"Occupy" turning to violence

[Greenday]

The protests in America are VASTLY different from the protests in Africa and the Middle East. One set of protests involves oppressive governments who happily use lethal weapons on their citizens so they can stay in power. The other set of protests involves kind of unfair economic conditions (I say kind of because it's not as extreme as the countries in the former situations) and the government not setting its military to wipe out the protesters.

People have come forward and said it happened. That means there were witnesses. Just because the witnesses aren't people ratting out their comrades doesn't mean it's not legit.

[Panacea]

The protests in America are VASTLY different from the protests in Africa and the Middle East. One set of protests involves oppressive governments who happily use lethal weapons on their citizens so they can stay in power. <snip>

Greenday, if you think the US Government wouldn't use lethal force on its citizens to stay in power, then you are either ignorant of history or quite naive. It's happened multiple times in US History (ever heard of the Civil War? Shay's Rebellion? The massacre at Kent State?).

People have come forward and said it happened. That means there were witnesses. Just because the witnesses aren't people ratting out their comrades doesn't mean it's not legit.

Without a name to put to the "witness" or some other evidence to back it up, it is hearsay. So no, it's not legit.

[bara]

I just find it funny that in a topic about protesters turning violent, people refuse to talk about the topic and instead try to turn it on the police.

What I am saying is this, I have seen no proof at all that the protesters turned violent in such a fashion to be labeled as violent.

Throwing paint and feces while stupid and disgusting, does not warrant the police response given. Those who are doing so should be arrested for thier actions. But tear gas and flashbangs to the face are going overboard.

The man who got the broken skull was very possibly and probably an accident. Nothing more than an unfortunate side effect. The tear gas may even have been the best solution to dispersing the crowd, though nothing Ive seen gives good reason for crowd dispersal. The officer who threw the flashbang into a crowd of people was certainly not an appropriate act. Going off the video, it looks as though the act was deliberate in its placement. The flash bang could easily have been thrown to the side of the crowd and been effective without adding the possiblity of anyone being injured by the flashbang.

[Greenday]

Greenday, if you think the US Government wouldn't use lethal force on its citizens to stay in power, then you are either ignorant of history or quite naive. It's happened multiple times in US History (ever heard of the Civil War? Shay's Rebellion? The massacre at Kent State?).

Without a name to put to the "witness" or some other evidence to back it up, it is hearsay. So no, it's not legit.

Civil War - LOL No, that doesn't count.
Shay's Rebellion - A bunch of armed men getting shot taking over an Armory...Not sure what the issue is.
Kent State - I've got nothing. No excuse for that one. Had nothing to do with the government staying in power though.

Unless there's a violent takeover attempt, I don't see the government sending the military in to mow people down like in Libya or Syria.

The flash bang could easily have been thrown to the side of the crowd and been effective without adding the possiblity of anyone being injured by the flashbang.

I was under the impression that a flashbang is most effective when thrown in front of the target so the flash part works.

[Andara Bledin]

I was under the impression that a flashbang is most effective when thrown in front of the target so the flash part works.

Speaking as someone who has viewed video of the flashbang being tossed I can say with utmost certainty that the pig who threw it was aiming to get it as close to the injured man as possible, which was also directly in the center of a group of about a dozen people who were attempting to help him. I can't say for certain, but it's possible the asshole bounced it off the veteran's chest, as it went off about half a foot on the other side after a short delay. The distance of the toss was about 10-20 feet, so there's no excuse for him "missing" what he was aiming for.

At the time of his injury, Olsen was standing still, probably a dozen feet from the barrier and not really near anyone else. You can watch his head turn upward as he watches something flying in the air. There were two shots fired by police in quick succession, so it's possible that he was watching one and thus didn't see the other, which then struck him.

He was dressed in full green camo fatigues and was accompanying a man in full dress uniform who was waving a Veterans for Peace flag. He and his companion had been in a space that was between sections of metal crowd control devices in which there were mostly media people with cameras but inside which those who were making demonstrations with flags or signs were also standing, being photographed and filmed. The majority of protesters remained behind the second line of barriers, shouting the phrase, "We are people."

It's difficult to determine, but it appears that shortly before he was hit, the police had fired a tear gas canister into the crowd, and someone in the crowd tossed or kicked it back somewhere behind the line of officers. The crowd doesn't appear to have become unruly at any point or become agitated until after being attacked by the police.

After the police started lobbing the flashbangs and tear gas canisters, the crowd still remained mostly contained. You can see a number of instances, however, where gas canisters were lobbed back to the cops. Watching the line, you can see that around a dozen officers were involved with the escalation of violence in various ways based on what was fired and where. And other than the return of the gas canisters, there is no evidence of violence displayed by protesters in any of the popular videos.

Article at Newser

The Oakland police chief claims that his officers used "least amount of force." Considering that there is still no indication that there was call to use any force, I call bullshit.

Article at Webpronews

This article focuses on armed forces support of the Occupy movement and how this event has pushed more active and retired armed forces personnel to support peaceful protest and cry for culpability for those responsible.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

Greenday, if you think the US Government wouldn't use lethal force on its citizens to stay in power, then you are either ignorant of history or quite naive. It's happened multiple times in US History (ever heard of the Civil War? Shay's Rebellion? The massacre at Kent State?).

To be fair to Greenday, I think his point was that the CURRENT US Government isn't willing to use lethal force, certainly not to the scale that the governments in the Middle East have.

Yes, our situation is very fucked up, and the Occupy movement may have been inspired by Arab Spring, but in no way is it the same thing.

[KabeRinnaul]

Unless there's a violent takeover attempt, I don't see the government sending the military in to mow people down like in Libya or Syria.

Let me share some local history. Battle of Blair Mountain

The first skirmishes occurred on the morning of August 25. The bulk of the miners were still 15 mi (24 km) away. The following day, President Warren Harding threatened to send in federal troops and Army Martin MB-1 bombers. After a long meeting in the town of Madison, the seat of Boone County, agreements were made convincing the miners to return home. However, the struggle was far from over. After spending days to assemble his private army, Chafin was not going to be denied his battle to end union attempts at organizing Logan County coal mines. Within hours of the Madison decision, reports came in that Sheriff Chafin's men were deliberately shooting union sympathizers in the town of Sharples, West Virginia just north of Blair Mountain—and that families had been caught in crossfire during the skirmishes. Infuriated, the miners turned back towards Blair Mountain, many traveling in other stolen and commandeered trains.

On orders from the famous General Billy Mitchell, Army bombers from Maryland were also used for aerial surveillance, a rare example of Air Power being used by the federal government against US citizens. One Martin bomber crashed on the return flight, killing the three members of the crew. Sporadic gun battles continued for a week, with the miners at one time nearly breaking through to the town of Logan and their target destinations, the non-unionized counties to the south, Logan and Mingo. Up to 30 deaths were reported by Chafin’s side and 50-100 on the union miners side, with many hundreds more injured. By September 2, federal troops had arrived.

[Hyena Dandy]

Again, I think GD's point was about the CURRENT US government.

[Andara Bledin]

I doubt the current US government is any less likely to turn the police or military on the populace than any government since the Civil War. The Civil War government gets a pass, however, due to the nature of the conflict.

And I think that far too many people think that likelihood is close to zero.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

The protests have been going on for about 6 weeks now and in that time they have been amazingly peaceful. Despite repeated, constant attempts by the police to provoke them into violence. The police have attacked people, peppersprayed people for no reason, punched people in the face for absolutely no reason, they have deployed flashbangs and tear gas without justification and against their very own regulations on the use of such equipment, they have staged surprise night time raids on protestor camps, they have used undercover officers to try and provoke violence from within the crowds, they have used undercover officers to entrap and unlawfully arrest people and they have used controversial tactics to control crowds and justify arrests.

On the flipside, the only thing the police have said to justify their actions has been a litany of pure bullshit and weak excuses with no evidence at all. Often dispersed as talking points into the media ( "Unsanitary conditions", "Homeless people are taking over", "Someone alleggedly saw a gun, no we who won't say who or where nor do we have any information or evidence" ) to get a narrative going so they can try and justify their actions.

Now, Mayor Bloomberg ordered the police to raid the encampment again and confiscate all of the propane tanks and generators as "fire hazards" so the protestors have no heat, internet nor can they prepare food anymore.

The only thing the police have done is galvanize the movement and demonstrate to the world at large that something really is wrong in the US.

[Hyena Dandy]

I doubt the current US government is any less likely to turn the police or military on the populace than any government since the Civil War. The Civil War government gets a pass, however, due to the nature of the conflict.

And I think that far too many people think that likelihood is close to zero.

^-.-^

I think that its highly unlikely, given the current political climate. We may be getting close to a situation where it could happen, but I don't think its likely to happen right now.

[Greenday]

Let me share some local history. Battle of Blair Mountain

The first skirmishes occurred on the morning of August 25. The bulk of the miners were still 15 mi (24 km) away. The following day, President Warren Harding threatened to send in federal troops and Army Martin MB-1 bombers. After a long meeting in the town of Madison, the seat of Boone County, agreements were made convincing the miners to return home. However, the struggle was far from over. After spending days to assemble his private army, Chafin was not going to be denied his battle to end union attempts at organizing Logan County coal mines. Within hours of the Madison decision, reports came in that Sheriff Chafin's men were deliberately shooting union sympathizers in the town of Sharples, West Virginia just north of Blair Mountain—and that families had been caught in crossfire during the skirmishes. Infuriated, the miners turned back towards Blair Mountain, many traveling in other stolen and commandeered trains.

On orders from the famous General Billy Mitchell, Army bombers from Maryland were also used for aerial surveillance, a rare example of Air Power being used by the federal government against US citizens. One Martin bomber crashed on the return flight, killing the three members of the crew. Sporadic gun battles continued for a week, with the miners at one time nearly breaking through to the town of Logan and their target destinations, the non-unionized counties to the south, Logan and Mingo. Up to 30 deaths were reported by Chafin’s side and 50-100 on the union miners side, with many hundreds more injured. By September 2, federal troops had arrived.

So the Army killed...nobody? What exactly are you trying to prove with this story? The situation from that link is not comparable to Occupy. If Occupy forms an armed militia with the intent of killing police who aren't murdering people, I hope to God the government is smart enough to send in the NG to prevent it.

[Panacea]

Civil War - LOL No, that doesn't count.
Shay's Rebellion - A bunch of armed men getting shot taking over an Armory...Not sure what the issue is.
Kent State - I've got nothing. No excuse for that one. Had nothing to do with the government staying in power though.

Unless there's a violent takeover attempt, I don't see the government sending the military in to mow people down like in Libya or Syria..

Don't give the Civil War a pass. I've studied the War in depth (wrote my Master's Thesis on it for my MA in History--I have degrees in two fields, History and Nursing). Lincoln sent in military troops into Maryland before hostilities at Fort Sumter ever broke out. After Fort Sumter, he sent troops across the State of Maryland (which never declared secession) and arrested every member of the General Assembly he thought was sympathetic to the South: which was every member from Southern Maryland, Baltimore, and the Eastern Shore (he excepted only Western Maryland and a handful of other members who were pro German pro North), and then locked them up first in Fort McHenry then later in military forts in Boston. Some of them spent the entire War in prison and were never charged with any crime because Lincoln suspended habeus corpus.

Federal officers then used military power to manipulate local elections at gunpoint.

Sound familiar to anything going on in the Middle East?

As for Shay's rebellion: bear in mind some of these men had been thrown into debtor's prisons because Massachusetts insisted on onerous taxes but refused to pay veterans of the Continental Army monies they were owed for their military service . . . so the state militia was taking their farms at gun point.

Consider also incidents that are favorites of the conservative crowd: the disaster at Waco (ATF tried to storm the place by force), and Ruby Ridge. People died at both places. The FBI and ATF are Federal agencies, and the military also had some involvement after the fact.

Consider that the Border Patrol can stop anyone within a 100 mile radius of ANY US border and demand they prove American citizenship, no probable cause needed.

Don't think that the government wouldn't overflex its military muscle. It can, has, and could.

To be fair to Greenday, I think his point was that the CURRENT US Government isn't willing to use lethal force, certainly not to the scale that the governments in the Middle East have.

Yes, our situation is very fucked up, and the Occupy movement may have been inspired by Arab Spring, but in no way is it the same thing.

I think the movements are very similar: people who are fed up at disappearing opportunities and declining personal resources who are watching the rich and powerful get away with doing pretty much whatever they want.

While I would hope the Obama Administration would not use such force, the Clinton Administration certainly did so: Ruby Ridge and Waco. So don't be too sure it couldn't happen now.

I doubt the current US government is any less likely to turn the police or military on the populace than any government since the Civil War. The Civil War government gets a pass, however, due to the nature of the conflict.

From a strategic standpoint, I'll agree that Lincoln did what he had to in order to preserve the nation. However, it does not change the fact that the US Government was willing to do some pretty shady things to back up those policies, as I cited above, including hiring mercenaries (the Pinkertons) to start a "Secret Service" (nothing like the modern agency) to spy out threats to the US Government (they were amazingly incompetent, much like Halliburton, but made a bundle on the deal).

We should not blindly assume the government could not go to such lengths again: consider the impact of the "Patriot" Act, which allows the FBI to secretly demand all kinds of information without a warrant while forbidding the person they demand the information from from even contacting an attorney to advise them on the legality of cooperating! The Patriot Act was renewed under Obama.

I think that its highly unlikely, given the current political climate. We may be getting close to a situation where it could happen, but I don't think its likely to happen right now.

I also think it unlikely to happen. However, the mechanisms for the government to overreach are already in place, and there is plenty of precedent for it to happen again. To assume the government can't or won't is just wishful thinking.

So the Army killed...nobody? What exactly are you trying to prove with this story? The situation from that link is not comparable to Occupy. If Occupy forms an armed militia with the intent of killing police who aren't murdering people, I hope to God the government is smart enough to send in the NG to prevent it.

The Army supported a private army which DID kill quite a few people.

The miners in this situation identified themselves by wearing red bandanas, giving rise to the name, "redneck."

The point of the story was to support my contention that the US Government can and will use its military and para military forces in an unconstitutional manner that can, will, and has resulted in loss of life.

Occupy is unlikely to form an armed militia; liberals (and the OWS folks are mostly liberal) tend not to do that. Not saying impossible. Just unlikely.

However, there is nothing to keep a state Governor from declaring a state of emergency and sending in the National Guard to restore order . . . which happened during the Civil Rights movement.

[Gravekeeper]

However, there is nothing to keep a state Governor from declaring a state of emergency and sending in the National Guard to restore order . . . which happened during the Civil Rights movement.

To be honest, I'm much much more worried about State or city governments doing something alarmingly stupid then I am the Federal government. Especially seeing as some of them already have. Oakland's mayor is in total "Oh shit oh shit oh shit" PR damage control now. Bloomberg, however, is the exact thing people are protesting against and he's proven from the get go he has nothing but contempt for the protestors.

[KabeRinnaul]

The Army supported a private army which DID kill quite a few people.

The point of the story was to support my contention that the US Government can and will use its military and para military forces in an unconstitutional manner that can, will, and has resulted in loss of life.

That was indeed the reason for my post.

But to contribute, between Oakland and this story, I'm beginning to suspect that California might be really bad at this Occupy thing.