'Occupy' types

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

The old woman getting maced almost brought me to tears. What an effing disgrace.

Have you ever worked crowd control or disbursement? Can you say that she hadn't just spit on or otherwise forced the police to take more radical steps? If she had been ordered to move and defiantly linked arms with others, would you rather the police use brute strength to enforce the law and possibly cause her serious, lasting physical injury? NC_Skins consistently blasts others for taking snapshots of protesters out of context to demean them but has absolutely no compunction against doing the same if it casts the police in a bad light. Sorry, in this thread, NC_Skins' posts are as agenda driven as anyone - and more so than most.

When it comes to the police and the protesters, neither side has been perfect. The police are outnumbered and trying to execute lawful, just orders from the local govt. to disburse a gathering that had become a public nuisance, a hazard to public health and that was occupying private property against the will of its owners; in order to execute their lawful orders, the police had to force people to leave a place they did not wish to leave. On the other hand, the protestors forcing the issue (not all protesters mind you - many disbursed peacefully) genuinely believe they are either in the right or are happy to force the issue. In light of these conflicting goals, it seems inevitable that occassions of excessive force would occur. I have, however, seen nothing to suggest that such excesses were rampant or in any way the norm.

Would the various Occupy groups have politely and peacefully disbursed if given 24 hour notice or would they have entrenched and made the confrontation more difficult and violent? I think the latter given the ideological nature of the protesters. As I posted many pages ago, it seems to me that the police have, generally, acted with constraint while faced with a difficult and stressful task. Had the protesters disbursed the tent cities when ordered, no violence would have been necessary.

I am sure that, to many - perhaps even the elderly woman, it is some sort of badge of honor to be the victim of "police violence". Sorry, if you invite forced removal by insisting on the primacy of your rights over the rights of others and refuse to obey lawful instructions from the police, then you get what you get.

Bottom line, the Occupiers exceeded their rights and infringed on the rights of others. Ultimately, there are many, many alternative methods for them to lawfully protest and have their voices heard. In fact, they are free to return to the various parks, etc.; they are just not free to set up squatters camps.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Have you ever worked crowd control or disbursement? Can you say that she hadn't just spit on or otherwise forced the police to take more radical steps? If she had been ordered to move and defiantly linked arms with others, would you rather the police use brute strength to enforce the law and possibly cause her serious, lasting physical injury? NC_Skins consistently blasts others for taking snapshots of protesters out of context to demean them but has absolutely no compunction against doing the same if it casts the police in a bad light. Sorry, in this thread, NC_Skins' posts are as agenda driven as anyone - and more so than most.

When it comes to the police and the protesters, neither side has been perfect. The police are outnumbered and trying to execute lawful, just orders from the local govt. to disburse a gathering that had become a public nuisance, a hazard to public health and that was occupying private property against the will of its owners; in order to execute their lawful orders, the police had to force people to leave a place they did not wish to leave. On the other hand, the protestors forcing the issue (not all protesters mind you - many disbursed peacefully) genuinely believe they are either in the right or are happy to force the issue. In light of these conflicting goals, it seems inevitable that occassions of excessive force would occur. I have, however, seen nothing to suggest that such excesses were rampant or in any way the norm.

Would the various Occupy groups have politely and peacefully disbursed if given 24 hour notice or would they have entrenched and made the confrontation more difficult and violent? I think the latter given the ideological nature of the protesters. As I posted many pages ago, it seems to me that the police have, generally, acted with constraint while faced with a difficult and stressful task. Had the protesters disbursed the tent cities when ordered, no violence would have been necessary.

I am sure that, to many - perhaps even the elderly woman, it is some sort of badge of honor to be the victim of "police violence". Sorry, if you invite forced removal by insisting on the primacy of your rights over the rights of others and refuse to obey lawful instructions from the police, then you get what you get.

Bottom line, the Occupiers exceeded their rights and infringed on the rights of others. Ultimately, there are many, many alternative methods for them to lawfully protest and have their voices heard. In fact, they are free to return to the various parks, etc.; they are just not free to set up squatters camps.

I'd rather the police just move her, physically. Even arresting her would've been better. She was 84 and just went to the protests out of curiosity. I mean, really. If she had threatened them or had otherwise proved a danger? Cool. Do what you gotta do. But cops are so quick to abuse power and then hide behind a badge and say they're just doing their jobs.

I mean these protesters are so unruly and unpredictable. Better hold onto your shirts, it's another '68 riot in the making! Oh lawdy, lawdy.

It's only a matter of time before some protester gets killed anyway. If not by police then by the hands of some protester. So. Everyone who's against this can take comfort in how wrong these protests are and how they led to someone's death *Shrugs*

I personally think there are much more progressive ways to go about change than clogging up streets and marching around. But if these guys wanna go at it, I've got no problem with it. They aren't bothering me or infringing on my rights so. Whatever. I'm a bit apathetic about the whole thing. So sue me.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

I'd rather the police just move her, physically. Even arresting her would've been better. She was 84 and just went to the protests out of curiosity. I mean, really. If she had threatened them or had otherwise proved a danger? Cool. Do what you gotta do. But cops are so quick to abuse power and then hide behind a badge and say they're just doing their jobs..

Sorry sick of this characterization - Sure some police are but the vast majority that I have dealt with (and I have dealt with many) are conscientious men and women who would take a bullet to protect me or mine.

As to the woman, I simply was not aware of her circumstances. If you know the context, fine. I am pretty sure, however, I don't want police trying to use brute strength to force an elderly woman to do what she doesn't want to - the next headline is "Police assault elderly woman break her arms".

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

I mean these protesters are so unruly and unpredictable. Better hold onto your shirts, it's another '68 riot in the making! Oh lawdy, lawdy.

Or a 2011, London - also a protest that started out peaceably. So tell me, how would you "just move" the Occupiers without force when they refused to move? - - Lawdy Lawdy back at you.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Sorry sick of this characterization - Sure some police are but the vast majority that I have dealt with (and I have dealt with many) are conscientious men and women who would take a bullet to protect me or mine.

As to the woman, I simply was not aware of her circumstances. If you know the context, fine. I am pretty sure, however, I don't want police trying to use brute strength to force an elderly woman to do what she doesn't want to - the next headline is "Police assault elderly woman break her arms".



Or a 2011, London - also a protest that started out peaceably. So tell me, how would you "just move" the Occupiers without force when they refused to move? - - Lawdy Lawdy back at you.

The London riots got out of hand thanks to blackberry messaging and a few bad eggs bringing their bad egg comrades. I could easily see this turning into a London Riot type situation if the police end up killing someone.

I'd think the ultimate message of the Occupiers is to remain peaceful and to weed out the bad eggs as soon as possible because if this get violent, they've let the government win and politicians will start waving their finger saying, "I told you so" and God knows, they can't let THAT happen.

This isn't anything like the Civil Rights Movement in terms of scale or importance (to me personally) but they did peacefully do a lot of civil disobedience and though it took forever. They made progress. I'm gonna wager a guess that the Occupiers feel like this will do the same thing.

Will it? Probably not.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

The London riots got out of hand thanks to blackberry messaging and a few bad eggs bringing their bad egg comrades. I could easily see this turning into a London Riot type situation if the police end up killing someone.

I'd think the ultimate message of the Occupiers is to remain peaceful and to weed out the bad eggs as soon as possible because if this get violent, they've let the government win and politicians will start waving their finger saying, "I told you so" and God knows, they can't let THAT happen.

This isn't anything like the Civil Rights Movement in terms of scale or importance (to me personally) but they did peacefully do a lot of civil disobedience and though it took forever. They made progress. I'm gonna wager a guess that the Occupiers feel like this will do the same thing.

Will it? Probably not.

Generally, I agree. I think you discount the fact that the police would be just as disappointed if someone gets killed. The police have a tough, tough job and the vast majority are conscientious professionals who take their duty to "protect and serve" seriously. When crowds and confrontations are involved, a few bad eggs - on either side - can make an otherwise tense but peaceful situation into a bad/dangerous situation quickly.

I hope the Occupiers get busy with the real work of acheiving change through the political process - I don't agree with all of their agenda, but neither do I disagree with it entirely.