I think the ability of a trained police force to run non aggressive mind games has a time line substantially beyond the ability of a bunch of decadent, whiny western protesters to remain vigilant in their attempts to counter it. I think the only viable tactic around psych outs and quiet and calm removal of protesters when numbers drop from boredom or exhaustion. is to start setting fires. I don't think most of the occupy movements have what it takes to take a protest to that level - and if they do - it's still a PR war victory for the cops when they start using fire hoses to put out fires, and protesters who started the fires happen to get a hose to the face. I'm all in favor of using cops in riot gear on riots. I'm all in favor of swat going weapons hot when they sweep a drug cartel's premises. But sending those units against peaceful protesters seems a lot like using a chainsaw to remove a stray leaf.
Agreed, for the most part. I just think that there have got to be methods of crowd control that are more effective than this stupidity, and what happened in St. Louis proves that it's possible. Those tactics can evolve, as well, if necessary. As for police "evolving" from protect and serve to get the bad guys, I think a lot of these men and women want to play soldier with their cool gear and what better way to do that than against a defenseless opponent with the full permission of the government behind you? What was that line from Full Metal Jacket about new Marines? "The phony tough and the crazy brave?" I think that applies here.
It seems people are viewing how the police are handling the protesters based on whether or not they agree with the protests in the first place. Bottom line- If the cops unfairly beat the shit out of you, you can sue them and press charges. But cops aren't going to suit up in riot gear because they feel like fucking people up. Theyre doing it to protect themselves. They're not making laws as they go, they're enforcing eviction orders, sanitary orders, and criminal laws. And if the cops are wearing riot gear and firing tear gas at a "peaceful protest," it's not peaceful. Its amazing how some people can't quite put that together.
Which 'lawful orders' would those be? This begs an interesting question. If people have a fundamental right to peaceably assemble and for a redress of grievances (and I'm going to go ahead and suggest that is precisely some of the rights people have versus the federal government and the state) how exactly is an order (even from a court) a 'lawful' order? I'm still trying to figure that one out. And as I mentioned weeks ago, the whole 'public health and safety' excuse seems to be the go-to excuse for abridging these rights. As to the militarization of the police, it started en masse with Nixon's War on Drugs. Apparently that War has been so successful we continue to fight it non-stop for forty years. Only sixty years to go til we break the 'Hundred Year's War!!!'
Just like any other fundamental rights they are not absolute. Beyond the public health and safety aspect they also have to protect non protesters rights in the local area as well. Creating flash mobs in Bank branches, blocking of thoroughfares, etc impinge on other peoples rights. Should the protesters have carte blanche just because they label their actions under peaceable assembly and redress of grievances?
Based upon the news coming out of Oakland, the police are making it up as they go along. Despite having a whole book full of regulations in regards to what constitutes ''appropriate use of force", there has been plenty of documented proof that the Oakland PD doesn't even follow their own rules. The Oakland PD has a history of excessive force, so much so that that the department is under threat of being put into recievership by the court because they are so criminally negligent when it comes to acting like enforcers of the law rather than jack-booted thugs. Even if they were enforcing a legitimate law through reasonable means, I see the Occupy movement participating in a form of en masse jury nullification. Despite there being a law, that doesn't mean that the public doesn't see it as unjust and therefore in need of change. But if they really want change, #Occupy needs to take a page out of the Tea Party book and start getting involved in elections. Shitting in a park won't bother any of the people that make the big decisions; organizing the political message in their district will.
First of all, you put way too much trust in cops. I mean, you're essentially defining what is and isn't a crime by the cops' reactions. "You got savagely beaten by a cop? Well, you were clearly doing something to deserve it, because cops never do anything bad, ever." That's not even an argument, it's just stupid. Secondly, go look at what happened in Toronto during the G8/G20. Yeah, the cops quite literally - and I am not misusing that word - made up rules as they went along.
Correct, they are not absolute. I'm assuming you've been to an American city. The 'safety and health' concerns that are often voiced are present everywhere, everyday in a city. What public health and safety concerns are being addressed here? Litter? Drug use? Not quite sure exactly how my health and safety are being affected by these folks. No argument about that, one person's rights should not infringe the free exercise of another's, generally speaking. This is called trespassing. It's on private property. No need to abridge everyone's rights to enforce a bank's property right. I see. How do you feel about tourists taking pictures of Independence Hall? Should they be moved along too? I can tell you from personal experience, there are many times where Chestnut street, between 5th and 6th in Philadelphia, is damn near impossible because of the tourists. Or we can just go with 'loitering.' No where did I suggest that there be 'carte blanche.' But the ills that are often complained of by people in support of breaking up peaceful protests are often concerns that are purely collateral to any group of large people occupying a space for any amount of time (see tourists). Yet, somehow, because these people are saying things that the government (and sometimes me) don't like, they need to be moved along from a public place? Ultimately, these questions come down to your answer to the following question: Does the government exist to serve the citizen, or does the citizen exist to serve the government? Once you answer that question (Not you, specifically, KK, just happened to be responding to your post), the rest is quite predictable.
Is that what I said? Or did I say you could press charges and file a lawsuit if it happens? Read what I actualy wrote. I didnt say anyone "deserves" to be beaten by the police, I said they're not suiting up in riot gear and firing tear gas because they feel like it, but because people are acting like assholes. Whether not you agree with an eviction notice is irrelevant, take it court. But if you violate a standing order and resist, expect to be swiftly arrested. And if you throw shit at cops and fight them, expect to get your ass kicked. The protests are losing public support, and it's not because the cops are randomly beating down citizens at their whim.
Dude, this was what you said: By your logic, the cops get to decide what is and isn't peaceful by their choice of attire. What if they showed up wearing riot gear to a gathering of kittens and pandas having a snuggle contest? Are they no longer cute and adorable because the cops showed up in riot gear? As for the other part, the idea that police brutality is excused because you have the chance to sue them later? That's bullshit. You might get lucky if you have hard video evidence of what happened, otherwise, you're going to be dismissed as a dirty hippie by the cops, and there are well-documented cases of cops - groups of cops - lying just to save their own skin. And even if every victim of brutality were fairly and justly compensated and the police punished, that doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't have fucking happened in the first place.
Are the protesters starting shit with cops or are cops coming down a little too hard on protesters? Again, I find it hard to believe an 84 year old hippie was a credible threat to a cop in riot gear. Also, I'm of the mind that when firing ANYTHING at a civilian, you'd better be damned sure. Also, since you mentioned lawsuits, wouldn't the mayors presumably calculate the immense cost of a few of these bruised protesters filing suit against their police departments and say things like "don't bludgeon an unarmed civilian" or "no pepper spray" or "This isn't Birmingham in the 1960's, use some Goddamned sense"? <a class="postlink" href="http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/133969768.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/133969768.html</a> This article estimates NY has spent $6 million, but I'm sure those numbers are disputable. How much do you think Scott Olsen's head costs? Or Granny's new eyes? I'm assuming these are clear examples of some fairly easy lawsuits to pursue.
Of coarse I believe the cops should be serving the people but it seems like you are suggesting the protesters get preferential treatment for their actions simply because they are exercising a fundamental right. The protesters are not the same as tourist that annoy you. They have the intent to disrupt, today is supposed to be some national day of action for OWS where they want to occupy intersections, buildings, and so on. If you don't se the clear distinction on why they'd be arrested for doing that and why tourist aren't I can't help you. As for clearing out the tent cities it is hard to gauge since both sides seem to speak in hyperbole about the conditions. I wonder if there is a point though where the drain on the cities resources, in over time hours for police and cost of maintenance and clean up will bring a breaking point for many places to crack down. Not every city is flush with cash these days. Diverting funds to help compensate might end up hurting the average citizen when it comes down to choosing what programs to fund. Just a thought.
You're missing the point. The point is, they suit up because the protests are not peaceful, that definition is a misnomer. And for the record, of they did wear riot gear to a kitten/panda snuggle contest, Id be the first one out there protesting. You don't fuck with that. You make it seem like cops aren't citizens themselves who might agree with the sentiment of the protests. There's a lot of outrage about how the cops are supposedly brutalizing people (when theyre not), when really its in accordance to the law breaking of the protesters. Where's your outrage over cops being assaulted, buildings being vandalized, and women being sexually assaulted? I love how the philosophy is, "Hey police, even though I'm breaking the law and (in some cases) violently fighting you, would you mind lightening up your response?" How about just not breaking the law?
1) Citation needed on the characterization of anything going on in New York as "non-peaceful." Do we have actual instances of New York City officers being assaulted? I live here and have literally not heard of a single instance of a police officer being injured. If there's a bunch of battered police officers somewhere, they're being awfully quiet. The overwhelming number of arrests have been for non-cooperation, not actual acts of violence. The police are pepper-spraying 80 year olds, and the protesters are the violent ones here? I mean, look at this brutish protestor, striking fear into the heart of that poor policeman: 2) What laws are you referring to re: New York's occupation of Zucotti Park? When the police showed up in riot gear at 1 AM Wednesday morning, what breaches of law was this in response to? The courts were actually on the Occupiers side on this one.
But it isn't in accordance with the law breaking of the protestors. In the vast majority of documented cases, the police are the ones acting with overwhelming and disproportionate force against civilians that are at most committing misdemeanor offenses. I'm sure many of you have already seen this video, but it's worth watching again: The police in our own country aren't even being held to as high of a standard as our our *actual* armed forces when we invade another hostile country. Where is the video of Scott Olsen doing anything hostile enough to justify being shot in the head with a "non-lethal" projectile? What sort of reasoning could any police officer use to consider Dorli Rainey a threat worthy of pepper spray? Where is the evidence that the women attacked by Anthony Bologna were doing anything other than peacefully complying with the police order to remain with the orange barricades? In this age of almost constant YouTube and Twitter documentation - you'd think something would have come to light in defense of the police. Juice -by your logic, the civil rights protesters in 1963 Birmingham, Alabama could have avoided being attacked by police dogs and fire hoses if they just didn't break the law... One of the primary learnings from the Civil Rights movement (other than, you know, equality under the law) was that we as Americans have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws.
See, they are going about it all wrong. Just leave them be. Have a few police to make sure there aren't crimes being committed in the camps. They will go away eventually when the majority of them realize they are wasting their lives. Those that stay, well they won't be doing anything with their lives anyway, but will eventually move along when something more interesting comes along. Just don't look...
By your logic the South had every right to secede from the Union without resistance, because after all, they were just protesting a perceived unjust law. How abstract do you want to get? Not every group protesting a law they think is unjust is automatically correct. Comparing Civil Rights to OWS is an insult to that movement. Last I checked, OWS wasn't about protesting eviction notices.
The problem with a lot of the youtube/twitter evidence is that it is framed and immediately told in one sided fashion. The vet that was hit in the head is very unfortunate, the evidence from the video, even the one where the voice over claims it was intentional because a cop later tossed another gas grenade at the crowd, doesn't prove the one person was shot in the head intentionally. Had it been systematic as it seems people are claiming why weren't dozens of people hit in the head with gun propelled gas grenades? It fucking sucks but it really looked more like he was hit on accident. Not excusing abuses by cops but you can't blindly except all the "evidence" you hear from these videos and twitter messages as absolute fact, you can't tell how one sided they are just from the commentary? As far as breaking unjust laws. The bus boycotts and restaurant sit ins had very specific targets in unjust laws. OWS has general grievances and holds these occupations to be a general nuisance. Shouting down costumers and employees at a branch office bank is not comparable to sitting in a whites only diner and getting shit dumped on your head.
I'm not totally in disagreement with you about the conceptual need for violent force by the police in some instances. These men and women are putting their lives on the line to do their jobs - I don't love the reality of it, but I do believe they're entitled to be a little harsh in order to protect themselves in the course of doing their job. But first, I think you're giving them and the laws (and in some cases unlawful orders) backing them FAR too much trust. These are human beings making decisions about how to respond, when to wear riot gear, when to use these "gentle" weapons like wood and rubber bullets, tear gas, and sweet loving nudges with their nightsticks, and those human beings are often fucking wrong. And more importantly, in response to the part I quoted above - dude, you strike me as far too intelligent to be that blind and obtuse. How the fuck do you think this country was created in the first place? How do you think every single major change and improvement of social condition in our history has taken place? In my eyes, the single most important freedom we have had in the United States that separated us from the USSR or the People's Republic of China, et al, is the right to respectfully or at least peacefully say, "fuck you, I won't accept that," without the fear of being killed, beaten, imprisoned without trial or simply disappeared. Believe what you want about the right and wrong of the OWS's ideology, if we as a people give up the right to fight perceived injustice we might as well just pack it all up and hand it over to the richest and the greediest, because sure as fuck it will all be theirs eventually.
Wait, what? You're comparing the secession of the South from the Union to an unarmed protest? Seriously?