Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: !!!!! OWS Made A Grave Error And It Should Be Rectified !!!!!

Posted 3 years ago on Nov. 19, 2011, 2:56 p.m. EST by Glaucon (296)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

We are not Tiananmen Tanks!

We have smiles, we have families, we have children, we have pets, we have debts, we pay taxes, we play frisbee, we eat Cherrios, we watch MacGyVer, we dance, we drink, we smoke, we groove, we are your neighbors, we are your friends, we are the 99%!

OWS please stop the demonization of security personnel.

282 Comments

282 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 17 points by looselyhuman (3117) 3 years ago

I'll just leave this here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/save-your-mind-from-infiltration-ignore-the-psyops/

Props on the Police Academy publicity shot humor. The rest is pretty much fascist propaganda. I respect good cops, like all public servants, but don't worship the same uniforms that have been beating the fuck out of unarmed protestors and the 1st amendment in general.

Carry on, sophist.

[-] 6 points by larocks (414) from Lexington, KY 3 years ago

hear you. im all for good cops who are there for the public. but the way these cops are acting they are not for the public.

[-] 5 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 3 years ago

To Thrasymaque/Glaucon and all those people were saying that the "tank poster" was over the top exaggeration.

News Article: TAMPA POLICE ROLL OUT A TANK To Deal With A Few Dozen Protesters

http://occupywallst.org/forum/news-article-tampa-police-roll-out-a-tank-to-deal-/

[-] 1 points by velveeta (230) 3 years ago

minorites, females and animal personnel were definitely underepresented in this photomontage!

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

Thasymaque/Glaucon writes in large, bold letters:

"OWS please stop the demonization of security personnel."

That is a BOLD-FACED LIE, completely gratuitous SLANDER. OWS never demonized the police.

[+] -4 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

Thanks for the advertisement.

[+] -4 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 3 years ago

I am a sophist, Glaucon is not.

[-] 5 points by looselyhuman (3117) 3 years ago

Transcendental sophism.

[+] -4 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 3 years ago

Glaucon is the brother of Plato and was schooled by Socrates. He is a musician. He is not a sophist. But, he's a pain in my sophist butt, I'll tell you that!

[-] 0 points by stuartchase (861) 3 years ago

Here's the Revolution's new song!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL4ei-RE3Nc

http://occupywallst.org/forum/something-to-think-about-part-1/

Brothers and sisters, the KTC needs to lean on you!

The Revolution starts here!

[-] 16 points by nucleus (3291) 3 years ago

Please stop pepper-spraying and beating the shit out of peaceful protesters exercising their freedoms of speech and assembly.

N Y P D

Who Do You Serve?

Who Do You Protect?

[-] 5 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 3 years ago

As most of us know by now, "Glaucon" = "Thrasymaque" = TROLL

[Removed]

[-] 4 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 3 years ago

Wall Street and Bloomberg...fo sho...

They do it for the money...

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by Trogdor (65) 3 years ago

Simple fix for everyone..If you are asked to disperse, do so.

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 3 years ago

Your first amendment right of speech has been revoked. Be quiet.

[Removed]

[+] -7 points by JohnGaltOWS (2) 3 years ago

N Y P D

Who Do You Serve? The REAL 99%

Who Do You Protect? The REAL 99% from the arrogant 0.00001% OWS thug Marxist wanabes and, as Lenin called them, their useful idiot followers.

Glad to be of Service.

[+] -9 points by me2 (534) 3 years ago

Please learn how to conduct a protest within the rules of civilized society.

It is possible you know.

[-] 4 points by nimbus22 (106) from Chaska, MN 3 years ago

so people can only speak on your terms? How fascist of you.

[-] 0 points by me2 (534) 3 years ago

Please explain to me what my comment has to do with fascism. I truly have no idea what you're talking about.

The unions with their event know how to conduct a peaceful but effective demonstration. OWS left on its own blocks streets and creates dangerous situations and taunts the police and prevents people who may not support them from going about their business.

Look at Thurs morning at the stock exchange vs Thursday evening at folly square and across the bridge. OWS in the morning was a bunch of idiots getting on people's way and trying to "shut things down." When they joined the much larger union organized event at foley, at least they behaved decently.

And it was the evening event, the union event, that was the success. Because it was peaceful and orderly. The morning event was a complete shit show disaster.

Get it? You can protest without being a jackass. And when you do, more people will join you and more people will take you seriously.

Now please explain what any of behaving decently has to do with fascism, I'm very interested to learn how common courtesy is fascist.

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 3 years ago

Oh that is to simple!!!!

[-] 9 points by WarmItUp (301) 3 years ago

Cool thanks for stopping by would you relay a message to your police friends. It really hurts to get hit in the head with a club, and kicked and beaten.and sprayed in the face with pepper spray for sitting peacefully. 84 year old ladies who are peacefully exercising the right to assemble pose no threat to a huge armed police officer. Why was she sprayed with pepper spray? Also how about not stealing copyrighted stock images from professional working photographers and posting them all over the internet that is against the law it is illegal or do you have no regard for the law. More peaceful protesters have been arrested by these happy looking police officers than the hedge fund managers who stole the cops pensions and caused layoffs of police around the country in the thousands (more to come) You are a very confused person. Tell your cop friends their recent brutality on peaceful protesters has only gone to tarnish their image if they want that image changed stop brutalizing peaceful protesters start protecting citizens who love this country and love the constitutional rights that allow them to protest.

[-] 0 points by MercD (20) from Spanaway, WA 3 years ago

Then we need to kick the anarchists out of OWS because they are the ones violently provoking the police...

When the minor few provoke the crowd, how can the cops tell the difference?

[-] 0 points by rman916 (9) 3 years ago

Please enough with the 'peaceful protesting'. Blocking streets and entrances to buildings is NOT peaceful protest. If you were really peacefully protesting then you would be attempting to make change without disrupting normal people lives. Without spending our tax dollars by requiring multiples of more police to make sure that you're not disrupting the working population.

Like many others have said, you do NOT represent the 99%. You represent a small percentage. If you don't believe me, go on a NYC subway and ask all the '99%'ers' what they think about the occupy movement. 9 out of 10 will tell you that they are despicable.

IMO this movement represents the laziest way to go about change. The real pioneers in our country have worked hard and studied to change the current political and economic climate. Sadly, even the more 'corrupt' politicians have worked infinitely harder than most of the protesters have, and thus have been able to make their changes accordingly. We need all the protesters who have good ideas to get out of the streets and get to work putting together real ways to change our country.

[-] 4 points by nimbus22 (106) from Chaska, MN 3 years ago

uh no, you're wrong. You are just wrong. So your idea of creating change is to do what we are told and be quiet? Hhhhhmmmm. No I just don't see it buddy. You might want to rethink what you are saying. The constitution protects a protests right to make minor disruptions in public space BTW. In America we have rights. But it doesn't surprise me you don't know them with the public school system here.

[-] 0 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 3 years ago

Ows can't write its own interpretation of the Constitution to suit itself. The document only provides for the right to peaceably assemble, which interpretation (since it was written) means without disruption. Do like Westboro Baptist does, and protest without blocking sidewalks/taking over parks/forcibly shutting down ports. When OWS disrupts/takes over/infringes on the rights of others to pass or use the space, its not peaceable assembly. This is a failure of OWS members to view their rights realistically and accept their responsibility for what happens AFTER they violate laws by disrupting the public. Kind of a 'BUT I WANT TO' mentality that is really beginning to piss off the real 99%. Losing support all over, OWS. Because instead of being for the people, you're warring with them.

[-] 2 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

It is very difficult to make change without distrupting normal people's lives. (And the plan is that normal people's lives in the long run will be disrupted for the better.) People do not have an absolute right not to be disturbed. Freedom of Speech is not automatically shut down, because it distrupts some people's lives.

Polls show that here in NYC, most residents do support OWS. The 10% support that you mention is not true.(Interestingly, polls show that Congressional support is at an all time low of 9% -- which is much lower than the approval rating for porn!)

According to CNN on 11/3/11 support is growing: "The new poll also shows more Americans supporting the movement. Thirty-six percent say they agree with the overall positions of Occupy Wall Street, while 19% say they disagree.

That reflects an increase in support since early October, when 27% of those polled said they agreed with Occupy Wall Street's position."

There are many ways to go about change. Each person should use the path that suits them. One way that no longer works for the majority of Americans is through our political process. There simply is no incentive for our elected officials to represent us. If they do, those who put them in power through contributions will remove them.

[-] 2 points by rman916 (9) 2 years ago

Who do you think are taking the polls? No one out of OWS cares enough to take a poll about the movement.

CNN? CNN???? Yes, I bet their poll is real reliable.. if you haven't noticed over the past 4 years, all they do is carry water for Obama and the Dems.

You're very out of touch with the real NYC population. I work everyday and talk to people on the subway and near ground zero. I'll tell you honestly that most people don't support the movement the way it is being done. Yes, they support bringing down corruption & crony capitalism, but not interfering with normal people's lives.

Like was said before, don't complain about your rights if you are going to take away other's peoples' rights.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 2 years ago

Now that Zuccotti Park is empty, the NYPD have blocked it completely with barriers. No member of the public is allowed in except through 2 entrances. Access is now severely restricted whereas before it was open. The police stand 24 / 7 outside this nearly empty park.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 2 years ago

Polls are not done by CNN. They are done by proffessional poll takers. CNN is very anti OWS.

I live in Manhattan too. After 6 pm, the financial district is practically empty. There are very few residents. What those that do live down there did complain about was the occupation of the area by the NYPD. They outnumbered the protesters about 5 to 1 and put up all sorts of fences and barriers blocks away from the park.

[-] 1 points by rman916 (9) 2 years ago

1) CNN is probably the most pro OWS mass media supporter in the US. You'll rarely hear them talking down to the movement.

2) There are very few residents in the financial district? Are you kidding me? It's the 3rd most populated neighborhood in Manhattan..

Once again more OWS protesters out of touch with NYC and how the markets actually work..

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 2 years ago

I would not consider myself an OWS protester. I do live in Manhattan and believe in their cause. The Financial District where OWS is location has a very low population density compared to the rest of Manhattan. The population is 56,000, but few of those live near Zuccotti Park which is surrounded by very tall office buildings. There are 207,000 living in the Upper East Side where I live.

[-] 0 points by MercD (20) from Spanaway, WA 3 years ago

Don't complain about your rights being trampled when you trample on the rights of others...

[-] 9 points by bankrun2011 (89) 3 years ago

OWS is not an anti-police movement. They oppose the police that are using excessive violence. You are just trying to be divisive. The police-function in society is often quite odious, but sometimes police are heroic, other times they are just decent. Also, the role and public face of police is different in different communities. My town is policed in a much less intense and oppositional way than many other towns. You need to distinguish between these things.

[+] -8 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

I'm being divisive? I think displaying policemen as Tiananmen Tanks on a poster is being divisive. If you can't see the OWS propaganda campaign against the police, then what can I say? It's your country, not mine.

[-] 8 points by bankrun2011 (89) 3 years ago

You sound like a Fox news commentator. Make a substantive critique instead of just performing trivial reversals and inversions....

[-] 4 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 3 years ago

"Thrasymaque/Glaucon" is an obvious TROLL. "Performing trivial reversals and inversions" is what he's paid for.

And BTW, Thrasymaque/Glaucon and all others claiming that the OWS "tank poster" was over the top exaggeration...

News Article: TAMPA POLICE ROLL OUT A TANK To Deal With A Few Dozen Protesters

http://occupywallst.org/forum/news-article-tampa-police-roll-out-a-tank-to-deal-/

[+] -4 points by Joyce (375) 3 years ago

Holy shit....by now, if if were given one tenth of a penny for each posting where you cited "troll" you would by long gone as part of the 1%..........can I pay this ransom and help you along?

[-] -3 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

All advertising is good advertising. I embrace the troll label. It serves me well. In time, they will understand.

[+] -5 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 3 years ago

I wish that were true. I need to money.

[+] -4 points by Joyce (375) 3 years ago

You avoided a direct criticism.....answer the point.

[+] -5 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

I will be preparing a substantive post this week. I'm currently collecting my material.

[-] 2 points by bankrun2011 (89) 3 years ago

no doubt.

[-] -1 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

You miss the point entirely.

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 3 years ago

Actually, I believe it is you who has missed the point of both the OWS tank poster and the handcuff poster, which you've repeatedly mentioned in this thread and other threads.

1.) The tank poster. The tanks don't symbolize the policemen themselves nor does it demonize individual policemen. The tanks symbolize the "system", the infrastructure of government enforcement that will be mobilized to squash dissent. And above we have the proof that a tank is indeed an accurate, even literal, portrayal of that infrastructure.

2.)The handcuff poster. The handcuff poster has even less to do with the police than the tank poster does. Police do use handcuffs, but handcuffs/shackles are also symbols of slavery. Let's take a look at the handcuff poster again:

The cuffs on the person's wrists are joined by a "chain" made of dollar signs. The dollar sign in the center is beginning to snap, as the cuffed person clenches his fists and presumably pulls his wrists in opposite directions. He is straining against his bonds thus causing the chain made of dollar signs to snap and also causing his wrists to bleed as he pulls to break free.

The symbolism is that of struggling to break free of some sort of financial slavery with the help of the Occupy movement, symbolized by the silhouette of the man holding the occupy sign.

No police are involved in this symbolism at all.

It is debt and financial oppression that have this guy "cuffed" not the police.

You have repeatedly stated that the handcuffs represent the police and that the dripping blood serves to either "demonize" them or is serving to incite violence against the police but you are wrong. You are completely misconstruing the symbolism in this poster. Whether or not that is intentional, I can't say for certain, but this is why I and others remain suspicious of you, your motives and your honesty.


Now you can tell me which point you think I have missed, if you'd like.

[-] -2 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

You've missed the most important point: how propaganda works. Your defense using the tank image, and this post in which you analyze the posters only serve to substantiate my argument.

Like you, most of the other users here are making a common logical fallacy; two wrongs don't make a right. It's not because the police are violent, and they are, that a non-violent movement such as Occupy should use violent imagery to demonize them. A true non-violent movement does not use violence at all. That includes physical violence, imagery, and/or news reports focusing on violence. Your argument is essentially: if the cops do it, then why not show it? If Occupy was a violent movement that would be fine, but as a non-violent movement they cannot indulge in this because they would be being hypocritical. It seems you think it would be fine for them to show police shooting rubber bullets on their posters, or a veteran being shot and injured by a canister. These actions in fact happened. They are very real and reprehensible, but a non-violent movement should not depict these events on their posters. A violent movement would. To know more about non-violence and how it should be used, please read about Ghandi.

As for the posters, your claims are correct on one level, but this is entirely normal for propaganda. As you claim, if we look at the posters with a deeper reading we realize the tanks are a look back at Tiananmen Square and we could say they represent power as a whole, not only the police force. We could also say that they show non-violence since the stand-off in Tiananmen Square was non-violent by the protesters. Your look at the Nov 2nd poster is also correct. The raised fists in cuffs represent the people breaking away from the chain of money which holds them back. All nice and dandy. This is a deeper reading, and serves to "hide" the propaganda that lives in the simple reading. It serves to justify the posters since it would be unacceptable to simply show tanks and handcuffs with bleeding wrists if there was no defense like yours that could be brought up.

Propaganda works at the first level. Imagery is instant. We see tanks as the roadblock, the enemy. We see handcuffs that make the wrists bleed. These images work to demonize the police. They create a link between police/military tools (tanks, handcuffs) and the idea that they are bad. Propaganda works on the first instinct reading, on a gut level reaction, not in a deeper reading like you make. If you study propaganda throughout history, you'll see this is how it works.

What you should be asking yourself is why Occupy went from the rather tame poster of the dancer on top of the bull, to these more violent posters. This is a very interesting question. The dancer was a beautiful representation of the people, free, happy, and dancing on top of their oppressor, the bull.

Take a look at the latest news reports concerned with the police.

First, Occupy shows the latest brutal acts committed by the police: http://occupywallst.org/article/whom-do-you-serve/ This is horrible by the police, but already the report is strange. When it first appeared it claimed there were only three types of police 1) ones that use violence 2) those who look and do nothing, 3) and Captain Raymond Lewis who is the good guy. Already, this is extremely simplistic. Who would say there are three types of protesters? 1) The black bloc, 2) those who look at the black bloc and do nothing, 3) the good protesters. This idea means nothing and only serves to demonize the police. I reported the problem with Occupy and they changed their report. This tells us a lot, but, still, one problematic blurb remains:

Brutal repression has long been a daily reality for people of color, trans and queer people, criminalized drug users, sex workers, and other marginalized communities.

It seems they want us to believe the police attacked minorities. Sorry, but this is not the case. The police did not target any minority such as gays. They committed violence against students who were protesting. They were horrible and excessive, but they were not being racists. Occupy is using their news reports to add horrible aspects to the police. It's a lie.

Finally, the latest police report as nothing to do with Occupy. It is a report of the problems in Egypt, problems that have nothing to do with our own except that they are a great way to show police and military committing hard core violence: http://occupywallst.org/article/egypt-rising-against-military-rule-security-forces/#comments They show Egyptians rising against the military rule. This is a big clue.

I'll be writing a detailed post on these issues today or tomorrow. You might want to read this if you are interested in a deeper look.

While you wait, a good question to ask yourself is: If Occupy is a non-violent protest, why does it favor violent over peaceful imagery, and why does it spice up news stories by blaming the cops of targeting minorities and comparing Occupy with protests like the one in Egypt which have nothing to do with the political situation in NY and US.

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 3 years ago

It's so interesting that you say this:

"Propaganda works at the first level. Imagery is instant. We see tanks as the roadblock, the enemy. We see handcuffs that make the wrists bleed."

I never noticed blood in the handcuffs depiction until you pointed it out here on the forum!

The way I explained the image in my post above was my actual first impression of the image. I noticed no blood when I first saw the poster via Twitter.

I see no message of inciting violence or police violence there, I see a message of struggle. I remember discussing this with you in a different thread. "Fighting" and "struggling" can take place without physical violence. Period.

As for this passage about 3 kinds of police officers - I never saw this.

You say it was there and was removed. I'll take your word for it, but I have no comment on it as I never saw it.

Then, you cite this next passage and call it "problematic":

"Brutal repression has long been a daily reality for people of color, trans and queer people, criminalized drug users, sex workers, and other marginalized communities."

The writer is NOT saying that these groups were targeting at the USC student protests. You take the quote out of context and then (intentionally?) misunderstand it.

Here is the full passage:

"Such incidents are unfortunately common. Brutal repression has long been a daily reality for people of color, trans and queer people, criminalized drug users, sex workers, and other marginalized communities. But now that the 99% and the Occupy movement are standing up for social and economic justice, we all are subject to those same violent tactics of repression."

Brutal repression has long been a daily reality

This means it has happened in the past. That these groups traditionally have been targets for particularly brutal police tactics. The writer was NOT saying those groups were targeted or present at UC Davis.

If you do not believe this is true in the U.S.A., please talk to some people from those groups.

Have you heard the expression "driving while black"? If not, please ask an African American, particularly a young man, what it means.

Have you ever spoken to any American sex workers about their relationships with the police?

How about gay or transgender people? If not, I suggest you do so before you pass judgment on what this writer is describing.

The point of that passage is "These groups have always been targeted for repression by the police and now, as OWS stands up to protest injustice, we are also subject to repression by the police."

I don't know if you're deliberately misunderstanding that passage or if it is a language issue, but your conclusion that "they want us to believe the police attacked minorities" at UC Davis that day is wrong.

[-] 0 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

This means it has happened in the past. That these groups traditionally have been targets for particularly brutal police tactics. The writer was NOT saying those groups were targeted or present at UC Davis.

Anser these simple questions honestly for yourself:

If the police wrote a report on OWS protesters and about a fourth of that article was about bad stuff that past protesters from past protests did, would you feel this is fair? Wouldn't this be propaganda aimed at demonizing the OWS protesters? Would it be OK to write something like it is common for protesters around the world to engage in violence, it happens all the time in Israël, Palestine, Egypt at the moment, etc... in an article about Occupy protesters? That would be unbiased reporting?

Don't you feel it's strange that Occupy is publishing so much news from the Egypt protests, specifically at a time when those protests are turning violent and just after their questionable article on the OWS police incident we were just talking about? There wasn't much news report from Egypt before their protests turned violent. Egyptian protesters have turned to violence to protect themselves and are using homemade bombs. Isn't strange that Occupy doesn't severe its link with this protest since it claims that it wants to promote non-violence?

Don't you see how Occupy is trying to make a connection between the military oppression in Egypt and Tiananmen Square with the police in America?

It's propaganada 101 my friend. Open your eyes. You'll be seeing posters get more violent and move and move news reports from Egypt as their protest gets more violent. I promise you. Keep your eyes open.

[-] 8 points by ImaginaaationG (28) from Canton, OH 3 years ago

Really? and these kids, adults, grandparents and others who you pepperspray, beat with sticks, shoot in the head with tear gas containers....do they not have all the emotions and passion you do? So if you're not one of the bad cops, why the fuck not stand up and take the side of the people who are trying to protect your pensions among many other human rights. Why inflict such martial law over people with signs that just want their voices heard because they're sick and tired of being walked all over and thrown into this system of corporate slavery. Before any officers want to act noble in this cause, take a step up, see what you're brothers in blue are doing to the innocent. Then we'll talk

[-] 8 points by pissedoffconstructionworker (602) 3 years ago

Absolutely, OP.

I'll never understand why folks don't understand the game here.

These brutal police actions ARE DESIGNED TO BRING ABOUT AN ANGRY RESPONSE FROM THE VICTIMS.

They've got their fingers crossed, hoping we'll take the bait.

As soon as we do, like the students in the early 70s who went violent and became the Weathermen...we'll be painted as anti-law and order, anti-cop.

For God's sake people, study the history of mass movements and nonviolent protest. This has all been done before! The successful paths and the doomed paths are laid out clearly for anyone with a library card.

[+] -8 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

Most people here have never been to a library.

[-] 7 points by powertoothepeople (280) 3 years ago

Cops demonize themselves by working for the illegitimate police state that is removing Constitutional rights in this country.

"You should know about it" to coin a phrase.

I can point to libertarians and right wingers who also have had enough and are activists against the gang-like behavior and para-military toys the cops use against the citizenry today.

Who could forget this incident, an old lady tasered at a traffic stop?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15YExclX4Gc

[-] 6 points by Faithntruth (997) 3 years ago

Funny that none of these smiling warm souls were present to stop the abuse of peaceful protestors who are guaranteed the right to peaceful assembly: when good men (and women) do nothing....

Where was this link to humanity when they were shooting veterens, pepper spraying women young and old, or pounding and running over non-violent civilians?

Actions overrule staged photos.

I expect police to treat us as people with rights, just as they expect us to treat them as people with families. Respect begets respect and so far their actions are not respectful of the people or the constitution, and my level of respect for them reflects that... Abuse of power and authority from fear of outcasting and pride in the group is exactly what allowed the Nazi regime to flourish.

When they stop acting like the freakin SS, we can talk...

[+] -4 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

Another one who misses the point by a mile.

[-] 4 points by Faithntruth (997) 3 years ago

Perhaps you would care to enlighten me...

[-] 5 points by RockyJ (208) 3 years ago

I was a young protestor (still in high school) during the Vietnam War protests. My picture was actually plastered on the front page of The Oregonian & that's how my parents & my HS found out I skipped school to protest in downtown Portland. BTW because my older brother was just sent on a Vietnam tour I didn't get in trouble. My point is that the Vietnam protestors did not have a positive view of the police during that time. We thought of them as PIGS, the enemy as they represented the establishment! We called them PIGS & they were spat on & taunted! I remember a group of us charging a row of Portland police in riot gear blocking a street & we'd just stop in short of their faces & smile @ them! This would go on for hours! I remember watching a effigy of Nixon be burned in front of his hotel he was staying @ in downtown Portland & the police just came in & put it out! Basically, the majority of police officers @ that time showed incredible amount restraint against protestors that I've seldom observed within the Occupy Movement & protests! WHY is this? WHY are the police so horrid against the Occupy protestors? For Pete f-n Sakes pepper spraying a 84 year old woman? Beating young men to a pulp for jumping on a fence & brushing a cops hat off his head, shooting a tear gas canister @ young war veteran's head, breaking another veteran's spleen, smashing billy clubs on UNARMED protestors stomachs,
destroying protestors clothes, tents, books & laptops! Basically acting more like PIGS & CORPORATE BULLIES!

[-] 4 points by powertothepeople (1264) 3 years ago

Yes, it was a different time then.

Police forces were not militarized like they are now. People from all walks of life tended to respect the freedoms guaranteed us in the Constitution.

Something like a "free speech zone" was completely unheard of back then.

Of course, there was still police violence in many cases. The Chicago Democratic convention in '68? I've read that the Chicago police PLANNED to be violent and bust some hippie heads no matter what happened.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

I believe they are being so brutish, because the 1% have a lot to lose should the idea of equality of economic opportunnity take place.

This is a civil war and they know it. Because they currently control the cops, the cops do their bidding.

[+] -4 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

Another who misses the point entirely.

[-] 3 points by RockyJ (208) 3 years ago

So WTF is your point?

[-] -3 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

You're argument is nothing more than a logical fallacy: two wrongs don't make a right. It is a common fallacy; everyone is making it in this thread.

The point is, if Occupy wants the claim of being a non-violent movement, it cannot demonize the police no matter how violent the police are. Demonizing police is a form of violence that Ghandi would not have agreed with. If Occupy wants to keep demonizing the police by portraying them as Tiananmen Tanks or by writing biased new articles, that is fine as long as they don't claim to be non-violent. Occupy should be honest with its intentions.

The idea of non-violence was promoted by Ghandi in the last century. Here is the advice Ghandi gave to the Jews in a 1940 address:

""I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions...If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance."

[-] 4 points by Faithntruth (997) 3 years ago

The police have demonized themselves with their use of unwarranted force and violence. Making it public is simply revealing the truth. Ows has advocated treating the police in a manner consistent with what you post. Calling shame for shameful actions is social pressure intended to break through their shields to the seat of their humanity, though.

Most people understand that the police are just people with jobs that have meaning to them. We understand they are subject to authorities that no longer serve the people. It is they, and not us, who have a serious decision to make...

[-] 4 points by RockyJ (208) 3 years ago

So you believe the police have behaved fine and we should just allow their brutal treatment of the citizens they claim to serve and protect? I don't believe the police are being demonized but they are being very brutal. I compared their behavior to how police in the early 70's held incredible restraint when they were TRULY demonized by the protestors and your reply was I didn't get it. The Occupy protestors have been very respectful to them compared to how we were in the early 70's, as they don't have the same mind set as we did towards the cops back then! The cops today are responding with the utmost brutality that I've ever witnessed in my life!
You claim people are writing biased articles when they're just telling the truth? Any violence is NOT from the Occupy protestors its from police plants, a few black bloc anarchists & provocateurs!

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 3 years ago

Yes. they did exactly as their protocols for keeping public order demand. When protesters block ports/take over parks, forcibly shut down roads (force of numbers) they are disrupting public order and infringing upon the rights of others. It is then the Police JOB to 2) take back the public rights for the public that OWS stole and 2) restore order. Quit QQ--when you choose to break the law, you do so knowingly and knowing that you will get arrested. And pepper spray and batons? That's what getting arrested looks like. Always.

[-] 1 points by RockyJ (208) 3 years ago

I call BS! That's beyond force needed for that situation & you know it! There was NO disorder, no riot, no fear for their lives or property ! A few kids sitting down refusing to move! BFD! You don't use chemical weapons on your own citizens! If they were rioting, yes a different story! I expect the college will pay dearly for their very poor decision to support the 1% rather than their own students! Think about it the college wouldn't exist without the students! I would never allow (my just turned college age) daughter (others have already graduated) to attend UC Davis or Berkley! I wouldn't trust their judgement to keep my daughter safe!

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

"They did exactly as their protocols for keeping public order demand"

No. They are not following protocol and if they are, their protocol is coming from the 1% and their enablers. Ray Kelly on behalf of Mayor Bloombers in NYC is commanding the police.

They are going way beyond maintaining public order. The OWS protest is bad news for the 1%. They do not want equality of economic opportunity. They like things just the way they are.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 3 years ago

too simplistic. UNTIL the Supreme court rules a tent is a free speech element, and UNTIL they rule that a forcible take over of a public space is a free speech element, they are not-- and arrests and use of force by the police to make arrests, are going to be the standing norm. You should also know pepper spray is approved by court rulings and case law for civil disobedience. OWS is going to make history with the upcoming lawsuits and rulings and case law, I have no doubt, but it requires the civil disobedience>arrest>court case>lawsuit to sometimes get it done when the legislative branch won't do it. Using the court to affect change- that's called the judicial branch of the government. OWS has an opportunity to make real change here, using the results of their actions in the judicial process. My point is the same, OWS should just man up and know that they are going to get arrested and welcome it SO that the changes can be made. And stop pretending the police are at fault for doing their jobs under the laws as they stand now, until OWS affects the changes.

[-] -3 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

So you believe the police have behaved fine and we should just allow their brutal treatment of the citizens they claim to serve and protect?

Where did I say this?

You claim people are writing biased articles when they're just telling the truth?

No, Occupy's articles are heavily biased and designed to demonize the police.

[-] 3 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 3 years ago

If you'll pardon the technical term.... M I E R D A - D E - T O R O ! (B U L L S H I T)

OWS never attempted to "demonize the police". Sadly, many in the police are doing a pretty good job of DOING THAT TO THEMSELVES...

Perhaps Thrasymaque/Glaucon and others who were claiming that the OWS "tank poster" was over the top exaggeration might like to read this article :

"TAMPA POLICE ROLL OUT A TANK To Deal With A Few Dozen Protesters"

http://occupywallst.org/forum/news-article-tampa-police-roll-out-a-tank-to-deal-/

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 3 years ago

Did he also tell them that they shouldn't talk about what Hitler was doing?

[-] -2 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

There's a big difference between talking about it, and what Occupy is doing. The fact that you can't see this is astonishing. There's really not much more I can say. Look at the posters, and look at how the news reports are formulated, and how the movement is now being connected with Egypt where the protesters have started using homemade bombs to protect themselves. If Occupy was really non-violent like Ghandi, they would dissociate themselves with Egypt, not try to get closer with them. It amazes me you fail to see what is going on. It's so obvious. Time will tell.

[-] 2 points by powertothepeople (1264) 3 years ago

So the answer is "no", right?

It's amazing how you stay on your propaganda message, making accusations based on your crystal ball and tenuous connections.

Reminds me of Glenn Beck's chalk talks.

[-] 0 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

Everything should be transparent. The problem is Occupy is not reporting what the police are doing in an unbiased, way. Much to the contrary, they are using hyperboles an creating links with other protests to further demonize the police. Tell me what the police did at Zuccott. Sure. But don't tell me what police did 20 years earlier at some other protest, or what the military is doing in Egypt then try to associate yourself with that protest. That's propaganda.

Don't you find it troublesome that Occupy made a link with itself and the violent "Days of Rage" protests from Chicago? Why would a non-violent movement want to associate itself with a violent protest of the past?

BTW - There's no sense using logical fallacies like a lame ad hominem by comparing my comments to Glenn Beck. I don't even know who the guy is and we are adults here. Why not discuss matters in a mature fashion. Attack the arguments. No reason to attempt cheap shots.

[-] 5 points by powertoothepeople (280) 3 years ago

This officer was welcomed. Police who gleefully pepper spray peaceful protestors demonize themselves.

[-] 5 points by powertoothepeople (280) 3 years ago

Even Forbes is criticizing the police response to OWS:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/11/19/police-response-to-occupy-wall-street-is-absurd/

And make no mistake, the powers of the police in this country have grown out of hand. I’ve written at length on the militarization of the police, of SWAT team abuses, and the way that the war on terror and the war on drugs have both contributed to what is really just a war on individual liberty. Occupy Wall Street may need to grow up and evolve, but a far greater and more pressing issue facing this country is what to do about the security state we’ve erected about us at the local, state, and federal level.

[-] 0 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 3 years ago

internet links are internet links. And contributing editorials are not 'Forbes.' Any more than the opinions presented here are not official statements. Just like the disclaimer on both sites say.

[-] 1 points by powertoothepeople (280) 3 years ago

Oh, good god. Can anyone blog on Forbes or do you have to be approved?

Paul Krugman has a blog on the NYTimes.com site. But I can't get one.

KWIM?

[-] 4 points by w9illiam (97) 3 years ago

Ya you could goto a Prison full of Pedophiles and get a bunch of pictures of them smiling too. Look at the picture of the smiling cop at the bottom fingering his club with a grin waiting to beat somebody in hand cuffs.

[-] 4 points by AndrewK47 (26) 3 years ago

THE NYPD are on our side! To make them into our enemy is the gravest 0f mistakes!! THIS IS A PEACFUL PROTEST!!!!!

[-] 2 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

The police cannot be lumped together as supporters. While they are members of the 99%, many, like many other members of the 99% do not support OWS.

The police are literally hired guns. They will crack heads without question if they are asked to do so by their bosses who happens to be Ray Kelly and Mayor Bloomberg. Saying the police are on our side is like saying billionaire Bloomberg is on our side.

I was at a protest on Thursday near Mayor Bloomberg's private residence. There were police at that protest that were downright antagonistic. They were trying to start trouble. I saw them push a man.

[-] 4 points by JonoLith (467) 3 years ago

Is this what you think when you're beating up College Kids? "If only they'd stop demonizing us!"

Who pays your Bills?

Who is your Master?

[-] 0 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 3 years ago

They are 'arresting' college kids who are breaking the law. Which is what happens. All day. And that's what getting arrested looks like. Nice try spinning and manipulating, but it isn't working on any of the real public. Just within OWS.

[-] 1 points by JonoLith (467) 3 years ago

Which Laws? Can you cite them? Can you find them? Can you link me to them? When those kids got pepper sprayed, what Law did they break?

[-] 4 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 3 years ago

The difference between cops in the US and those in any totalitarian society is only one of degree, not of kind

[-] -2 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

In other words, being shot instead of pepper sprayed.

[-] 4 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 3 years ago

Yeah, I'd say being pepper sprayed instead of being shot is a dfference in degree but not in kind. But being hit in the head with a projected tear gas canister is kind of a transitional phase between being pepper sprayed and being shot. I seem to have read somewhere that cops were using rubber bullets (Oakland, Portland?) though I could be wrong.

Ulitmately if the movement becomes larger and necessarily more agressive police tactics will necessarily escalate. I'm not suggesting that larger crowds will necessarily be violent, only that they will simply be harder for police to control based on their traditional values. For example, if a crowd is big enough, it would simply be impossible for the cops to force it to stay on the sidewalk without becoming considerably more assertive an exerting some force that would probably tip over into violence. If the crowd is big enough there would simply not be enough sidewalk space available. And if it's big enough, say 1000 times larger than the available size of the police force, how is it to be kept from the steps of the stock exchange or even the floor of the stock exchange without the use of force which would probably tip over into violence?

[-] 0 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 3 years ago

Rubber bullets are the nationally prescribed police protocol for dealing with unruly mobs. Its what mob control looks like. QQ all you want, when you break the law by blocking a roadway/taking over a park/shutting down a port with force of numbers, you get your weenie spanked. Take some responsibility for your actions of breaking the law, and realize their are consequences to doing it.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 3 years ago

Take some responsibility for your actions and stop kibbitzing on a forum in which you have little interest and no sympathy. Wouldn't it make more sense for you to spend time talking to people whose values you shared?

[-] 0 points by weepngwillo2 (277) 3 years ago

whispers Denver

[-] -2 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

Occupy's goal is to become violent. The fact that people don't see this is very scary. If it keeps going like this, we will soon see a civil war in US.

You're right, there was a veteran hit by a canister, and there are people who got pepper sprayed when it wasn't needed. What you have to realize is that Occupy also made mistakes. Some of the protesters, the black bloc, thrashed around and created quite a bit of violence. Some innocent people were hurt in Oakland, not only by the police, but also by the protesters. Everyone who committed violence that was uncalled for should be prosecuted.

What's interesting is how Occupy dealt with this. It has continuously played down the violence caused by protesters by claiming it was a few bad apples that didn't represent Occupy, but when a few bad cops made mistakes the police in general have been thoroughly demonized. This is a planned and common tactic in this type of movement. It happened countless times before throughout history.

We only have to make a quick analysis of the new news article to see how they are smearing the cops. How they claim there are only three kinds of cops, and how they talk about cops beating people of minorities: blacks, gays and queers, etc... Then, of course the Nov 2nd poster with the handcuffs on bloody wrists and the latest poster with the Tiananmen Tanks used to represent the cops.

The structure of the protest itself it made to encourage confrontation. It's obvious that if people camp in parks over a long period of time, there will eventually be a face off with the cops.

The OWS plan is working. Protesters don't realize they are being used as guinea pigs in an experiment meant to start an impressive conflict. Everyone can make their own choices, but if you are a protester, I ask you to play safe. Take care man. It's going to get heavy soon.

[-] 4 points by bankrun2011 (89) 3 years ago

So if we exercise our rights there will be violence, so we should suffer in silence, and if there is violence it is our fault. I get it. . Your political thought is utterly bankrupt...

[-] 0 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 3 years ago

You're not exercising your rights. Westboro Baptist exercises their rights to protest and never blocks traffic or 'takes over' a park, roadway, sidewalk, port, subway so that other people can't pass or use it. BIG damn difference. OWS spin is to cry 'but we're only exercising our rights.' NO, you are breaking the law while you do it. Can you say durr?

[-] 1 points by bankrun2011 (89) 3 years ago

Have you heard of civil disobedience? There are situations where exercise of rights and "law" do not coincide. Those are unjust laws.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 3 years ago

OWS wants it both ways. Is it 'we are not breaking any laws' or ' we are only breaking laws we don't approve of.' And that's ok, I agree..go for it. Push the envelope here and see if the Supreme court will uphold a tent as a free speech element, and Im not being facetious. Break those laws that you disagree with. You're missing my point. When you DO break laws then you had better accept the consequences of that activity. And that means getting arrested and everything that goes along with that. UNTIL the Supreme court rules a tent is a free speech element, and UNTIL they rule that a take over of a public space is a free speech element, they are not-- and arrests and use of force by the police to make arrests, are the standing norm. OWS is probably going to influence supreme court decisions down the road, and that's pretty awesome. But sound like leaders then instead of whiny kids and stop doing the circle jerk where Occupy knows its breaking the laws (as they stand now) because (they don't like them) and cry about the arrests that (naturally) follow. Man up, know you're doing it to change the way the things are, and its BY the arrests and the court cases and the lawsuits that things will change because that's how the system works.

[-] 4 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 3 years ago

There is absolutely no evidence that OWS's goal is to become violent. In fact, quite the opposite is the case. It has had two commitments from the beginning. One is to nonviolence. The other is to democracy.

At present OWS is a tiny tiny movement. There are, generously, fewer than 200 thousand OWS activists in the nation. If it becomes a serious movement, say of 30 or 40 million activists, even then violence is unlikely as at that point the movement will probably outnumber the police or any other force in society that has a legal monopoly on violence.

A social movement, especially a social movement in which we are all leaders, is bound to make mistakes and it can't be treated the same way that a hierarchal organization like the police or the military or a corporation or even a political party can be treated. Since we are all leaders there is no one person that you can go to and say "do this" or "you should not do that" and expect it to happen.

Who is going to prosecute the cops who are violating people's First Amendment rights?

Why is it inevitable that an occupation must inevitably lead to a confrontation with the police if the society is truely democratic? It hasn't happened everywhere there is an occupation. This is the choice of local municipal administrations and the police forces they control. Why aren't tents as much a free speech right as is money? The First Amendment doesn't say anything about the right to assemble for the redress of grievances being a 9 to 5 proposition or having to stop when the sun goes down or after a given number of days.

[-] 0 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 3 years ago

This headline here, this official OWS headline,

http://occupywallst.org/article/occupy-oakland-calls-total-west-coast-port-shutdow/

is horrifically violent all by itself. shutting down all ports with force of numbers, is a pretty violent act by a mob.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 3 years ago

Yeah. The ILWU has done it at regular intervals since its founding in 1934 which grew out of the San Francisco general strike in which the San Francisco cops killed several workers. I agree. Not exactly nonviolent. But whose doing the violence?

[-] -1 points by number2 (914) 3 years ago

I hope it's not about democracy. I'll have to bounce then. I think this republic is the best system ever conceived of. The problem is that we don't follow the constitution anymore.

[-] 5 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 3 years ago

The Constitution was a reactionary document when it was written and given the centrality of the commerce clause, it's still a reactionary document. The most radically democratic elements of the revolution specifically refused to attend the Constitutional Convention because the recognized it correctly that it was a reactionary gathering. Those opposed to it included Jefferson, Sam (not John) Adams, Patrick Henry and Tom Paine. The specific reason it was called was because of a rebellion of debtor farmers which culminated in Shay's Rebellion, a movement that very nearly over threw the Massachusetts legislature. As it was judges that attempted to foreclose on farms to the benefit of Boston bankers were met by a room ful of farmers armed with muskets who sent the circuit riding judges running. That was the context of the adoption of the Constitution. It was a reactionary document then and it still is.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 3 years ago

it's not perfect but it has worked well for us.

[-] 1 points by aeturnus (231) from Robbinsville, NC 3 years ago

Maybe, until the government allowed corporations to usurp it. It then became a tool for the elite.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 3 years ago

Tell that the the students at US Davis or the occupiers at Zuccotti Square or any of a dozen or so other places around the US in the last week or so. Look at the top of this page. What does it say right under Occupy Wall Street? The world revolution continues! Solidarity forever!

[-] 3 points by number2 (914) 3 years ago

Again, I'll say that we don't follow it anymore and haven't for quite awhile. Compare the US constitutional system to any other system in any other country. Citing anything recent as an argument against the constitution is inaccurate because our congress has not upheld their oath to the constitution and some of them are in contempt of it.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

I agree with you.

There are also many new actions that have to be argued in front of the Supreme Court to determine whether they are violations of First Amendment rights.

[-] -3 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

Have you studied history? OWS uses the rhetoric of non-violence for a reason. It's planned to help demonize the cops. We weren't aggressive they were. Truly non-violent movements do not use violent imagery. They do not demonize policemen with one sided anti-cop news that reads as pure propaganda.

It's fine if you don't believe me, but please keep your eyes open. Look at how Occupy treats the cops over the next few months. Look at the imagery of the posters. Keep an eye to see if Occupy is really promoting non-violence. Keep your other eye to see the rubber bullets coming at you.

Just remember. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's not because some cops are dicks that Occupy should use propaganda to make the cops look bad. If anything, a non-violent movement should promote peace.

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 3 years ago

I happen to be ABD in history. My area of concentration is American labor history with minors in European political history, American social history and the history of science and technology. I'm an OWS part timer and I haven't seen any evidence that OWSers demonize police. If anything they have made every effort to reach out to them, though I personally believe this is a fool's errand as the job of the police force is to serve and protect the 1%. They can't legally join OWS even if they want to. I personally do not demonize police. I grew up in a neigborhood full of them and vacationed with them as a child, but that doesn't negate their social role as protectors of the 1%.

[-] -2 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

You think portraying the police as Tiananmen Tanks was an effort to reach out to them? You think portraying two handcuffed fists with blood dripping down the arms was an effort to reach out to them? You think the following paragraph is a way to reach out to them:

"Such incidents are unfortunately common. Brutal repression has long been a daily reality for people of color, trans and queer people, criminalized drug users, sex workers, and other marginalized communities. But now that the 99% and the Occupy movement are standing up for social and economic justice, we all are subject to those same violent tactics of repression."

Do you believe the protesters in the video were maced because they were "people of color, trans and queer people, criminalized drug users, sex workers, or other marginalized communities."? Do you believe this is what the cops have been doing in NYC, attacking minorities?

Do you believe reporting that there are three kinds of cops is OK? Probably not since they edited out that from their original news report. Probably because I reported it.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 3 years ago

Personally, while I do not demonize police and think that on an individual level they are basically no different from any other working stiff, as an institution the job of the police force is to protect the 1%. IMHO it is really pointless to try to reach out to the police because any effort to do otherwise than what the 1% expect of them is not only likely to lose their job for them but very likely also to get them into legal trouble. Their job is to protect and serve the 1%. I personally don't expect them to do otherwise, though some cops may do it more enthusiastically and with more panache than others.

People were maced because they were trying to exercise their First Amendment rights. Apparently money is a First Amendment right but a tent isn't.

[-] -2 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

The First Amendment is about free speech, not about camping.

[-] 4 points by powertothepeople (1264) 3 years ago

Glaucon wrote: "The First Amendment is about free speech, not about camping."


With that statement, you make the same error that many Americans are making when talking about these protests.

The Supreme Court has held time after time that expression is a form of "speech" and is protected by the First Amendment.

Here are some examples of exotic forms of expression that have been ruled to be protected speech by the United States Supreme Court:

"The Court decided the burning of selective service registration cards constituted symbolic speech in U.S. v O’Brien in 1968. In this case, the Court found O’Brien’s act of burning his draft card to be a “communication of ideas by conduct.”

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_232

Nude Dancing: Many people do not understand why the removal of clothes by a dancer is a form of protected expression, but in fact the First Amendment protects many forms of controversial expression. A review of basic First Amendment principles and the history of erotic dance shows why the Supreme Court has ruled that regulation of nude dancing triggers First Amendment protections.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/nude-dancing


Occupy camping has not been ruled on by the Supreme Court yet, but to me it is clear that it should be, and likely will be, considered protected speech, just as burning bras and draft cards and dancing naked in a bar are protected.

[-] 3 points by unimportant (716) 3 years ago

Speech is not always in the form of the spoken language.

TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1983

§ 1983. CIVIL ACTION FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

[-] 0 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

Strong argument, and quite correct. The Supreme Court ruling will be interesting.

[-] 4 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 3 years ago

I suspect that at some point this will probably become a Supreme Court issue, but my position, right now, absent a Supreme Court decision is that there are no qualifications on the right to assemble. The First Amendment doesn't say that the right to assemble is limited to day light hours or that there is some time limit on the right to assemble. The Court has decided that the free use of money for a particular cause is free speech. That being the case, it would seem to me that tents and sleeping bags, essential for the health and safety of those assembled for the redress of grievances, is also a free speech issue.

[-] 0 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 3 years ago

That I do agree with. This MAY change the constitution, but so far it has not, and the act of 'taking over' a public space is not, at this moment, protected as an expression of free speech or peaceful assembly. So be prepared to get arrested for disrupting public order and invading those spaces, and have the mob controlled till the law is interpreted differently.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 3 years ago

Taking over a public space is more than an assembly protected under the First Amendement for the redress of grievances. It's about building a community with an entirely different set of values.

[-] -3 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

It's the right to assemble for delivery free speech. If your sleeping you're not talking. In any case, camping is a waste of energy and time. It's better to be well rested. Then you can think better and protest better.

[-] 4 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 3 years ago

The First Amendment protects the freedom of religion, speech, the press AND "the right of the people to peaceably assemble" That is, the right of assembly is certainly related to the right of speech (as it is to religion and the press, etc.--that is all rights are connected but they are also independent of each other. That is, for example, freedom of the press is independent of the right to assemble but not unrelated to it. So the right to assemble exists quite independently of the right to free speech. The First Amendment does not specifically prohibit sleeping while assembling nor does it place any time limits on the right to assemble. To the extent that weather and other considerations (hunger for example) might inhibit the right to assemble then ability to endure those conditions with tents, kitchens and other facilities might properly be considered part of the right to assemble. I do realize that the Supreme Court has yet to rule on this, but I am making an argument based both on what the Amendment says and previous rulings. For example, the Court has ruled that money is speech to the extent that it costs money to freely get one's point across.

[-] 3 points by powertothepeople (1264) 3 years ago

See what I wrote above as well. I believe camping for purposes of protest is indeed protected political speech.

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 3 years ago

Yeah, but that was not the position of the person to which I was responding. See the comment immediately above mine. Also, while both speech and assembly are protected under the first amendment they are separate clauses and as such not exactly the same.

[-] 2 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

Glaucon, most OWS protestors were not and are not camping out. Many do not realize just how tiny Zuccotti Park / Liberty Square is only 33,000 square feet which is about .75 of an acre -- a lot too small to put a single family home in many communities. So while there are thousands of OWS protestors, only about 200 of them were physically able to camp out at any one time. Most slept in their own apartments or in apartments of OWS supporters.

Oddly, the media (both mainstream and non mainstream) has not mentioned this fact. Also, when they show pictures and video of the tents in Zuccotti Park / Liberty Square it is done in such a way that leaves the viewer believing that what is shown is the tip of the iceberge when, in fact, it is the entire icecube.

[-] 1 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

True.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

Have you personally been to any of the OWS protests? If not, where are you getting your information from regarding the behavior of the protestors and cops during the protests?

I was just at the 7/20/11 protest near Mayor Bloombers residence in NYC. Many of the cops were very, very nice. Some were robotic -- refusing to make eye contact at all. And then there are these Community Service officers whose job it is to schmooze -- kind of good cop, bad cop. (I had my dog, Missy Paulette, with me and she was dressed as a cop complete with cuffs and pepper spray so I did a lot of schmoozing with the cops myself. Most love Missy Paulette and took many pictures of her.)

All of a sudden at around 9 pm, with no provocation, flashing cop cars and van paddy wagons came screaming around the corner. Cops dressed in full riot gear got out and lined up accross from us. It was an incredible show of force. (Btw, there were only about 60 people at this protest, and we had all been cordoned off behind barriers off the sidewalk onto the green next to Central Park.) This one fat cop got on a bullhorn and started barking out to us that we were making too much noise and that it had to STOP now. He and his back ups in riot gear were incredibly confrontational. I was and still am in utter shock.

What shocked me even more though was the response of the protesters. They folded. Without so much as a verbal objection, they basically called off the protest. Talk about passive.

Now I do not want to say that this happens all the time, but I am saying is that this is what I witnessed up close and personal.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

Violence, at least on the part of the oppressors, is inevitable. After the canister incident, support for OWS grew. After the arrests on the Brooklyn Bridge support grew.

Civil disobedience will likely cause the oppressors to react violently. This may be inevitable. f one sits back quietly and follows the law as their rights are taken away -- total peaceful protest, there will be no violence. There will also be no change. The peaceful unobjecting protesters will soon find themselves allowed only to protest in a completely out-of-the way location where they can easily be ignored.

Remember that hundreds died and many thousands more were injured during Ghandi's peaceful movement. Ghandi also advocated civil disobedience by not obeying laws that were created by and written for the benefit of the British, their oppressors.

[-] 0 points by Renaye (522) 3 years ago

Your last paragraph sounds like you have inside info we should be aware of. Would you tell us if you did?

[-] 3 points by Edgewaters (912) 3 years ago

I think this post is deliberately attempting to incite, its baiting for anti-police rhetoric to try and subvert the concept of the police as being part of the 99%.

Somebody is fishing for over-the-top statements to give to the media.

Power up your bullshit detectors folks.

[-] -1 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

No. I honestly think Occupy is purposely demonizing the police and I think it shouldn't do this. I'm stuck with this idea since two weeks. Iv'e presented arguments for it. If you do not agree, either provide counter-arguments, or don't say anything. Using an appeal to motive is a logical fallacy and is only interesting for conspiracy theorists. You're not a conspiracy theorist are you?

[-] 2 points by Edgewaters (912) 3 years ago

A conspiracy theorist? No, I just know a thing or two about the Internets. Did you know some people make sneaky posts on it and go, what do they call it, "fishing"? Unbelievable but true. I'm sure it's quite rare, though. I mean how many website administrators have ever even seen THAT sort of thing, really.

[-] -1 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

I don't post and go. I'm right here. I always am. If you have counter-arguments, let's debate. Posting ad hominems is a waste of time for everybody. If you like sophistry comment on Thrasymaque's posts.

[-] 2 points by Edgewaters (912) 3 years ago

I'm just warning people to be cautious - to question things and be sure they aren't being baited. What sort of "counterargument" am I supposed to make? "Everyone hate the police"?

And why on Earth would you be opposed to people being a little cautious, using their bullshit detectors? I'd really, really, really like to know. Because if you weren't just fishing, you wouldn't mind the notion of people being cautioned not to make incendiary remarks and thinking a little before they post, would you? What exactly is your objection to that if you aren't fishing?

I'll take your word for it you're not fishing, cause I'm a trusting guy. Like I say, that sort of thing is pretty rare on the Internet, isn't it? Probably couldn't happen here.

[-] 0 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

Being paranoid is not very productive. These are just words on a forum. You can play like an adult and pick out the arguments you want to debate, or play the logical fallacy game. I'm done here. I won't reply unless you have counter-arguments worth debating.

One of my arguments is that using Tianamen Tanks on one poster and handcuffed attached to bleeding wrists on another is a way to demonize the police and it not very peaceful. You could provide counter-arguments to show why a non-violent (I prefer peaceful) movement that shows such images is not contradicting itself.

You would at least be one of the first to try. Everyone else just does what you've been doing: push one logical fallacy after another. How lame is that?

[-] 1 points by Edgewaters (912) 3 years ago

Being cautious is not being paranoid. And you talk about fallacies, how ironic!

Why do you want people to say incendiary things about the police, to start a fight about the police? What do you care if the thread contains no inflammatory remarks about police? Why are you arguing with me about this?

You could provide counter-arguments

No, I'm not getting into this with you. You don't know my position and at the moment I don't care to express it. I'm just here to tell people to be cautious about fishing, and your response is to ... fish. I guess I wasn't too far off the mark!

[-] 0 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

"Why do you want people to say incendiary things about the police, to start a fight about the police? What do you care if the thread contains no inflammatory remarks about police? Why are you arguing with me about this?"

Where did this come from?

[-] 1 points by Edgewaters (912) 3 years ago

Gee, I don't know. Maybe because I posted warning people not to be baited and that maybe someone was fishing for incendiary remarks. If you weren't, you wouldn't care. If you were, you might argue with me for an hour, deny it, try to get me to make "counterarguments" (ie fish), and finally, play dumb.

But since you obviously didn't do any of these things, no sir, let's let it rest.

[-] 0 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

I am not fishing for anything. People are free to write what they want.

I was interested to know how in the world you came up with those ideas and why you tried to pass them off as mine. Iv'e written many posts criticizing the police brutality against Occupy and gave out a link to a very interesting article that explains why America has become a police state. You seem new here? Have you read the bulk of my posts, or just random tidbits? Arguing against Occupy's use of violent imagery to demonize the police is not the same as saying the police have all the rights to be doing what they are. They certainly don't.

OK. I agree. Let's rest. Nothing can come of this if you don't want to engage in a real debate with real arguments. I really don't understand why people are so afraid of criticism around here and why they constantly use the shield of logical fallacies. I guess a forum is not the same type of discussion hall than a university.

[-] 1 points by Edgewaters (912) 3 years ago

Nothing can come of this if you don't want to engage in a real debate with real arguments.

No, I don't. I thought I made it pretty clear that I didn't feel like getting into it right now. There's no "logical fallacy" in that, it's just not something I feel like discussing. It's after midnight here and I'm a bit bleary and just not up for that sort of discussion, no big mystery (jumping to assumptions as to why I don't feel like discussing it, however, is a pretty massive logical fallacy - ironically enough). The only reason I posted was to warn people that someone could be fishing for incendiary remarks against the police to use as smears. Not to discuss, just to put in a cautionary note.

[-] 0 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

Alright, have a good rest. I still don't know what was the goal of trying to put words in my mouth, but let's forget that nonsense. If you have more energy tomorrow and want to engage in an adult-like debate, then provide some counter-arguments for the arguments that I make. I'll be happy to defend my position. Iv'e been looking for good discussions here, but they are far in between. May Morpheus hold you tight in her arms and bring you to a pleasant world of dreams.

[-] 1 points by UndergroundMan (2) 3 years ago

It's hard to determine what the heck is going on. Mostly just seems like Rorschach interpretation of Adbusters campaign material. Whether they "should": depends on the objective. Read Joesph Conrad?

[-] 0 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

I haven't read Joseph Conrad. I'll check him out right now. You're right, Occupy is hard to pin down. It seems full of contradictions, and that's most likely the plan.

[-] 3 points by HarryCrew07 (433) 3 years ago

Seriously though, some of these pictures are just too cute :) I love protection, dont love brutality. If you are really 99%, you will watch your fellow officers and stop them from brutality.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

The problem is that you cannot stop them. They must listen to the commands from above. They were hired because they have this quality and they were further trained. When your commanding officer says to start cracking heads, you ask no questions. You start cracking heads. If you don't, you lose your job. Period. Failure to follow orders.

[-] 3 points by BigDumbAmerican (6) 3 years ago

Well said, OP. I would urge everybody to remember this. The military and the police attract the best AND worst of people, and I am speaking from personal experience as a veteran. Don't let the appalling actions of the few let you vilify the whole.

Consider the reverse side of things: the propaganda against the OWS movement about the protesters all being violent junkies, based on a few bad apples.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

The one quality rquired to join the police or the military is that one must be willing to kill or beat up another human being on command with no questions asked. While not every cop or soldier is put into the position where they have to do this is irrelevant. The point is that, yes, a certain type is drawn to these fields.

What they are NOT supposed to do, is kill or beat up people WITHOUT command.

[-] 3 points by Chris3141 (34) 3 years ago

I agree that most cops have behaved responsibly, although there are a few bad apples. I want OWS to succeed, but it is overly focused on battles between cops and protestors. It has lost focus on the core issues (public corruption, Wall Street out of control, etc.), and is declining in popularity as a result. http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-is-becoming-increasingly-unpopular-heres-how-t/

[-] 3 points by buphiloman (840) 3 years ago

The Police are the pawns of the plutocratic fascist state. If they do not wish to be further demonized, then they should resign. If they keep putting on the uniform and violating the 4th, 8th, and 1st amendment rights of citizens, then they deserve all the scorn and vitriol that can be heaped upon them. The choice is theirs: join us or get out of our way.

[-] 3 points by sufinaga (513) 3 years ago

chant his name. LT JOHN PIKE out out out! get his family, friends and neighbours involved. they need to know about this psychopath.

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 3 years ago

Police Academy ???

Where's the photos of the storm troopers in battle armour, macing seated people, or cracking heads with batons?

[-] 3 points by robes (63) from Maplewood, NJ 3 years ago

if you are the 99%,,,

dont take the overtime... take off work and join us...

tell your boss you think it is wrong to show up to peaceful protests in riot gear.

stop using pepperspray and stop carrying batons.

[+] -4 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

Impossible. OWS has already made it clear that it considers policemen in plainclothes amongst protesters as undercover agents.

[-] 3 points by nimbus22 (106) from Chaska, MN 3 years ago

its hard to refute what cops do when they are on camera doing it. What? are people supposed to be grateful you are beating them? every time I call the cops they send 1 guy 45 minutes later. They don't show up for emergencies for ordinary citizens anywhere I have lived. But they will be at a protest ready to beat you in a second. That is my experience. All cops do is collect fees and oppress the voices of ordinary people when the powers that be don't like what they are hearing. Cops have never made me feel safe. In fact it is the opposite. I have no criminal record and am an ordinary tax payer. Cops are nothing but bullies and fee collectors for the city. They don't protect or serve anyone. I dont know if they ever did in a bygone era. if you are a cop and have a wife/kid/family/mortgage/ ect. maybe you should think twice about what you do and why you do it.

[-] -3 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 3 years ago

Where do you live that you are constantly calling the police?

[-] 1 points by nimbus22 (106) from Chaska, MN 3 years ago

no one said constantly, but I have had to call them many times in my life yes. but if your question is if I'm a credible source than all I can tell you is that I'm a regular guy and that is my experience and I'm sure I'm not alone in them.

[-] -1 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 3 years ago

Police response has much to do with why you are calling. If you are reporting a crime in progress the response is quicker then if you are calling to report graffiti on a wall.

[-] 3 points by TLydon007 (1278) 3 years ago

"Police response has much to do with why you are calling."

That's his point..

The question is, 'Why are non-violent protests a seemingly high priority?'

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

The show of force has been way out of proportion. I believe the top brass are using these protests as a training ground to see how well their toys will work and who among them can function best and by best I mean exactly as they wish them to function.

[-] 2 points by TLydon007 (1278) 3 years ago

That would probably explain why the Lieutenants (guys in white shirts) seem to be the most violent. They received the orders and are setting an example to follow. Either that or the police departments are just promoting officers with reckless disregard for human decency.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

The ones that get promoted are the ones who not only can follow orders exactly as they are given, but the ones who know exactly how their superiors would think and so if need be can act on their own in exactly the manner their superiors would have them act had they given the orders themselves.

The ones at the bottom are the soldiers. Their job is to do exactly as they are told. They are NOT supposed to think.

The set up with the white shirts is very much the same set up you have in a war. That's because this is a war.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 3 years ago

but its not 'non-violent' when you invade a public space and take it over by force of numbers, keeping other people from using it or passing. Its plenty violent, OWS is just not committing bloodshed to do it.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

Zuccotti Park always remained open to any and all who wanted to go there. No one who went was ever pressured into participating. Many, many people would just go to observe. Union construction workers took to eating lunch there daily and probably still do. Would you suggest that there be a limit put on numbers of types of people who are allowed to gather in public spaces?

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 3 years ago

"but its not 'non-violent'"

"OWS is just not committing bloodshed to do it."

Violent~Using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something..

Stop spreading lies. All you're doing is trying to provoke people with your nonsense and perversions of the truth.

[-] 1 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 3 years ago

You are assuming it is going to be a non-violent protest. A gathering of hundreds and/or thousands requires a police presence in the event something goes wrong.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

A police presence yes, but the show of force has been excessive. I was at a protest of about 60 people and about 200 cops showed up. And then about 20 rode in in flashing cars with sirens blaring accompanied by several paddy wagon vans. It was like something out of a movie.

The level of police presence is designed to shut down First Amendment rights -- Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly. The 1% want to make the folks at home scared to come out and protest. The 1% have a lot to lose should the concept of equal economic opportunity grow. They like things just as they are.

[-] 2 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 3 years ago

So for a protest of 60 people how many police do you believe should have been present? Remember, the police don't know if the protesters will be violent.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

They know they won't be violent. They have no reason to believe otherwise. No one has gotten violent yet. There are no injured police. If by some strange fluke the protestors did become violent, back up could easily be called.

We were doing NOTHING violent or even different than what we had been doing for several hours when the cops with the flashing lights and sirens came in. A big fat cop started barking orders at us on a bullhorn -- to a completely silent group. And he was very confrontational -- not to mention his posse of 20 fully clad cops in riot gear that stood in a formation in front of us. Finally he barked YOU WILL STOP MAKING NOISE --- NOW!!!!

Harry, if you have not yet attended one of these protests, you must go whether or not you support OWS. It is something that must be experienced to be believed. I am still in utter shock. It is one thing to hear about it and another to witness it. I live about 20 blocks from Mayor Bloomberg so this is my hood. I had no idea that such a thing that I experienced was possible -- here on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.

[-] 2 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 3 years ago

"They know they won't be violent. They have no reason to believe otherwise."

You know a police force cannot prepare on that basis, hoping nothing will happen. All you need are a few fools to start throwing things, starting fires, or trying to bust into a building and if there are no police or not enough police..... you see where I am going with this right?

You prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

No, Harry. We the taxpayers should not be on the hook for these outrageous displays of force designed to shut down the democratic process and to take away American's Civil Rights.

We the taxpayers did not sign on for this sort of police activity -- to have the police force used against its own citizenry to protect the interests of the 1%.

The police expect no violence; however they do instigate it. I saw a police officer push a man who was behind the barrier. He then decided to make an arrest but could not get at the guy, because he couldn't get the barriers apart! At which point I -- who was on the sidewalk with the police -- started screaming at the police officer to back off and allow us to use the sidewalk as was our right as American's to do. (There is an embarrassing YouTube video of it. I was so angry. I looked insane, because not only was I screaming, but I actually had an 18 pound shaggy white dog dressed in a police costume thrown over my shoulder. I am surprised that they didn't cart me off to Bellevue for observation.)

But the weirdest, most disgusting thing of all? The protesters folded immediately. Let out not a squeek and called off the protest. Not so much as a verbal objection. Score 1 for Bloomberg and 0 for OWS.

The leader of the OWS group came over to calm me down -- insisting that I give up my First Amendment Rights. OMG. I went off on that idiot. (Again recorded on YouTube.)

To the cops credit, they totally backed off. Just stood there. While they were looking to make some arrests, I most likely did not fit the description of the type of protester that they wanted arrested at Bloomberg's residence. I am a middle-aged white female attorney. I look pretty much like everyone else in the chic hood. The person they were attempting to arrest was a young man -- non-white -- not sure of his ethnic background.

[-] 2 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 3 years ago

Then you know this already--UNTIL the Supreme court rules a tent is a free speech element, and UNTIL they rule that a forcible take over of a public space is a free speech element, they are not-- and arrests and use of force by the police to make arrests, are the standing norm. And if you are a criminal attorney then you know that pepper spray is the least injurious means of affecting an arrest and pretty much de rigueur as it keeps both officer and arrestee safe from physical bodily force and it washes off. But you would also know pepper spray is approved by court rulings and case law for civil disobedience. OWS is going to make history with the upcoming lawsuits and rulings and case law, I have no doubt, but you know this because as an attorney, you know that's how the system works. Hell yeah, make the changes, but it requires the civil disobedience>arrest>court case>lawsuit to sometimes get it done when the legislative branch won't do it. Using the court to affect change- that's called the judicial branch of the government. Maybe you're in contract law and don't know these things, but that's ok. OWS has an opportunity to make real change here, using the results of their actions in the judicial process. My point is the same, OWS should just man up and know that they are going to get arrested and welcome it SO that the changes can be made. And stop pretending the police are at fault for doing their jobs under the laws as they stand now, until OWS affects the changes.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

Standing norm to use force during arrests? No. The standing norm is to physically pick up the non-compliant passive protester and to place them inside the paddy wagon. That is the standing norm. This has gotten a lot of attention because normal police procedure was not followed.

I am not a criminal attorney. The effects of pepper spray up close and intense have not been studied. We do not yet know just how violent a means this will end up being until we see the results.

I agree that OWS protestors should expect the worst and only with the worst will real change come. Which is not to say they should not object strongly to abuse. They should object loudly when their First Amendment Rights are being abused. Like I said, they folded in seconds -- totally backed down. That kind of passivity will not result in any change.

[-] 2 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 3 years ago

You still haven't answered my simple question: How many police do you believe need to be present at a protest? Objective answer not your subjective "they are non-violent protesters" answer.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

At this particular protest. 6 would have been overkill. Remember, we are now in a very high tech age. This area -- wealthy neighborhood -- is covered in surveillance cameras. From the moment the protest began, it was being filmed from every angle and face recognition technolgy was being used to identify the protestors and to pick out the leaders.

As an alternative to an unprovolked display of force, those in charge could have had 300 police in vans -- out of view -- on the ready.

The interesting thing about this war is that both sides are using technology to their advantage. The protestors are armed with video cameras, cell phones, twitter and so on while the 1% have the police force clad in high-tech weaponry and use of very sophisticated surveillance mechanisms.

There is a pretty good possibility that the OWS movement is being used by the police to practice their new toys and intimidation techniques. They intentionally provolk violence so they can practice controlling it once it does break out. They can then study the tapes and refine their techniques. Just like watching a video of the football game after it is over. They need to do this so that as the OWS movement (or any other protest movement) grows their control techniques will grow too.

[-] 1 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 3 years ago

Was the dog named Deputy Dawg?

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

Her name is Missy Paulette. She is a Westie. I bought her a police Halloween Costume, complete with a little hat, coat, belt with a set of handcuffs and a radio on it. She lost the radio (so I took 10 vacation days from her). So I replaced the radio with a can of pepper spray.

I went down to the march accross the Brooklyn Bridge that took place a few days ago -- Thursday I think.

I got there really late. I was on the Manhattan side of the bridge. There was not a single protestor in sight; however there were no less than 500 cops standing around in groups chatting. OMG. The whole world is NOT watching, I though. I hope they think this is funny.

I set Missy Paulette down. The cops loved her!!! They pulled out their camera phones and started taking pictures. She definitely went virile on the NYPD email.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

Police response also has a lot to do with how the mayor wants the statistics to read. If calls are not responded to and arrests are not made, crime looks as though it is remaining low.

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 3 years ago

Huh? So you believe when an arrest is not made for a crime that shows up as the crime rate is low? It actually goes as an unresolved crime. Furthermore, all calls are noted. Response times are noted. Your belief is not grounded in fact.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

I was assaulted during a parking incident. I was assaulted in a dog run. In neither of these cases was an arrest made although I called the police each time. These assaults never made any statistics. Yes the calls were recorded, but so what?

[-] 1 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 3 years ago

I don't understand. Did the police show up and take a report or did they not respond at all to your calls?

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

I was parallel parking when the car directly behind me decided to nose in to the spot while the passenger jumped out and ran over into the spot. I could not back up further to park. I refused to move. A screamfest resulted and the driver, who had gotten out, hit me with her doggy bag of what appeared to be babaganoush. It was every where. All over me. On my car. In my car. There were witnesses.

The perps left the scene as the cops arrived. They and the perps went around the corner. I thought they were being arrested. I was with other police telling what happened. After 20 minutes, the cops tell me that they gave them (2 Asian women) a warning. No arrest! I couldn't believe it.

[-] 2 points by barb (835) 3 years ago

To those officers who feel they are good people that believe in protesting the citizens here should punish those officers who clearly are involved in police brutality. We will judge you by your actions, not what you claim to be.

[-] 2 points by bethlany88 (134) from Vancouver, WA 3 years ago

Then be the good cop/security personnel that you are and stand up against police brutality. Turn to your fellow cop, who is unjustly assaulting or pepper spraying a peaceful UC Davis student, or OWS protester, and tell him/her "This is not who we are or what we stand for! Stop hurting people unjustly!" Power often corrupts, and I think the average american feels that many police are in the biz for the power and ego boost... however likewise many police officers simply join to serve, to honor, and to protect America and its citizens. To these men and women, the "good cops" I and others say Thank You, We Support You, and We Appreciate You!

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

The police do not stand for anything. They are hired guns who work for the 1%. Their job right now is to intimidate people standing up for their rights. If they fail in this intimidation, the movement will grow. If it grows, the 1% is going to have to give up their unfair economic advantage. They are not willing to give it up.

[-] -1 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

Logical fallacy: Two wrongs don't make a right.

It's not because some police officers are brutal that Occupy should engage in a propaganda campaign to demonize them by comparing them to Tiananmen Tanks and/or the military in Egypt, and by writing awfully biased news reports. These are all things Occupy would not accept if is was done to them as we have seen by their dissociating themselves with black bloc violent protesters in Oakland.

[-] 1 points by bethlany88 (134) from Vancouver, WA 3 years ago

baised news reports? ya mean like the ones mainstream media produces to to demonize OWS??? lol No that IS NOT good or ok, you are right. OWS should NOT support demonizing Cops as a whole, merely the ones who abuse their power and those fellow cops who stand by and do nothing. ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ Clearly I am not in support of demonizing police, for many are great men and women who deserve respect and honor, likewise I will never support any person who acts out in violence... protester or police, nor the officer or others who stands by and allow it to happen.

[-] 2 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

The nazis also had families, pets and so on. And they too were just doing their jobs.

[-] -1 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

Logical fallacy: reductio ad Hitlerum. Lame.

[-] 2 points by Riceball (9) 3 years ago

Sorry, you spray me in the face with pepper spray , payback is a bitch

[-] -2 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

Sadly, you fail to understand the point altogether.

[-] 1 points by littleguy (44) 3 years ago

It is like with these protesters. A few bad apples spoils the whole bunch. Doesn't it?

[-] 1 points by littleguy (44) 3 years ago

No, you miss the point. And the national response to that event has made it. I am more a casual observer here and those kids are my kids age.I'm pro law enforcement. But if one of those had been my kid that officer would be due an ass whippin.THAT IS PURE BULLSHIT AND THEY SHOULD AND WILL GET THEIR ASSES SUED OFF FOR IT. SHAME ON THEM.

[-] -3 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

I absolutely agree with you that whoever uses violence when it is uncalled for should be sued and jailed. There is no question about that. And there is no question police have used excessive force against Occupy. However, that is not my point.

[-] 2 points by littleguy (44) 3 years ago

Yes, we are all human, better than that we are all Americans,who by law are guaranteed a government that protects us from wrongful abuse from any entity and IT IS FAILING US ALL ( emphasizing not yelling when using caps ). And by law, as citizens, we have the right to congregate, unify and demand that it give us that protection.Our government is feeding us all to the corporate machine even the part of the population that think they have it made, their nest eggs are being portioned off out from under them and their kids are on the menu as well, along with police officers."The rhetoric of non-violence" as I would mean it, if I were a protester, is: "I'm exercising my right to peaceful assembly,please don't beat the shit out of me." Also, I would think when you have a large crowd, that would be a good way to help everyone in the crowd remember that they are there non-violently. Because from law enforcements point a crowd can get very bad very quick. And if someone in the protesters' crowd started moving toward the line of officers with a stick, brick, bottle or any weapon with the appearance of physically assaulting a police officer, it would be in the groups best interest to subdue that individual and render him to those officers, unconscious if necessary. Because once an assault on an officer occurs the group is a physical threat to those officers and any member standing and facing the officers should be considered an aggressor and subdued if they are not retreating. Police officers are human and Protesters are human, both are American and both should remember that. And none of us should be consumed by the corporate machine.

[-] 2 points by sinead (474) 3 years ago

While I will stand against unnecessary violence from the police I refuse to vilify the whole of the police community.

Perhaps you might feel different about them should you ever lose your child in a crowded shopping mall, or your elderly parent is being harassed by thugs, or you dial 911 in the middle of the night because someone is crawling through your kitchen window...... Remember there is always two sides to every coin.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

The police will protect the 99% as long as there is no conflict with the desires of the 1%. So yes, they will assist you if you are being harrassed by street thugs; however, if those thugs are wearing suits and ties (members of the 1%), those very same police with beat you up in a heartbeat.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 3 years ago

Then join these people at the Occupy in the evening. Be part of the solution instead trying to hurt those that practice there civil liberties.

All NY police and every other officer of the Court should be aware that commission of an unlawful act in the performance of your duty removes any shield you may have from civil and criminal court.

Had you pepper sprayed me you would be sued personally for knowing committing the criminal act of depriving me of my civil rights. If I were the attorneys involved with this or any of the individuals hit, you would really dislike me.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

There are lots of law suits going forward. And when an individual testifies, you best believe that there will be 10 cops who witnessed the incident who will say you are lying. Got it on video? Do you have what happened before the video on video?

Can you win in court? Maybe. But you better believe the 1% are not going to simply roll over just because you claim to have been abused.

[+] -4 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 3 years ago

Glaucon resides too far away from NY to take part in general assemblies.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 3 years ago

Then why do you say we?

[-] 4 points by powertothepeople (1264) 3 years ago

Because he's a troll who is just here trying to mindfuck us.

[-] -3 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

We is a iterary device. Occupy uses it all the time: We the people, the 99%.

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 3 years ago

How about uniformed personnel and undercover cops stop beating up OWSers?

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 3 years ago

Logical fallacy: two wrongs don't make a right.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

First of all the notion that two wrongs don't make a right is not a logical fallacy. It is essentially a moral proposition rooted in the English grammar notion that a double negative is not a positive, but that's jiust a metaphor after all. And what, exactly is "wrong" about attempting to exercise one's First amendement rights of assembly?

[-] 1 points by nachosrulz (63) from Eureka, CA 2 years ago

when you start protecting us unstead of hurting us then youl get my prayers

[-] 1 points by warriorjoe7 (232) 2 years ago

We don't demonize security personel, they do it themselves.

The police need to police themselves if they dont want to be demonized. Oh that's right, they dont have to police themselves, because citizens are unable to hold them accountable in most cases.

[-] 0 points by Glaucon (296) 2 years ago

Please don't portray the policemen as tanks on your posters. We are not Tiananmen Tanks. Please do not compare us to the military in Egypt. Some of us do mistakes like some of your protesters in the black bloc, but most of us are not violent just like your protesters. The pepper spray cop, and the one who shot a canister on the veteran are exceptions, like your black bloc. Do not use their bad examples to make generalizations. Look at the police in Toronto, they acted very well.

Please accept us in your arms. Do not demonize us.

[-] 1 points by CrossingtheDivided (357) from Santa Ysabel, CA 3 years ago

I'll discontinue the "demonization of security personnel" when the ones who do "Motor Mouth" Jones-style mouth effects outnumber the ones who pepper spray passive grannies and babies.

Actually, just reporting the truth of the matter doesn't necessarily constitute "demonization," does it!?

[-] -1 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

They are not "just reporting the truth".

[-] 1 points by CrossingtheDivided (357) from Santa Ysabel, CA 3 years ago

There's always going to be propaganda on all sides. The question is what's most excessive, unfair?

Your brand of propaganda ultimately creates more suffering and fealty to a violent, dangerous State that serves and protects little more than the oligarchs and their property.

This is my last post to you, sicko tool.

[-] 1 points by Danaan (96) 3 years ago

A good cop comes to the camp as a 99% and will lay down his weapons and uniform upon entering, anything else is tresspassing.

[-] 1 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

You own the park? Is there an American law that states that occupying a space automatically makes it yours? Can you provide a link to backup your claim?

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

We do have laws like that -- called adverse possession. If you stay long enough, the land becomes yours!!

General Principle - A person can become the owner of land by wrongfully possessing it long enough. The wrongful possession can “ripen” into a legal right to possession—that is, ownership. When ownership is acquired in this way, it is called title by adverse possession.

Gaining Title by Adverse Possession - Title by adverse possession is not, strictly speaking, a matter of common law. It occurs by operation of a statute, namely, the statute of limitations on “ejectment.”

Policy Rationale for Adverse Possession - The key policy rationale of adverse possession doctrine is to protect expectations based on longstanding patterns of land occupation. Additional considerations also come into play, such as encouraging investment and marketability of property.

http://www.lawstudysystems.com/node/67

[-] 1 points by geo2seeit2 (39) 3 years ago

taaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaze

[-] 1 points by JonValle (133) 3 years ago

The police are no different than the politicians. We need them to understand they are public workers. They are to serve the public. We need to empower them to realize this. I agree that we should tone down some hostilities towards the police, but some of it is due to recent events and to ignore those facts is silly. I'm not condoning the cursing or other foul or degrading language.

I was thinking, UC Davis did something awesome and inspirational with their silent protest. Maybe we should do the same to show the police that we don't want to fight, that we are with them and they should be with us. It could also be to honor those that have been hurt and arrested since the beginning of these protests.

[-] 1 points by AnonEMouse (10) from New York, NY 3 years ago

Unacceptable, cops are monsters.

[-] 1 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 3 years ago

Pigs can't fly but some can smile.

[-] 1 points by SapereAude (9) from New York City, NY 3 years ago

A tool of fascism is not fascism.

[-] 1 points by buddydog (16) 3 years ago

People who disregard other people -no matter what job they hold are not to be held in any kind of favor. Police persons are easily bullied into doing what their peers and bosses would have them do.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

They are not bullied into what their bosses would have them do. It is their job to follow the orders of their bosses. The problem is that a representative of the people should be their boss. Instead the bosses of the police represent the 1%.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 3 years ago

there are only two kinds of cops. The real ones, who are evil lying con scammers and who are bullies and warriors for the elites against the people- and the other kind which exists in movies and the dreams and fantasies of conservatives. The system is inherently corrupt and so anybody who holds such a job must by definition do so against ANY real regard for ethics or a conscience. IF you are a police officer, or etc, your JOB is to BE EVIL. Otherwise you'd have quit the force. There are no good cops, just cops that don't use as much violence, and who smile sweetly as they LIE through their teeth at you.

If you can't handle that, then STOP BEEING EVIL. If that indicts somebody you love; Find them a new occupation. Don't make us wrong for pointing out the inconvenient systemic reality. ITS NOT POSSIBLE TO BE A "PEACE" officer in a patently FASCISTIC PIG SYSTEM.

[-] -2 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

Does that mean we should use an imagery of violence to demonize the police? You seem to be justifying one wrong with another one. Isn't this a simple logical fallacy: two wrongs don't make a right?

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

The police boss should represent the people. Instead their boss represents the 1%. If there is a conflict of interest between the 99% and the 1% -- whose side to take -- the 1% win. Although the taxpayer pays their salaries, it is the 1% that have the keys to the kitty.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 3 years ago

There is nothing WRONG about stating the SIMPLE and FACTUAL truth. I'm not demonizing, I am simply relating the facts. Fascist storm trooper oath breakers are NOT peace officers. Scum sucking bottom feeding social parasites are NOT peace officers. Liars, Fraudsters, Professional Bullies, Caste warriors, and Caste traitors are NOT peace officers. Far from being a wrong, it is imperative that we all come to know the truth. The pigs are evil scum. Period. End of discussion. They are that way because the SYSTEM DEMANDS it, and they can't keep their job otherwise. ANY watering down of this problem is irrational. ANY "compassion" we put forth to such people is just kicking our own ass. They have no morals. They have no conscience. They are breaking enumerated assorted federal laws and generally speaking are doing so with impunity as if they expect it to always be so because it always has been so. They ARE evil criminals. End of story.

They do not deserve our imagined fantasy about their supposed "service", they have not served the interests of the public in at least 100 years. They do not deserve anything but our contempt, and to be tried and convicted for their crimes and then put in prison. They are incorrigible threats to society- and thus should be removed society permanently. The very definition of how and why a person should be jailed has been twisted. A person who is a clear and present danger to themselves or society should be jailed. They will continue to be clear and present dangers to society because they are simply sadistic and sociopathic bullies. It is imperative that they be removed, and imprisoned for their crimes because they are a clear and present danger to the public. It is imperative that we name these truths as they are, because otherwise we set ourselves up for more abuse via idiotically misplaced patriotism/ Social morality.

[-] 1 points by ediblescape (235) 3 years ago

99% police forces are 99%.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 3 years ago

We need to put a movement in the street that is so big that it is impossible for the police to control it without using extrodinarily violent means, say 30 or 40 million people. Then we will be a serious movement and only then will the cops be forced to re-evaluate their warped support for the 1%.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

You are right. Only when the numbers grow and crowd control requires extreme violence on the part of the police, will the 1% finally roll over.

At Kent State in May 1970 the National Guard fired on unarmed students killing 4 and severly wounding 9. It was a pivotal point in the Vietnam protests. The Kent State shooting was the single factor causing the only nationwide student strike in U.S. history; over 4 million students protested and over 900 American colleges and universities closed during the student strikes. The Kent State campus remained closed for six weeks.

[-] 0 points by me2 (534) 3 years ago

This is why you will never attract that many people to this movement, because this is a proposal for violent provocation and the majority of Americans have seen what riots do. Detroit, Newark NJ, go find one area that has suffered through major rioting, they are all, still, decades later, utterly destroyed. If you think that 99% of the population want to riot and destroy their communities I'm very glad to say you are very wrong.

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 3 years ago

What violent provocation? OWS is firmly committed to nonviolence. My point is that if it does become as large as it hopes to become, while itself remaining nonviolent, it is very likely to engender a violent reaction on the part of police forces for the simple reason that confronted with crowds so large they are simply not trained or equipped to handle such large crowds nonviolently, but the onus is on them.

[-] 3 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 3 years ago

When linking arms is "violent" to a police captain in Berkeley, some serious re-training is in order. Disobedience is annoying, not violent.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

Normal protocol is for the police to physically pick up and carry the protestors to the paddy wagons. This was probably an experiment --practice with their new toys. Those who ordered the spray to be used, were just trying to see if it would work to their benefit.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 3 years ago

What you say makes lots of sense.

Let us hope that the investigation goes against them, as most of public opinion has.

I've been thinking about how police could safely move people who have gone limp. Sliding them onto tarps, and then sliding the tarp onto a flat-bed cart might work.

Another of their "new toys" are the plastic flexi-cuffs. There are more and more reports that they cause lingering nerve damage.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

The 1% will order all means of violence to be used before they concede any economic opportunity to the 99%. They like things as they are and if they have to beat people and kill to maintain the status quo, so be it. After they give the order to shoot, they will watch it from the safety of thier million dollar mansions.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 3 years ago

Going to shut down the west coast. That is NOT non-violence. use a brain cell, please. Just because they are not going to do bloodshed to do it, they are still using force to invade and take over a public area.

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 3 years ago

Ghandi, probably the foremost theorist of nonviolent direct action specifically argued that a certain amount of force was necessary in nonviolent struggles. The phrase he used was passive resistance and he insisted that both words were necessary, that pacifism without resistance was the equivalent of death.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 3 years ago

Then we do agree its force. It is not a stretch then, to know that police departments have a responsibility to deal with the OWS space invasions. To do that, they must opt for the safest methods possible (not real bullets like other countries) that keep the officers at a safe distance. Pepper spray stings like a mo-fo but washes off without injury. Rubber bullets stop an illegal act from a safe distance. These aren't brutality, these are in response to the, as you quote 'certain amount of force'. Im not even saying OWS shouldn't use that force..but if they do, accept the responsibility that goes with it--accept that they are calling for force, accept that they are invading spaces, forcibly taking over areas, accept that they are breaking the law, and accept the consequences. Man up, in other words, and own your acts and actions and the result of them.

[-] 0 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

The police do not have a resonsibility to deal with the OWS space invasions. They have been ordered by the 1% to deal with the space invasions which is why they deal with them. If the 1% told them to do nothing about the space invasions, nothing would be done about them.

The space invasions bother the 1%. The protestors bother the 1%. They want to maintain the status quo. Because of this, they order the police to deal with the space invasions as the 1% see fit.

[-] -2 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

You do realize the problem you will have in terms of logistics right? Moving 30 million people around isn't only hard, it's basically impossible. Not only that, but when the protests get bigger they will fracture and you will have violence erupt between the protesters. Everything looks honky dory now because the protesters still have patience, but in a few months that will start to drop and people will start getting angrier when they realize the nation isn't changing over night. That anger and stress from constant protesting combined with the imagery of violence and the demonizing of the cops by Occupy, and you will soon have a nice little civil war on your hands. Occupy is being very irresponsible in the way it is treating the matters with the authorities. Very irresponsible.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

I believe that a certain number will have lost heart after the Zuccotti Park Invasion. It was done in a manner to break the spirity of the protesters -- in the middle of the night, using those sound horns, not allowing them to take their belongings and then the destruction of those belongings. This was a carefully planned, calculated attack. Those planning it are experienced in this sort of thing. Remember the park was completely surrounded and all streets including the Brooklyn Bridge were closed so there was no fear that large numbers would enter the park. It could have been done in an orderly manner, but Bloomberg wanted it to be as nasty and as violent as he could make it without actually beating up or killing anyone. He wanted to strink fear into the hearts of Americans everywhere.

I believe we are in a civil war. The elite have the guns but we have the numbers.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 3 years ago

I most certainly don't expect 30 million people to be all in one place. The 200 or so thousand people currently active in OWS aren't in one place. Right now, optimistically the movement in New York is barely in the 10s of thousands, but if it is successful it could grow to the 100s of thousands in New York which would make commerce, much less, crowd control, virtually impossible. There were only a couple of thousand people in lower Manhattan on Thursday morning. Imagine if that had been 100 thousand.

The most radical elements in OWS are perfectly cognizant that revolutionary change cannot happen over night. The best of them are prepared for years, decades and even lifetimes of struggle. Patience is a revolutionary virtue. Ironically it is those who want the most paltry reforms who are the most impatient.

I don't demonize the cops. Of course they're incomes are no better than any other working stiffs. But their job is to defend the 1% and they seem to do that without question which I suppose is necessary if they are to go to work every day without suffering a nervous breakdown. So I don't demonize police. I lived in a neighborhood full of cops when I was growing up and we took vacations with them. But none of that vitiates the fact that their job is to protect the 1% and they do it, necessarily, without question.

[-] -1 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

My belief is that Occupy could operate in a different manner. It doesn't have to show the cops as being bad in order to create a gap between protesters and cops, a gap which will lead to more violence and more hatred. I believe they could adopt a strategy of peace, and instead invite the cops to become part of Occupy be using an exaggerated imagery in the opposite direction. If cops are shown as friends on the posters and as respected people part of the 99%, then it becomes harder for them to brutally attack the protesters. When the protesters scream "shame, shame" they are just making matters worst. If they screamed "we love you. You are part of the 99%. We are peaceful" it would be much harder for them to get away with violence. But, Occupy is not a peaceful protest, it is a "non"-violent one.

[-] 3 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 3 years ago

The decision making process in OWS is extremely slow and ponderous and everybody active in OWS acts on their own responsibility. Nobody reports to any leader. Everybody is a leader. So, some people scream one thing and some people another. Some people scream "shame" at one point and "I love you" a minute later. As far as I'm concerned all of that is irrelevant. I do not demonize the police, I grew up in a neigborhood full of police. I vacationed with them as a child. They are no different than any other working stiff. But their job is to protect and serve the 1%. By law if they were to do anything else, they would undoubtedly not only loose their jobs, but be in legal trouble. They are not bad people but they are mercenaries for the 1%.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

Correct. Their MAIN job is to protect and serve the 1%. Their secondary job is to protect the 99%. Many of us have had many positive experiences with the cops supporting the 99% and so may not be aware that If there is a conflict, it is the the 1% that get protected.

On command from above all cops will crack the heads they are ordered to crack. The "above" the ones who give the orders just happen to be the 1%.

[+] -4 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

I never said you demonize(d) the police. I said Occupy is organized around the principle of demonizing the police. Their promotional imagery does this as well as their news reports.

[-] 3 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 3 years ago

I am not aware of any OWS principle demonizing police. The only OWS principles of which I am aware, which are prominent on its website is a commitment to democracy and to nonviolence as a movement, which does not account at all for the behavior of any individuals. Also, high on the OWS banner is a call for world revolution, though exactly what this means remains undefined. The only political statement of OWS is the Declaration of the Occupation of New York City, which does have a couple of grievances regarding police brutality, but even these are buried among about 22 other grievances.

[-] 2 points by TLydon007 (1278) 3 years ago

"My belief is that Occupy could operate in a different manner. It doesn't have to show the cops as being bad in order to create a gap between protesters and cops"

You're right! Because the cops are the ones that are making the cops look bad. The protesters are simply using NONVIOLENT ways of retaliating no matter how violent the cops get.

"a gap which will lead to more violence and more hatred."

Don't threaten us you fucking terrorist.

terrorism ~ The use of violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political aims.

Right there is the distinction between you and the protesters.

[-] -1 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

I know. Anyone who has arguments against Occupy are not part of the 99%. We are deemed as trolls. It's common rhetoric around here. Nothing creative on your part. Thanks for the swear word and comparing me to terrorist. You seen like a very intelligent and articulate individual.

[-] 2 points by TLydon007 (1278) 3 years ago

I respond appropriately to blatant threats of violence.

I'm not comparing you to a terrorist. By trying to use the threat of violence for your own political aims, you ARE unambiguously a terrorist.

[-] -2 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 3 years ago

Glaucon is not a politician. He is a mere musician. His brother Plato could perhaps be considered a theoretical politician.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

The 1%, 99% division is an economic one. The amount of wealth determines which one you are in. A few in the 1% support OWS. Many in the 99% do not.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

The gap between the cops and the protestors is tangible -- it is very real. The cops have the billy clubs, the helmets, the guns, the shields. When ordered to attack, they will attack. They will not stop to think why -- stopping to think is not part of their job. This is a major power difference between them and the protestors. The odds of getting severly hurt or killed are much higher for the protestors than it is for the cops.

The cops cannot join the protestors. They would be fired. They are working.

Glaucon, if you have not already done so, go to the protests and go to the front lines and watch what happens. Those friendly cops turn real ugly within seconds -- not in response to what you do or say -- but in response to what their boss says.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 3 years ago

OWS is not a peaceful protest, it is a non-violent one. I like this distinction. Peace is an end result not a means.

Oppressors do not give up without a fight. They will use all the means at their disposal, including violence, to hold their ground. There is a lot at stake here for them. They are not going to go away simply because a few peaceful people hold up a few signs.

[-] 0 points by eyeofthetiger (304) 3 years ago

rectified sounds like an anal problem

[-] 0 points by shill (60) 3 years ago

This is the same play book they used in the 60's.

[-] 0 points by morp (7) 3 years ago

The NYPD is a disgrace to this country, our history, freedom and democracy, and to our very forefathers and foremothers. Shame on you.

Chant: NY P_A_B, NY P_A_B; NY Punk Ass Bitches, NY Punk Ass Bitches

[-] 0 points by stephenadler (118) 3 years ago

The way I see it, the police are just doing their jobs, and they have a very bad dirty job to do when it comes to breaking up the occupy rallies. The police are just like you and me. They live with the few resource they get from their salaries and pensions. They follow orders, which are to move the protesters who have hunkered down to refuse to move.

The real problem sits on the shoulder of the Mayor, who order the cops to remove the protesters. The mayor's of the cities involved with occupy movements should be facilitating the occupy camps, providing police to deter crime, social and health workers to deter public health problems. (i.e. the city should be providing toilets etc.) They should not be in this 'we have to evict because the occupy demonstrators are causing public health and crime problems.'

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 3 years ago

Hilarious satire.

[-] 7 points by looselyhuman (3117) 3 years ago

If only he wasn't serious (or what ever passes for serious from Karl Rove).

[+] -6 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

You are extremely one dimensional. agnosticnixie seems a tad brighter.

[-] 8 points by looselyhuman (3117) 3 years ago

I thought you were philosophically opposed to ad hom? Me? Not so much, ya narcissistic, manipulative fuck.

[+] -6 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

I'm trying to help you see the truth. You keep making the wrong assumptions. Message me for more info. Ici, les murs ont des oreilles.

[-] 7 points by looselyhuman (3117) 3 years ago

Some of us have nothing to hide. We are proud of this movement, and not afraid of the police state nor right-wing agitators and propagandists - nor anarchist masterminds/boogeymen.

I see the truth: that you are a lie.

[+] -6 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

Saya percaya tentang Occupy. Saya kerja untuk Occupy.

[-] 6 points by looselyhuman (3117) 3 years ago

Fucking bahasa now?

Google translate:

"I believe in the occupy. I work for the occupy."

[+] -6 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

Merci! C'est partie du plan de propagande que nous avons commencé à implémenter la semaine dernière. L'idée est assez rusée. Je ne veux pas l'expliquer en détail ici, mais tu peux me contacter par message si tu veux en savoir plus.

[-] 3 points by weepngwillo2 (277) 3 years ago

Trancparency, eh?

Translation: Thank you! This is part of the planned propaganda that we began to use (earlier in the week/last week). The idea is a ruse. I don't want to explain in detail here, but you can contact me by message if you want.

I am really disappointed that the same tactics that are being opposed, deception and manipulation of public discourse, are being put into place here.

I guess today's word is transparency. If you want it in the government, lead by example.

[-] -1 points by number2 (914) 3 years ago

Unfortunately, the government has done this to the police by creating a police state with the patriot act, drug war and war on terror.

The police should be keeping the peace Andy Griffith style. Instead, a lot of police are disturbing the peace with raids and undercover operations where they sell guns to drug cartels and so forth.

The police officers are not the enemy. It is once again the government who is the true enemy of the people.

[+] -4 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

Do you think we should keep using more and more violent imagery to keep demonizing the police?

[-] -1 points by number2 (914) 3 years ago

That depends. Generally, I would say "no". But if real police brutality is occurring the world needs to know about it.

[-] -2 points by Crid (6) 3 years ago

If they Not with us, they're against us

[-] 1 points by nimbus22 (106) from Chaska, MN 3 years ago

ultimatums are a fallacy of reason.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 3 years ago

That was not an ultimatum, it was a dichotomy. Ultimatums are posed in time.

[-] -3 points by raines (699) 3 years ago

Use wasp spray, works just as well on annoying pests.

[-] -3 points by ciavlad (85) 3 years ago

Do you want to get rid of cunning people !? Vote petition on the Internet : http://wh.gov/jkl

[+] -4 points by StopOWS (50) 3 years ago

You can't talk to these animals. If it isn't their way, it's wrong. Bash their heads. That's what they understand.

[-] -2 points by Glaucon (296) 3 years ago

So, we should turn up the crank and start being violent?

[+] -6 points by 4thesystem (13) 3 years ago

Who allowed rationality to corrupt this forum? I am so out of here!

[+] -7 points by Royksopp (89) 3 years ago

OWS isn't particularly fond of facts, or anything that compromises their set of core beliefs (anarchy, horizontal power structures etc..) And because the police are a top down power structure over the people, you're just marked as a zero on the list of people who count.

And because OWS wasn't designed in a way to make change "in the real world" (rahter they're designed to push some anarchro-commune design, change the world socio-plitical structure) THEN change things after all that is done. There isn't really a middleground. You are "oppression" pure and simple. Good/Evil Black/White OWSway/Noway.

Cheer up. OWS is really only .001% of the 99% anyway. There's a lot more of us rational people willing to do make positive changes, that EVERYONE can still have a voice in,..just in a positive way that doesn't automatically assume everyone is the villian.

Take a look at this thread: http://occupywallst.org/forum/so-much-of-whats-here-is-contrary-to-the-actual-mo/

[-] 3 points by nimbus22 (106) from Chaska, MN 3 years ago

OWS has already made change by changing the discussions in this country. your just too thick to notice. You think 32000 people were on the brooklyn bridge because OWS is weak? That is a fantasy. OWS is going no where. And this is how real change is done. It is a slow process with many hurdles. OWS has been addressing problems and overcoming obstacles. It will continue to do so. But remember this, OWS is not a bunch of fringe people, we are the American People. Your neighbors, kids, friends, parents,boss, coworkers, ect. So think twice when you address them.

[-] -2 points by Happierbanker (23) 3 years ago

NYC estimated population is 8.2million. IF 32,000 was accurate, about 3.9% were there in support of OWS.

[-] 0 points by bankrun2011 (89) 3 years ago

You are abusing statistics here....The chant means "we are [members of] the 99%"