"Occupy" turning to violence

[Panacea]

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.

Well, it goes back to what I've been saying. The Occupy folks for the most part aren't anarchists. They just want attention paid to this country's real problems. While their organization is loose, they do have organizers and leaders to keep the movement civil and mostly that's what has happened.

The pot crowd is an aberration. We are talking about So Cal where pot is practically mainstream (So Cal as most of the state's dispensary's).

And the Occupations have been going on for over a month.

That these problems are occurring aren't the surprise. The surprise is it has taken this long, because we're dealing with people not saints.

[Duelist925]

Phillip Defranco (Linky) talks about the video from earlier in this thread in the tail end of his most recent (thursday) show.

[Hyena Dandy]

I don't think either Ruby Ridge or Waco is a good comparison. In both situations, you have an isolated group, not a large political movement, who are mistakenly believed to be dangerous. Communication is limited.

Not a (whatever their goals may be) largely non-violent group of protesters who are, for the most part, occupying a public space.

I could see force being used by a state government, but not the federal government.

And either way, I maintain that the situation in the US is nowhere close to the situation in places like Libya or Egypt. We are not ruled by an autocrat who suppresses dissent, and our elections remain fair and open.

As terrible as the situation here may be, and I'll admit its awful, we are not dealing with anything close to what sparked Arab Spring.

I said it about the Tea Party, and I'll say it about Occupy as well. We are in a very unfortunate situation, but theirs is much, much worse. Trying to draw an equivalency between these protests and Arab Spring is insulting to the Arabs and embarrassing to us.

[Panacea]

I'm citing Waco and Ruby Ridge of classic examples where the federal government exercised poor judgement and used lethal force against its own citizens. They didnt have all the military hardware at Waco for a picnic. It was a show of force. I'm not trying to make exact comparisons; I'm giving examples of government excesses of lethality to show that yes, it can indeed happen.

You misunderstand me if you think I'm trying to say the Arab Spring is the same as the Occupy protests. I don't think that at all.

What I AM saying is many of the same people who cheered the Arab Spring are condemning the Occupy movement, and I see some hypocrisy in that. The same people who went apeshit over Waco and Ruby Ridge are siding with the cops in Oakland . . . not because the cops are right but because of who the protestors are.

I didn't have a problem with the Tea Party protests when they happened. I consider it democracy in action. I think the same way about the Occupy movement.

When you get right down to it, the reasons local governments are citing to crack down have nothing to do with the message of the protestors. They're cracking down not because the protestors are inciting to riot or storming banks . . . because the protestors aren't doing those things.

No, they're using "sanitation" as an excuse.

A better response would be to provide porta potties, and make arrangements with protest organizers to open up areas they are occupying to go in and clean regularly . . . and let the protests go on.

We celebrate the Boston Tea Party: which was an act of vandalism (against a corporate interest, ironically) committed by men who hid their faces to avoid arrest. We condemn the OWS . . . because they make a park dirty?

Give me a break.

[Hyena Dandy]

I'm citing Waco and Ruby Ridge of classic examples where the federal government exercised poor judgement and used lethal force against its own citizens. They didnt have all the military hardware at Waco for a picnic. It was a show of force. I'm not trying to make exact comparisons; I'm giving examples of government excesses of lethality to show that yes, it can indeed happen.

Then I apologize if you misunderstood me. I'm saying that the federal government will not use lethal force against the protesters. Both Waco and Ruby Ridge came from ultimately the same thing: A failure of communication. Failure of communication over the siege, and (at Waco) failure of communication between the agencies present.

Both times, because of the nature of the situation, the government was under the false impression that lethal force was justified. I am perfectly willing to believe that if the federal government thinks they should use lethal force against their own citizens, they will. Perhaps they think it for the wrong reasons. But they still thought it, so they did it.

What I AM saying is many of the same people who cheered the Arab Spring are condemning the Occupy movement, and I see some hypocrisy in that.

Could you explain how its hypocritical? The situations are so different that I can see plenty of reasons to support Arab Spring and condemn Occupy. They're against different things, they're for different reasons, and they're by different people in different situations. I see very few parallels between them.

To clarify, I support the Occupy movement, but I don't see a comparison to Arab Spring, and I don't think I'd be a hypocrite if I supported Arab Spring and not Occupy. By saying that its hypocritical to support one but not the other, you are saying its the same thing. At least from what I understand of hypocrisy. Could you please explain why you are saying that its hypocritical, so that I can understand your position better?

[blas87]

I don't want to seem rude, but stating that the situation in Waco was the government using impoper force, was the same mindset that Timothy McVeigh had.

It was a sucky lose lose situation all the way around, but David Koresh and his flock had that place tighter than a tick's ass, and they were not going to let anyone in and save those poor girls and those poor children, nor were they going to let anyone get to that man without some form of improper force.

[IDrinkaRum]

The Kent State Shootings aka the Kent State Massacre of 1970 would be a better use in an argument that says the government has used poor judgement in the use of lethal force against protesters. I wouldn't be surprised the news media are looking forward to anther Kent State Massacre. But that's just me.

[Panacea]

I don't want to seem rude, but stating that the situation in Waco was the government using impoper force, was the same mindset that Timothy McVeigh had.

It was a sucky lose lose situation all the way around, but David Koresh and his flock had that place tighter than a tick's ass, and they were not going to let anyone in and save those poor girls and those poor children, nor were they going to let anyone get to that man without some form of improper force.

No, no, not at all.

Unlike McVeigh, I don't hate or mistrust the government inherently (I actually believe the government does very good things for us). I also don't believe I have the right to take lethal "pre-emptive strikes" against the government using innocent civilians as my target.

The ATF did not have to do a forced entry of that property. Koresh left all the time to do this and that. They should have waited until he left the property, then detained him. The example Jim Jones set should have warned them that religious fanatics are perfectly willing to set children in harm's way, and that pushing them into corners just sets them off.

Then I apologize if you misunderstood me. I'm saying that the federal government will not use lethal force against the protesters. Both Waco and Ruby Ridge came from ultimately the same thing: A failure of communication. Failure of communication over the siege, and (at Waco) failure of communication between the agencies present.

Clearly, the original point I was trying to make has been well and truly lost.

Greenday was saying the federal government would never use lethal force on its citizens. I gave him multiple examples throughout US History of why he is wrong on this.

I don't think the Feds will get involved with dispersing the Occupy movement; they'll leave that to local governments unless rioting begins that local cops and the National Guard can't quell . . . a highly unlikely scenario and a response to disorder rather than a suppression of free speech rights.

That being said, I think it is naive to think the federal government is incapable of atrocities on home soil.

Both times, because of the nature of the situation, the government was under the false impression that lethal force was justified. I am perfectly willing to believe that if the federal government thinks they should use lethal force against their own citizens, they will. Perhaps they think it for the wrong reasons. But they still thought it, so they did it.

Which reinforces my point.

Could you explain how its hypocritical? The situations are so different that I can see plenty of reasons to support Arab Spring and condemn Occupy. They're against different things, they're for different reasons, and they're by different people in different situations. I see very few parallels between them.

To clarify, I support the Occupy movement, but I don't see a comparison to Arab Spring, and I don't think I'd be a hypocrite if I supported Arab Spring and not Occupy. By saying that its hypocritical to support one but not the other, you are saying its the same thing. At least from what I understand of hypocrisy. Could you please explain why you are saying that its hypocritical, so that I can understand your position better?

Perhaps I apply the brush too broadly. I am thinking of local conservatives who've praised Arab Spring, while condemning Occupy. These folks seem to think civil disorder is fine for people in other countries, but not here at home.

People who are struggling under injustice will eventually make their discontent known, whether the cause is political oppression, religious oppression, social oppression, or economic oppression. There are people in this country who refuse to see that our country (the United States) as anything other than the greatest society ever to exist on Earth, the greatest military, political, and economic system ever.

I think that's both untrue and arrogant. It's the source of many of our problems with our neighbors. But the mindset allows such people to condemn any philosophy or action that endangers their own egocentrism.

To acknowledge the Occupy movement is to acknowledge that something is deeply wrong with our country. The converse is true in regards to the Tea Party movement in some ways; those folks have many justifiable reasons to be unhappy with the direction our country is going.

Instead of engaging in dialouge, both sides consistently demonize the other and refuse to discuss, negotiate, or compromise. Our political system is mired in gridlock.

The Tea Party was unsuccessful in getting a dialouge going because the movement was co-opted by corporate interests that bankrolled their agenda, turning it into an "astroturf" movement.

No one's been able to co-opt Occupy yet. Unions, Democrats, ultra liberals, anarchists, many people have tried and failed even as the movement moved world wide and is gaining steam.

I don't know where it will end up. I don't know if it will start a conversation and get the politcal system to pay attention to Main Street again.

I do know it is nothing we've seen up to now. I think it can be a game changer in a positive way. But change is scary and uncomfortable. And that's why certain people want to see Occupy go away, as much as the Arab despots wanted to see the Arab Spring go away.

The Kent State Shootings aka the Kent State Massacre of 1970 would be a better use in an argument that says the government has used poor judgement in the use of lethal force against protesters. I wouldn't be surprised the news media are looking forward to anther Kent State Massacre. But that's just me.

I would be surprised if the media was "looking forward to it." I don't see the media as bloodthirsty. Just shortsighted and narrow minded because they think only in terms of soundbytes and market share.

But I did mention Kent State as one of my examples when I tried to make my original point to Greenday

[Hyena Dandy]

Which reinforces my point.

I must have mis-interpreted you. I thought you were making the argument it was likely to happen in this case, and I believe he is too.

These folks seem to think civil disorder is fine for people in other countries, but not here at home.

Perhaps they think that our situation doesn't merit it. I don't think its hypocritical. I may disagree with them, but I don't think its hypocritical.

An early principle in the US, I believe, was that a government only derives its power from the consent of the governed. In that vein, Qaddafi and Mubarak no longer had the CONSENT of their people. Its possible to make the argument that a protest like this is justified ONLY in the case that you no longer accept your government as a legitimate source of authority. You no longer consent to be governed. From what I've seen, for the most part, the Occupy movement accepts the US Government as a legitimate source of authority. Largely, though there are exceptions, I don't think that people there want to overthrow the US Government and replace it with a new system entirely.

What would be hypocritical, though, is praising the Tea Party for voicing discontent but saying that the Occupiers voicing THEIR discontent is "Un-American". That happens a lot too, and I find that hypocritical, but I don't think its hypocritical to support Arab Spring and not Occupy.

[protege]

The Kent State Shootings aka the Kent State Massacre of 1970 would be a better use in an argument that says the government has used poor judgement in the use of lethal force against protesters.

Of course, we have to remember the events that preceded the massacre--the breaking of windows and the bonfire the Friday night before; the torching of the ROTC building on Saturday; and then the hurling of rocks at the National Guard the day of the shootings...after which the students refused to disperse. Do these sound like peaceful events?

Locally, our "Occupy Pittsburgh"event is a joke. The idiots are squatting in a plaza owned by one of the corporations (BNY Mellon) that they're protesting against. How the hell does that work? At least they haven't been forcefully evicted...yet.

Also amusing, is the "99%" thing. Last time I checked, that includes most of the bankers who work on Wall Street. Anyone see a problem here?

[Gravekeeper]

Also amusing, is the "99%" thing. Last time I checked, that includes most of the bankers who work on Wall Street. Anyone see a problem here?

Its not the drones they're after ( Though even a first year anaylist drone makes 90-150k year plus 125k in misc compensation + bonuses as of 2010 ). Its the fuckers above them in middle and upper management. The ones who have basically increased their own bonuses threefold over the last few years then whined for a bail out. Then took that money and basically rubbed it all over their genitals while laughing at the plebs. They paid themselves record breaking bonuses in 2009 to the tune of $150 billion. All of it right from the bail out money.

That could have paid an annual salary of 30k to about 5 million people.

In the first year after the shit hit the fan, everyone else lost on average 25% off their 401k. Meanwhile the richest 400 fuckers in America increased their wealth by 30 billion. Thus, 99% is a reference to how 1% of the world's population currently owns 40% of its wealth.

It is not that Occupy doesn't realise some of the some of the bankers fall into the 99%, its that some of the bankers don't care that they fall into the 99% since they can easily break half a million in salary, bonuses and compensation in just 2-3 years. ;p

[Greenday]

I thought the reason for Wall Street was also more of a symbolism thing.

[smileyeagle1021]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/5...group.html.csp



Seriously you people crack me up.

I know I'm really late to this party... but seriously, Salt Lake Tribune as a major media source?
Only someone outside of Salt Lake would fully trust the Tribune, when we want serious journalism we turn to either KSL or Fox13... the tribune is good for killing time at work and op-ed pieces.

Second, you failed to mention context.
The article mentions conflicts between the occupy protestors and the homeless in the park... it wouldn't matter who was in the park, be it occupy protestors, the summer twilight concert series, or the farmer's bloody market, there will be conflicts between them and the homeless people in that park. The homeless people of that park are upset that the park is gaining popularity because now they have to go elsewhere to do drugs and get drunk, the homeless people in that park are for the most part not the unfortunate type that lost their jobs and just never got back on their feet, no, they are the ones who prefer to not live as contributing members of society.
And if that is the most damning article you can find about the Salt Lake protesters, I'd say we're doing damned good. Seriously, the article is the protesters admitting there have been problems and that they are working to solve them, if our government would be that proactive maybe we wouldn't need Tea Party protesters and Occupy Wall Street protesters.

[Nyoibo]

Locally, our "Occupy Pittsburgh"event is a joke. The idiots are squatting in a plaza owned by one of the corporations (BNY Mellon) that they're protesting against. How the hell does that work? At least they haven't been forcefully evicted...yet.

See, that's just dumb, if it's privately owned they have no right to be there unless the owners allow it, they can be evicted at any time and have no rights to stay there.

[Gravekeeper]

See, that's just dumb, if it's privately owned they have no right to be there unless the owners allow it, they can be evicted at any time and have no rights to stay there.

But by the exact same measure, the fact Occupy Wall Street can't be removed in NY is because they're on private property and the city cannot enforce park curfew. As long as they keep the private owners happy, the police can't do anything. Thats why they've been actively keeping it clean and keeping people out of the flower beds and what not. Because the private company was worried about the park being messed up.

As long as they don't cross the private company, the cops can't do shit to remove them basically. It's a Canadian company at that.