"Occupy" turning to violence

[Greenday]

The protesters as a whole just don't have any clue what EXACTLY they want. The whole movement is so disorganized.

I agree that they generally want the government to stop protecting corporations that screw over the country and the people. But that's not all they want. There are plenty of people who want the country to spread the wealth and be more "fair" with money. There are people fighting for free education. There are people fighting for free health care. There are people fighting for elimination of all debt. There are people fighting for all sorts of ridiculous things. So no, I don't believe the entire movement is good as a whole. There are plenty of people fighting for absolutely ridiculous reasons.

You know why I take the side of the police so often? Because even when the criminals or protesters do something wrong, so many people bitch about how the police overreacted and act like everything is the fault of the police. Well, I start out with the view that no, the police are responding to violence and then my position gets attacked without anyone admitting wrongness done by their side they so vehemently defend. As a result, I defend my side even more.

When the local government says the area needs to be closed down for a night to clean and stuff and people start arguments, I'm going to start thinking the protesters are wrong. When I hear stories about protesters attacking cops and the ONLY laughable argument that people have come up with is "Well, the cops also hurt people blahblahblah police brutalitiy blahblahblah."

And official news stations are reliable sources for news? Sorry but that's a load of crap. If CNN, Fox, and MSNBC all are reporting it happened, it happened. If Fox, CNN, and MSNBC all reporting something and having proof isn't good enough, youtube sure as hell isn't a valid source (And since I have slower the download speeds, no, I'm not watching youtube videos. I would have to leave my laptop in my room and pray my internet doesn't randomly disconnect for a couple days which is an impossibility.).

I don't think the government is right in all things that it does. But when people dismiss stuff like protesters blocking off major bridges, attacking police, thefts, random people walking around with rifles, etc. etc., it really annoys me looking at how insanely one-sided those people are just because "fuck the man".

[Andara Bledin]

You know why I take the side of the police so often? Because even when the criminals or protesters do something wrong, so many people bitch about how the police overreacted and act like everything is the fault of the police.

Ah, so you do the exact same thing, only on the other side. Yeah, that makes sense.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

Ah, so you do the exact same thing, only on the other side. Yeah, that makes sense.

^-.-^

Well, we have a thread on how some people from Occupy Whatever committing violence and then it turns into a whole police bashing thread. I'm pointing out that there are protesters committing violence and supporting the police showing people that violence won't just get a "Please stop". You commit violence, you deserve to get punished. If vehemently supporting justice is the "exact same thing" on the other side, so be it.

What have I said so far. That violent protesters shouldn't be let go scott free? That protesters HAVE in fact not been so lovingly peaceful? I definitely can't find anything said by me indicating that perfectly innocent people should purposely be harmed.

[linguist]

When I hear stories about protesters attacking cops and the ONLY laughable argument that people have come up with is "Well, the cops also hurt people blahblahblah police brutalitiy blahblahblah."

so you're saying that if a police officer unjustifiably attacks me, i should just take it without trying to defend myself?

And official news stations are reliable sources for news? Sorry but that's a load of crap. If CNN, Fox, and MSNBC all are reporting it happened, it happened. If Fox, CNN, and MSNBC all reporting something and having proof isn't good enough, youtube sure as hell isn't a valid source (And since I have slower the download speeds, no, I'm not watching youtube videos. I would have to leave my laptop in my room and pray my internet doesn't randomly disconnect for a couple days which is an impossibility.).

all the major news stations are reporting in regards to oakland is that the police say they were attacked. i still have seen no proof of this. i have however seen proof of police attacking those who were in no way threatening them, and when i posted this proof you seem to be conveniently ignoring it as it doesn't fit your "rah rah yay police!" worldview. as someone said earlier, if the police were attacked (and that's still a big if as far as i'm concerned until i'm presented with proof otherwise), they had every right to use force to subdue and disperse those who were attacking them. that does not give them carte blanche to attack any protestor they don't happen to like the look of. it certainly doesn't give them the right to lob a fucking grenade into a crowd trying to help an injured man. you still haven't answered my question on this, so i'll ask it once more. i'll even bold it for you: how was that justified?

I don't think the government is right in all things that it does.

you certainly seem to be swallowing what you're told in this regard without question.

it really annoys me looking at how insanely one-sided those people are just because "fuck the man".

it has nothing to do with "fuck the man" and everything to do with "fuck those who abuse their power." i have enormous respect for decent police officers. however, a man who would do what was done to those protestors trying to help scott olsen is not a decent police officer. he's not even a decent human being.

it's funny, when the arab spring began, and those protestors were using many of the same tactics as the occupy protestors, they were hailed as heroes, while the police and military forces cracking down on them were the oppressive bullies. it's apparently different when the same thing happens on our own soil.

[Greenday]

Fox just showed the clip of the group getting flashbanged. Was that right? Probably not. He definitely didn't seem to be intent on flashbanging the guy on the ground. It seemed like he threw it right in the middle of the huge group. How did he get so close to the barricade in the first place? How did he get hurt? Those two questions are very unclear to me.

I understand that people wanted to move him, but it doesn't take 15-20 people rushing towards the barricade to do so. Maybe he was doing it because he just saw a bunch of people rush towards the barricade. Maybe he did it because he's a dick. I don't know but it's not nearly as clear as some people make it seem.

so you're saying that if a police officer unjustifiably attacks me, i should just take it without trying to defend myself?

You would be. Unfortunately for you, this wasn't the case. The protesters struck first.

all the major news stations are reporting in regards to oakland is that the police say they were attacked. i still have seen no proof of this. i have however seen proof of police attacking those who were in no way threatening them

You mean the police didn't start a slander campaign like Occupy has? Shocking.

lob a fucking grenade into a crowd trying to help an injured man

Grenade that disorients people, grenade that launches fragmentation everywhere killing and maiming people. Same thing...not.

you certainly seem to be swallowing what you're told in this regard without question.

I could very easily say the same thing to you.

it's funny, when the arab spring began, and those protestors were using many of the same tactics as the occupy protestors, they were hailed as heroes, while the police and military forces cracking down on them were the oppressive bullies. it's apparently different when the same thing happens on our own soil.

Apples to whales (Apples to oranges doesn't even begin to describe how different the two are).

[Andara Bledin]

as someone said earlier, if the police were attacked (and that's still a big if as far as i'm concerned until i'm presented with proof otherwise)...

There were a few people who did attack the police. Someone threw some paint on one, and a few missiles were lobbed from the middle of the crowd onto officers wearing full riot gear. From what I can gather from witness reports on blogs and news articles, they were isolated events, and likely put down by others in the crowd as they happened.

At no point were the police in more danger than of receiving a few bruises. The crowd, impressively for a body of people of that size and with as much goading as the police were giving them, refused to take the bait and actually become violent.

However, a number of officers behaved in ways that were outside of police protocol and regulations in response to the Oakland protest and they were filmed doing it. There are more than enough descriptions of the events captured on that film all over the net from independent bloggers, news agencies, and right here in this very thread - to claim ignorance of its contents at this juncture is pure pigheadedness and vapid cheerleading.

As of yet, the protests have not managed to even exceed the level of civil unrest of a typical rock festival or high-profile sports event, and yet cities endure such events regularly.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

There were a few people who did attack the police. Someone threw some paint on one, and a few missiles were lobbed from the middle of the crowd onto officers wearing full riot gear.

At no point were the police in more danger than of receiving a few bruises.

Oh, I guess this makes violence okay then. BRB, going to go throw rocks at soldiers in wearing armor. It's totally cool since they are wearing armor and shouldn't be in danger of being bruised. By your logic, I should go by unmolested as a result.

[Andara Bledin]

Oh, I guess this makes violence okay then. BRB, going to go throw rocks at soldiers in wearing armor. It's totally cool since they are wearing armor and shouldn't be in danger of being bruised. By your logic, I should go by unmolested as a result.

That's not what I said.

They have written procedures in place for situations such as this that they did not follow. Those procedures are what say that they are not to use those measures in that situation. If you walked up, threw a single rock, and then moved away, they would be perfectly ok to march up and arrest your ass for assault, but they would not be ok to hit you with anything else. No beanbags, no rubber bullets, no flash bangs, no tear gas.

At no point were the police in any obvious or imminent danger that required the firing of any weapons.

And they know they were in the wrong, which is why the Oakland PD then went on record to deny that they took actions despite there clearly being video evidence of them having done so.

Also, as to your earlier claim that they aren't dangerous, there are also regulations regarding where in a crowd they can be fired, and "into the middle of a group trying to help a man with a concussion" is not one of those places. He, a 2-time Iraqi war veteran, was nearly killed by their actions. And, despite the fact that regulations also state that they must summon aid in such a situation, they did jack shit for the man they nearly killed. If they weren't the police, they'd be up on charges of attempted homicide.

Oh, and of the obvious damage to local shops, there were two broken windows, one of which was broken by the police when they were "not firing" their rubber bullets.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

That's not what I said.

You completely brushed off the violence of the protesters by claiming that it couldn't seriously harm the cops.

If you walked up, threw a single rock, and then moved away, they would be perfectly ok to march up and arrest your ass for assault, but they would not be ok to hit you with anything else. No beanbags, no rubber bullets, no flash bangs, no tear gas.

Here's the problem. It wasn't just one person. It was a mob of them.

At no point were the police in any obvious or imminent danger that required the firing of any weapons.

Had you said lethal weapons, I would agree with you. But they responded to attacks with non-lethal weapons.[/QUOTE]

[linguist]

Fox just showed the clip of the group getting flashbanged. Was that right? Probably not. He definitely didn't seem to be intent on flashbanging the guy on the ground. It seemed like he threw it right in the middle of the huge group. How did he get so close to the barricade in the first place? How did he get hurt? Those two questions are very unclear to me.

reports are that olsen was shot in the head by a tear gas canister. the video shows the police standing and watching him lay on the ground bleeding profusely from the head while making no move to help him themselves. and whether the officer aimed the grenade at olsen or not, he still threw a potentially lethal (and flashbangs are lethal at close range) weapon into the middle of an unarmed crowd.

I understand that people wanted to move him, but it doesn't take 15-20 people rushing towards the barricade to do so.

perhaps they wanted to protect him from further harm? moving him in the middle of a group accomplishes that much easier than moving him with only one or two.

Maybe he was doing it because he just saw a bunch of people rush towards the barricade.

all of whom had stopped well short of the barricade long before the grenade was thrown.

I don't know but it's not nearly as clear as some people make it seem.

using deadly force on the unarmed seems pretty clear cut to me.

You would be. Unfortunately for you, this wasn't the case. The protesters struck first.

you know this for certain? where's your proof?

You mean the police didn't start a slander campaign like Occupy has? Shocking.

posting videos of police brutality is hardly slander.

Grenade that disorients people, grenade that launches fragmentation everywhere killing and maiming people. Same thing...not.

flashbangs are just as deadly at close range. i can provide links to several stories in which they've killed people if you don't believe me.

I could very easily say the same thing to you.

the difference is, i've actually sought out proof of the opposing side's claims, and i'm willing to modify my position when presented with it. so far that hasn't been the case.

Apples to whales (Apples to oranges doesn't even begin to describe how different the two are).

how so? largely peaceful protestors being cracked down on with deadly force seems pretty much the same to me.

[linguist]

Had you said lethal weapons, I would agree with you. But they responded to attacks with non-lethal weapons.

non-lethal weapons which still almost killed a man. a man who's not out of woods yet, and could potentially suffer long-term effects of traumatic brain injury.

[Greenday]

So because the police don't use youtube, there's no proof. That's basically what I'm hearing now. Sorry they don't use amateur videos to prove their points. Until the protesters prove they didn't attack the cops, I'll buy that the attacks were unprovoked.

I'm going to relate what happened to a situation we can relate to: Let's say a kid is getting picked on. The teacher doesn't see this. The kid defends himself and the teacher sees it. All the other kids back up the bully so since the witnesses claim they didn't see the bully attack, the teacher believes the witnesses. Replace bully with violent protesters and witnesses/other kids with non-violent protesters who don't want everyone to know their side did wrong and the kid being picked on with police....That's exactly what's going on.

It's like the cops are saying they were attacked, the protesters are saying "no we didn't" and then the people who are refusing to admit the protesters can do wrong are saying "The protesters said they didn't do it!? Good enough for me. That MUST mean they didn't."

[linguist]

So because the police don't use youtube, there's no proof. That's basically what I'm hearing now. Sorry they don't use amateur videos to prove their points. Until the protesters prove they didn't attack the cops, I'll buy that the attacks were unprovoked.

then maybe they should be making their own. but that would mean having to follow their own rules.

I'm going to relate what happened to a situation we can relate to: Let's say a kid is getting picked on. The teacher doesn't see this. The kid defends himself and the teacher sees it. All the other kids back up the bully so since the witnesses claim they didn't see the bully attack, the teacher believes the witnesses. Replace bully with violent protesters and witnesses/other kids with non-violent protesters who don't want everyone to know their side did wrong and the kid being picked on with police....That's exactly what's going on.

you could just as easily reverse that and call the police the bullies.

It's like the cops are saying they were attacked, the protesters are saying "no we didn't" and then the people who are refusing to admit the protesters can do wrong are saying "The protesters said they didn't do it!? Good enough for me. That MUST mean they didn't."

i've never said they didn't. i've only said i've seen no proof. when i do see proof, i'll admit they did. and i'll still maintain that that only gives police the right to use force on those who are attacking them, no one else.

[Greenday]

and i'll still maintain that that only gives police the right to use force on those who are attacking them, no one else.

Well, they erred on the side of making sure they didn't continue to get attacked. It's tough when the violent protesters are too big of sissies so they try to use innocent protesters as human meat shields and then innocents get hurt as a result.

[Andara Bledin]

Well, they erred on the side of making sure they didn't continue to get attacked. It's tough when the violent protesters are too big of sissies so they try to use innocent protesters as human meat shields and then innocents get hurt as a result.

The problem here is that you are assuming, absent any evidence to support it, that the police were being attacked at that point.

The Oakland PD has already proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they are willing to outright lie in official statements about what did and did not happen that night in the face of video evidence to the contrary, so accepting their word for anything else is naive, at best.

^-.-^