Forum Post: Occupy DC and Occupy Oakland...too violent and confrontational...
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 8, 2011, 3:29 a.m. EST by thomasmiller
(163)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Occupy DC had pushed down and beaten some elderly women coming out of a dinner. The women had to be transported to the hospital with injuries.
I want to know right now if this is what most people here condone or support. Is this what you want to do with this "movement"? Quite honestly, you might get away with this with older ladies, but do not even think about it with someone like myself. You will be in a lot more trouble then what you bargain for...
No. Every single person I have talked to is not only a non-violent person but does not support violence or destroying property.
I suspect some young assholes with too much angst have tried to mingle in and have caused problems. Problems which make the rest of us look bad. We do not condone violence. Most of us are against the wars.
Take a look at this violence, looks like she would have torn that poor guys head off had her husband not yanked her by the hair, incredible!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prgkEAuSQT0&feature=player_detailpage#t=118s
It bothers me a lot. However, in our local Occupation, the people who are violent are very much in the minority. They are mostly the anarchists that are clinging to OWS because it's something to do, they are not involved with the working groups or anything else. Basically, they will vandalize or yell at the police, but they don't do much else, and so I don't really consider them part of Occupy, but more of a faction of Occupy. Does that make sense?
They're Occupy groupies.
You don't understand what anarchy is. Why not read about it?
http://occupywallst.org/forum/occupy-for-newbies-starting-points/
I absolutely understand what anarchy is. I was a anarchist in the 90's.
Then I utterly fail to understand your previous comment.
Occupy is an anarchy designed by one of the world's leading intellectuals in the field of anarchism.
Ironically, many of the Occupy supporters don't even know they are anarchists, part of an anarchy.
I was trying to explain that from my experience, the people who have been violent are anarchists who do not actually give a damn about Occupy, they are angsty teens waiving their black flags, spray painting "Eat the Rich", cussing out the police, and doing little else- including anything productive.
My point was also that they violent anarchist kids are not really part of Occupy. There are some very amazing anarchists, but I am specifically talking about the 18 year old who think the idea of killing a cop is somehow cool. Their goals have absolutely nothing to do with the goals of the rest of the group. In fact, there have been GAs that were held up because consensus couldn't be reached, because they refused to vote on the issue, they only wanted to talk about police corruption.
There are plenty of great anarchists, a lot of whom are involved with FNB and other working groups.. but I am specifically talking about the ones that are not doing anything other than complaining and being violent.
Perhaps you should have been more precise in your formulation. Your former comment seemed to imply that anarchists were a small part of OWS and that they were the ones committing violence, not that Occupy is mostly made up of peaceful anarchists with a small minority of them committing violence. Maybe we need a specific term for these violent anarchists. How about the anarchic-vehements of Occupy?
Curious, were you a violent or peaceful anarchist?
I agree that there needs to be a differentiation between the two. In fact, a few days ago we were discussing the difference between anarchists and the vandals and the fact that it is unfair to paint all anarchist with the same brush because those people give anarchy (and OWS) a bad name.
I was peaceful- mostly handing out info and making zines and whatnot, but I hung around some rowdy people. It was partially the violent people who I knew that caused me to reevaluate anarchy. I became Libertarian- which is actually pretty similar, it's just small government vs no government.
Here is the video of Occupy DC where the protesters attacked an old lady. There is a traffic accident during the video where protesters ran out into the road in front of oncoming traffic. You be the judge. Was this a peaceful protest?
http://youtu.be/xgcRlrt2ZL4
Conservative motorist drives in wrong lane to hit DC Occupiers. Occupiers pedestrians summonsed by DC cops in hospital.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=204ItdAbyRc&feature=player_embedded#!
Conservative activist pushes old lady to the ground.
http://occupydc.org/ So, stop spreading lies.
The fact is these Occupiers were in the middle of the street and expected the motorist to stop. They were trying to block the cars and thought their presence would stop the cars. However, as we all know, these 3000 chunks of metal dont stop on a dime. Im sure the driver was not trying to run over anyone. Its madness to stand out in the middle of a street and expect that everyone is going to stop or that cars will be able to stop in time. The witnesses in this incident said the Occupiers ran out in front of the vehicle. These vehicles do take a while to stop and lets thank god no one got hurt.
You didn't look at the press conference. The Conservative activist motorist struck someone, made a turn and struck two others at a different spot. The pedestrians got summonsed. I don't know by what clairvoyance you know that the conservative motorist wasn't intending to hit anyone.
I see you backed off the charge of occupiers pushing the old lady. The video shows one of your fellow conservatives doing just that.
The press release said a silver car had struck someone else in a hit&run. You dont know if that silver car was the same car as this one. They were probably two different incidents. To say that someone was purposely driving around and hitting people is a far stretch. These people were out in the road and ran in front of cars.
The reason why the pedestrians got summons is because DC has very strict jaywalking laws. I got a ticket once in DC for jaywalking. Its not the same as NYC where the cops dont care if you jaywalk.
I didnt see any conservatives pushing anyone. Why would a conservative be pushing people at their own dinner?
They did not run in front of cars, Yes they were in the road. A motorist is not allowed to strike a pedestrian. period, jerk. And cops should not be refusing to take witness statements like your friends on the force in DC did.
The video shows who pushed who. He was trying to shove Occupiers but the poor old lady got in his way, collateral damage, or friendly fire incident?
Also here is an interview of the woman that was attacked at the Occupy DC protest http://youtu.be/tl_2WJTyE2A
Last response to you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=204ItdAbyRc&feature=player_embedded#!
It looks like everyone has their own side of the story. However, the fact remains these Occupiers were the ones bringing on the protest to the people who attended this dinner. They were the ones shouting, blocking movement and getting in people's way. They were purposely blocking traffic. Those are the facts. They conducted this protest in a hazardous manner and people were injured...taken to the hospital. If people are running out into the roadway to stop cars with their bodies...well thats obviously dangerous and not peaceful. If people are blocking the entrance and exit to a building, then thats not peaceful either.
Here is the video of Occupy DC where the protesters attacked an old lady. There is a traffic accident during the video where protesters ran out into the road in front of oncoming traffic. You be the judge. Was this a peaceful protest?
http://youtu.be/xgcRlrt2ZL4
Your conservative video doesn't whow the old lady getting pushed. The one I put up does and it shows who pushed her and the circumstances pretty well. Since you insist oon being dishonest i cannot continue this dialogue with you. Onlookers can check the videos and come to their own conclusions
http://occupydc.org/
I believe that before any "protest" an Occupy spokesman should make a public declaration that it shall be peaceful and that those who are not peaceful are not welcome into the group. The protest in DC became way too confrontational. Yelling at people, pushing people, profanity, blocking the exit of a building, etc.
If a protest gets to the point where there is physical touching, blocking people's movement, yelling profanity at people, etc. then its gone over the line....its no longer peaceful.
I do not consider shutting down the Port of Oakland to be a peaceful exercise. There were individual workers who were blocked from leaving the port...workers where it was the end of their shift and they wanted to go home. Blocking someone's movement is not peaceful even if there was no physical touching.
The peacefulness of a protest is not only or even mainly dependent on the protesters, and pledging that there will not be violence is a trap. Cops get violent, then the press yells "Violent demonstration!" A rightwing motorist strikes protesters, cops summons the assault victims in the hospital, and look who gets the blame. Just read the asshole post here.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/occupy-dc-and-occupy-oaklandtoo-violent-and-confro/
You dont seem too peaceful yourself using all this profanity. I can see why these demonstrations become violent with people like yourself.