Fire Hose
E - Pepper Spray
F - Taser
G - Tear Gas
H - Flash Bangs
I - Bullets
Pick one or come up with your own. I'm tired of people like you saying 'they should just arrest them', ignoring the fact that the protesters were resisting.
Pepper-spraying people who are physically resisting arrest? What is your option?
Then provide an alternative. Dodge the question again and I just won't respond to you.
"My question is, when protesters are PHYSICALLY RESISTING, how should the police arrest?"
By initiating the arrest procedure, which starts with the cop saying the words "You're under arrest."
Once the cop says "You're under arrest," and the protestor refuses to comply, the protestor is now not merely disobeying a police order (or 'resisting' as you would have it) but resisting arrest, at which time force becomes justified.
Let me remind you of something: Earlier you made a huge deal about the distinction between "resisting" and "resisting arrest." The distinction is important.
You seem to really want folks to say that the cops never get to use force ever no matter what, but NOBODY has said that.
You also seem to believe that people think "arrest them" means waving a magic wand and *poof!* the suspects will be miraculously moved into the back of the squad car. NOBODY thinks that.
Once the cop says the words "You're under arrest," then the person becomes a suspect in a crime, and the cop gets to take them into custody. If the suspect refuses to comply, he is now resisting arrest, and force would be justified. But nobody was doing that, were they? You made sure to make that exact point above....
Now, would you like to keep playing make believe, or would you like to explain why it's okay to use violence on someone who is not harming another person, not threatening to harm another person, not preventing medical aid from reaching someone in need of it, and not resisting arrest?
We have to ask ourselves why a cop might choose not to arrest these protestors. Can anyone think of some reasons? I'll leave creating that list as an exercise for the student.
First, early on I made the distinction because I had no evidence of the police arresting anybody. When I found the longer report I had that evidence, showing the police arresting.
Secondly, I would love to see where the law says a cop has to say 'you are under arrest'. As far as I'm aware that's not an actual requirement. If a police officer comes up to you and grabs your arm to handcuff you, that constitutes an arrest. Unless you can show me differently.
The protesters were in the wrong. Get over it. They were only let go because the university is trying to save face from angry people who don't understand what happened.
"The protesters were in the wrong. Get over it"
Oh, then charges were filed, they were prosecuted, and they were all found guilty?
"They were only let go because the university is trying to save face from angry people who don't understand what happened."
Oh, so they weren't in the wrong, but you're going to keep pretending that they were.
They were arrested. That was your question. Charges were dropped later, but anyone can tell that was trying to be compassionate and to save face.
They were in the wrong. The police were sent in to remove the tents. They had a deadline to remove the tents. The police told them to remove the tents or face arrest. When the police advanced on the tents, protesters linked arms blocking the way.
Do you really want to keep saying they were in the right?
"They were arrested. That was your question."
If someone was being placed under arrest, and resisted arrest, then force (not necessarily pepper-spray, but some level of force) is justified. On that, I believe, we agree.
"Charges were dropped later, but anyone can tell that was trying to be compassionate and to save face."
When a cop arrests someone, that's the beginning of due process. If there is evidence that a crime was committed, then charges are usually filed. If not, then no charges are filed. Were charges filed and then dropped? You know this how?
"They were in the wrong."
They were in the wrong for resisting arrest. That's all.
"Do you really want to keep saying they were in the right?"
Yes, absolutely. Resisting arrest=wrong. We're on the same page there. However, breaking an unjust law, or demanding the repeal of one, or demanding the equal enforcement of a just law that is being unequally enforced, is not wrong. In fact, it's about the rightest thing I can think of.
So, emrldphx said:
"Secondly, I would love to see where the law says a cop has to say 'you are under arrest'. As far as I'm aware that's not an actual requirement. If a police officer comes up to you and grabs your arm to handcuff you, that constitutes an arrest. Unless you can show me differently."
This was bugging me, so I looked it up. Turns out, the cops don't always need to say "You're under arrest" for there to be an arrest taking place. So I was wrong about that. My bad. An arrest is made when a reasonable person would, under the circumstances, believe he was under arrest/being detained/not free to go.
But it's also true that the subjective intent of the police is irrelevant, unless the police make their intent known.
So, it's not required for the cops to say "You're under arrest" for an arrest to be taking place. But the cop saying "You're under arrest" clears up any ambiguity with regard to the officer's intent or whether a person would reasonably believe himself to be under arrest.
I'd hate for people to go on thinking the wrong thing because of me.
Are you saying that all police orders are lawful, per se, and that resisting any police order is unlawful? Are we obligated to do what any police officer tells us to do? Even an order to an African American to stop using a whites only bathroom or drinking fountain or not take a vacant seat in the front of a bus? That sounds like a police state to me.
I blame the people who are telling the police what to do as much or even more than the police officers although they should know better than using pepper spray on passive protesters.
If a cop tries to arrest me for something that's not right, do you know what I'll do? Go along with it and get a lawyer. It's happened to me several times. I would never think 'You're wrong about this so I"ll resist'.
Comparing illegally camping to racism is quite a stretch as well Ralph. Try to come up with some relevant examples.
I mentioned one in another thread about my experience when a cop told me to stop taking pictures of a very bad two car accident near my house. When I arrived on the scent there were a couple of police cars, two EMS units and a fire truck as I recall. I had my camera with a long lens and started taking pictures from across the street at least 50 feet away when a policeman came up to me and said "Put the camera away. Stop taking pictures." I replied "Why?" The cop said "Because I said so." To which I replied "That's not good enough. What law am I violating." Finally the policeman gave up and went back to the accident scene where the EMS people and firemen were trying to extricate a victim from one of the cars. Fortunately, nothing further happened. My point is policemen can be very overbearing, and they aren't always right. On another occasion I complained about being ticketed and the officer threatened to hit me with a two foot long flashlight. I jumped back and he wrote two more tickets, makeing three for a minor violation which the policeman could easily have said OK, just don't do that again. (I had turned left at an unfamiliar intersection at a red light without seeing a NO LEFT TURN sign. It was late at night, and there was zero traffic.)
Academic Senate at Cal Berkeley to Vote on no confidence in Chancellor proposal because of his position on police violence against OWSers
"Berkeley is not only a school with an honored history of campus protest; it’s also our greatest public university, and its faculty include some of the country’s most brilliant and accomplished people. So when those faculty members meet to debate police violence against the “Occupy” movement on their campus, it’s big news.
"On Monday, the Berkeley Academic Senate will vote on a resolution expressing “no confidence” in their chancellor, Robert Birgeneau, because of police violence against Occupy Cal campus activists there on November 9. The chancellor’s defense of police conduct was particularly outrageous: “It is unfortunate that some protesters chose to obstruct the police by linking arms,” he declared the day after the police confrontation. “This is not non-violent civil disobedience.”
"Linking arms is “not non-violent”? Former poet laureate Robert Hass, who teaches at Berkeley, was one of the demonstrators; he described what happened in an op-ed for the New York Times: Alameda County sheriffs in full riot gear, “using their clubs as battering rams, began to hammer at the bodies of the line of students” who had linked arms. The sheriffs “swung hard into their chests and bellies.… If the students turned away, they pounded their ribs. If they turned further away to escape, they hit them on their spines.” Afterwards fellow poet Geoffrey O’Brien had a broken rib. “Another colleague, Celeste Langan, a Wordsworth scholar, got dragged across the grass by her hair.”
"A million people have seen the YouTube video of peaceful demonstrators with linked arms being jabbed by cops with batons. Many more saw the video on TV—Stephen Colbert featured it on his show, commenting “Look at these vicious students attacking these billy clubs with their soft, jab-able bellies!”
"In response to the chancellor’s statement that linking arms “is not non-violent,” students covered the campus with pictures of Martin Luther King linking arms with other civil rights leaders at the 1963 March on Washington. And some faculty members responded by proposing a vote of “no confidence” in the chancellor.
"But what exactly does “no confidence” mean? Some say they will vote against the resolution because they don’t want to get rid of the chancellor, who, they say, has been good at other tasks. But Wendy Brown, professor of political science, one of the authors of the resolution, says “we’re not calling for his resignation. We’re trying to effect a dramatic change in policy.”
http://www.opednews.com/populum/linkfra … kid=141878
It's truly disgusting how the right will characterize the most harmless actions as "violent".
I am really starting to hate everyone who can't see this.
The reason is that they simply can't be this stupid. It HAS to be malevolent. This is purposeful. I can no longer give our resident nay-sayers the benefit of the doubt.
A rather simple minded (I'm afraid) question. If the cops never show up, what happens? Seems to me either everyone goes home quietly or the thing grows until there is violence or enough disruption of other's lives that the cops are forced to intervene.
Until the cops show up, hopefully with forcible removal or other "atrocities" there will be no news crews to speak of. It certainly won't hit the networks in any big way. The demonstrators will never see the reaction they want.
Given that, and that these students aren't stupid people, are they not wanting violence from the cops? Isn't that why they are there - to provoke an objectionable and thus newsworthy response from authority?
The only time I ever hear of a truly peaceful (from all sides) demonstration it is from a few dozen people or less, and is a half dozen lines on page six. That is most definitely NOT what demonstrators want to see - they require violence of some kind (theirs or the police, against people or property, but violence) to make it big in the news. It's like the demonstration is a failure without it.
Oh, you might get a large "parade" of demonstrators that makes the news by means of a legal, sanctioned march down the street, but it's over in an hour or so. Even then, it doesn't get much news coverage, though - nothing like some good down to earth police atrocities.
Am I wrong? Do protestors not actually want and welcome police violence as a means to get on TV? Do they not simply wait, growing in size or destruction until it happens? These students - had they notified the college they would sit outside for 12 hours and go home would anything have happened? No - they have to make enough nuisance to require police intervention to see news crews.
I have stood with others to demonstrate/protest. Our purpose was only to call attention to our cause and our beliefs. Our signs and chants were to educate others as to our positions, not to hope for violence.
I dunno, PC. If you've stood there you've done more than I ever have and probably understand it better. I can understand buttonholing passersby with your viewpoint, but that never seems to be the point to demonstrations like this. It is far more about getting the eye of the news media than to spread information person by person.
These kids, sitting on the ground, weren't interested in talking to others. They might have had signs, but I didn't see any. They want to "call attention to their cause" just as you say, but to do that they need the media to pay attention. And that won't happen much at all until violence or disruption of other activities is going on.
That's what I'm asking; can protestors realistically hope to draw the attention of the media without violence of some kind? It doesn't seem so to me, and yet they want the media involved as heavily as possible. That means they want violence - hopefully from the police in "unwarranted" attacks such as the pepper spray. If they can't get that, though, they all know that if they work at it long enough they will draw in the rabble that will bring violence with them.
You are wrong. Nobody on that side wants violence. They want people to wake up.
Do they then really believe that they can cause destruction of both private and public property with impunity just to wake people up? Without intervention by police? Because that is what always happens if the police allow it to become large enough...
I know quite well that the claim is always, always, "we are peaceful". The OWS kept saying that as they destroyed a private park, saw rape and death. It's almost as if a protest will reach a certain size and the violence becomes automatic. Of course, some of that is natural - you can't cram but so many people into a certain area without causing damage to it - that they had to use bulldozers to clean up OWS reflects that.
Even beyond that, though, is that a certain mass of people becomes a mob, not a protest. It always degenerates into property violence (and very often personal violence) no matter what the original protestors want (or at least say they want). And protestors know this. They know it very well. So why don't they stop and go home before that happens? Because that is what draws the media in?
I have to wonder, too - the protests you were in. Were you happy to chant and hold signs and go home without ever seeing the media? Or did you insist that it be front page news? It does make a difference, you know.
I think you're right. I'm just too cynical, too suspicious, too questioning. When I look at these big protests and all the hoorah that happens when the police finally take action it just makes me gag.
These people, at least the leaders, know exactly what they are doing - intentionally disrupting the lives and pocketbooks of totally innocent people in the name of their cause. People that have done nothing wrong and have absolutely no connection to the protestors. They will do it in increasing amounts until the cops show and bring the media with them.
Their cause is just though, and the ends justify the means. If innocent people have to pay to rebuild stores, cars or streets, or a few end up in the hospital then that's OK. It's just the price that must be paid to get the media attention that is necessary to promote their cause. Those leaders know going in that violence will happen; if it doesn't then they have failed.
That's what I see, PC, and your refusal to even address the thought would seem to indicate that you see it too. Maybe you find it OK to intentionally start something you know will end up harming innocent people in the name of a cause, I don't know. I just know that I don't. I don't agree with that concept, and you're entirely correct - I don't understand the thinking that makes it OK.
Yeah,you're probably right. The corruption and the white collar looting will clean itself up all by its self.
We've had no violence in Boston. No pepper spray. No beatings.
Meanwhile, chew on this: http://www.alternet.org/news/153169/Fiv … emocracy_/
No violence in Boston - that's great, and as it should be.
However, how long has it been going on? Is the location of the protest still clean and fit for others to use? I haven't seen anything about it in the national news (haven't looked, either) - is it there? Is the protest still going on or has it died? No violence to me also means to property damage - is that true in Boston or is the area trashed and now in need of repair? Are the protestors disrupting daily activities of others beyond asking them to simply step around a crowded sidewalk?
If the answer is no, and the protest is over and not simply growing slowly to the point of damage to property or individuals, then it was a successful action in my eyes. Probably not to the protestors as there doesn't seem to be national coverage beyond a short blurb somewhere, but that's the point I keep trying to make.
Not sure of the link. Yes, the country runs on money and those with money generally make the laws. I don't like it, you don't like it, but I'm not interested in an alternative the requires damage to innocent people to change it.
So by implication you are quite happy with the damage done to innocent people by preserving the status quo?
No. I wouldn't say that. He just doesn't think there is any need for any upset.
I wish he were right. If people were smarter, we wouldn't need OWS. We'd already have everything fixed or never would have got to where we are anyway.
But people are not smart. It's sad, it's frustrating, but it is fact. Too many people are too easily led by those who are working against them. Too many people buy the lies of the rich and powerful.
I hate it. All I can do is remind myself that they really can't help it. Their minds are not capable of logic, they can only work from emotion. They THINK they are smart enough, but that's just because (again) they don't know any better.
Maybe Wilderness has a more charitable view of the world than we do. Maybe he is surrounded by people who do think things through or maybe he just has more faith that we can "vote out" the scoundrels. If so, he's right: we could. But we won't unless we take the fools by the hand and drum reality into their heads.
It's not easy. When someone can't follow logic, you have to find other ways to break through so they can see that the current system is broken and that we need to restore balance. I don't have answers as to how to do that best.
The funny thing here, PC, is that I actually agree with most of your concerns and would very much like to see things changed.
Our only real disagreement is with the methods used; I'm unwilling to lend my support to any group that treats massive collateral damage from protests as a necessary evil on the road to get what they want. Protesters not only accept that damage but actively seek it and promote it.
Now we both know I refer not to a few dozen people that stand there and talk and wave signs while politely allowing passersby to continue on with their business. I refer to huge groups of people disrupting daily activities of others and destroying both public and private property until someone gets hurt and the cops are called in. That's unacceptable, but modern thinking applies the term "civil disobedience" to such activities and that somehow makes it all OK. Of course labels like that won't help those hurt, but that's OK, too - it's all part of the process.
No, it's not OK. If that's the best they can come up with, stay home. There really are better ways - they just take more effort, aren't as much fun and will probably require more time.
No, they don't. You are attributing motives that do not exist.
Perhaps I am - as I said, I've never been involved in a protest and have certainly never been involved at the deepest levels of planning a large one.
Or perhaps you're just not cynical enough and close your own eyes to what is going to happen and the expectations at the root of it all.
I completely distrust our politicians and upper level businessmen to act in an ethical way and find no difference in the actions of those "politicians" planning and executing a "civil disturbance". To me, anyone simply accepting the word of people promoting the necessity of violence or criminal activities "for your own good" has their head buried in the sand.
Your neighbor plays loud music and keeps everyone up all night. The entire neighborhood gets together, comes over and stages a protest by smashing your car, frightening your family, trashing your yard and breaking your windows. Maybe your child will even be hurt by flying window glass - that will surely help the cause and frighten the noisy neighbor into turning down the music.
Reasonable and proper, right? Isn't that what you are implying? That destroying your property will convince your neighbor to behave and is thus a good response?
And to answer your ridiculous question, no I'm not happy with the status quo. I'm just not happy with a gang of hooligans using tactics that have the same result (damage to innocents) to fight it. Are you? Do the (hoped for) ends justify the means here? Is the "collateral damage" (even though intentional and not really collateral at all) acceptable?
I suppose vandalism is only violence against property - unless it against the source of your livelihood - then it becomes more personal.
I posted this last night on my FB wall. I think it's time for a reread (a first read for some) of Thoreau, written in 1849, an excerpt from Civil Disobedience:
Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice.
Civil Disobedience by Thoreau is what led King and Ghandi to victory.
You know the OWS people are basically the Sixties Lite. They couldn't have handled the real Sixties because they are too soft. You basically have a marvelous example of the Useful Idiots concept. Once they have served their purpose the Leftist Elite will treat them the same way those they think they are protesting will treat them.
The Leftist Elite (if there even is such a thing) is mostly ignoring OWS already.
You are on the wrong side of history here. So are they.
Useful idiots are known to lay down and die. You can literally hear them shout " Repossess my home, take away my job, render me worthless. When I protest, spray me with chemicals and declare it is because I am violent, a communist, a rapist, lazy and a degenerate. I will never challenge this, because without consciousness, I will never be aware that it is "I" that is, has been, and always will be, the useful idiot!
Basically what I am saying is that it is an exercise in futility. You don't believe the is a Leftist elite. Please.......
they call it max tol - the police officers should exercise maximum tolerance after all what the protesters are mouthing are all valid points. JFK said this - “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.” Not that I am for violent protests or revolution.
Looking at the protesters demographically, they are not just idle people doing nothing - they are disgruntled people, mostly young adults. I can see this protests will last longer, maybe it will lie low this winter.
"According to a survey of Zuccotti Park protesters by the Baruch College School of Public Affairs published on October 19, of 1,619 web respondents, 1/3 were older than 35, half were employed full-time, 13% were unemployed and 13% earned over $75,000. 27.3% of the respondents called themselves Democrats, 2.4% called themselves Republicans, while the rest, 70%, called themselves independents.
Look folks you still represent only about 20% of the ideology politically of this nation. They are more than happy for you to be involved in this "protest" because it has stopped the whining about the president from within his own party. You need an actual leader. Primary Barack Obama. Make him justify your support.
"Who will rule the New Europe? Obviously, the private European banks and Goldman Sachs. ...
The new president of the European Central Bank is Mario Draghi. This person was Vice Chairman and Managing Director of Goldman Sachs International and a member of Goldman Sachs’ Management Committee. ... Italy’s new prime minister, who was appointed not elected, was a member of Goldman Sachs Board of International Advisers. ...
Greece’s new appointed prime minister, Lucas Papademos, was Governor of the Bank of Greece. From 2002-2010. He was Vice President of the European Central Bank. He, also, is a member of America’s Trilateral Commission."
"The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world."
Sorry, OWS accomplished or is accomplishing what?
Banks are more leveraged than ever, meaning the financial crisis is worse than it was before.
OWS has cost taxpayer millions in clean up costs.
Unless you're totally blind, which I think about 75% of the American people are, the expose of the "police state". "corruption" and mismanagement of government funds has been talked about, blogged about and discussed for many years. If you're congratulating the people in OWS for finally waking up, I agree.
The OWS is a mismash of kids with a very idealistic agenda that has at it's base the idiotic ideas of the 60's free food, free energy, etc. without any idea of how to pay for the programs they suggest. OWS might as well be run by our idiotic people in D. C.
Name one solid thing that has changed since OWS has stated occupying anything.
Corruption, bailouts, bank risk,?
What has changed since they came into existence?
Show me that and I might buy into your scenario that OWS is something to pay attention to.
Until that time, it's wasted energy on an unfocused cause of discontent.
Bank of America or one of the NY banksters rescinded their announced debit card fee.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/opini … aster.html
OWS is not asking for free food or free energy. Don't make up nonsense. This is NOT a communist movement.
by Jane Ramona Rynkiewicz Frieman 5 years ago
Mahatma Gandhi led a passive resistance movement to free India from British rule. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. followed the teachings of Gandhi and employed passive resistance in the struggle for equal rights for African Americans and the poor.
by Julianna 7 years ago
Millions of Americans are mad over bailouts, unemployment, corporate greed and the list goes on. A Iraq veteran is hurt and he defended our Country. How do you feel about the direction the States are taking? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45054697/ns … qj_6Zv7is8
by Susie Lehto 2 years ago
Who tired to shot Trump is the #1 trending question on Google. That means that the general public has not been informed by mainstream media. Don't you think an attempted assassination of Trump would be BREAKING NEWS and a TOP STORY? It was 20 year old, Micheal Steven Sandford, a British...
by Holle Abee 7 years ago
First, I want to say that I totally support peaceful protests. I'm also sure that many of the Wall Street protesters have a clear purpose as to their reasons for protesting. It's obvious, however, that some are just there to be part of a protest, in general. I'm sure there are some like this in...
by Hxprof 2 years ago
Why is the mainstream media ignoring the wikileaks Clinton email dumps?The media is devoting little time to the wikileaks Clinton email dumps. Why is this?
by Skarlet 6 years ago
Why does the mainstream media continue to attack Mitt Romney?Now that we know Mitt Romney has paid MORE than his fair share of taxes and donated millions to charities, why do people keep demonizing him? Obama came out after four Americans were murdered and said, "well, we've had a bad...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|