Occupy Wall Street and police brutality

EdsonNascimento

Drowned Out wrote:

No. Are you telling me it's ok for the police to mislead a protest march in order to gain an excuse to end it?

How do you come to that conclusion? The police LEAD the march? That is insane. Yes, they were in front. To make sure nobody caused havoc. But, they didn't say - hey! follow me!! I know the fastest way off this island.

Drowned Out

cincybearcat wrote:

First of all, yes I was interested in your answer. Because it's suppose to be a discussion, doesn't have to be confrontational 100% of the time.

Secondly, I'm not sure I would agree in saying that the police "mislead" as I'm not sure they are leading. But an interesting question.

Fair enough. I'm a confrontational person, what can I say? Not my best trait, I'm workin on it...;)

Drowned Out

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Drowned Out wrote:

No. Are you telling me it's ok for the police to mislead a protest march in order to gain an excuse to end it?

How do you come to that conclusion? The police LEAD the march? That is insane. Yes, they were in front. To make sure nobody caused havoc. But, they didn't say - hey! follow me!! I know the fastest way off this island.

You're taking the 'lead' part too literally. I meant in the context of a false impression....by giving the protesters ground, closing the bridge, and possibly making it appear to some that it was ok to cross. Honestly, I have only read a couple articles about this and haven't watch much video...but this is a tried and true tactic. Corralling was used very effectively and very unfairly at the Toronto G20 protests. There, regardless of what the protesters' intent was, they were going to jail. In fact, some people 'penned in' were not even protesters. There were several instances in which people wanted to leave and get out of the situation they found themselves in, but police had them surrounded and would not allow them to disperse. Do you think that's right? That once made aware that they were doing something the police were not ok with, they had no chance to disperse? (ie: marching across a closed bridge that not all protesters knew was ill-advised). The police intent with corralling is to intimidate and to crush the march and prevent it from becoming a more popular movement, not to keep anyone safe.

Here's the documentary I referenced earlier....Corralling examples a'plenty here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZxkAn-g4Xo

PS - still waiting on those other points....

gimmesometruth27

EdsonNascimento wrote:

You are right. I don't. Neither do you. But, I do know their intent was to walk the bridge and attempt something. Were they going to stick to the walkways? I don't know. Neither do you. Netiher do the police officers. So, they took the safest route and said - I'd rather stop traffic, make sure nobody gets hurt and solve this problem peacefully. They were successful. I don't see how anyone can have a problem with this. Would you rather they took the chance that some DID flood into traffic and see what happened? Or would you prefer they take steps based on experience to diffuse the issue peacefully?

The protestors still had the option NOT to walk onto the bridge. In your "impartial" videos I didn't see the guns to the protestors heads to walk the bridge. Are you still developing that film?

it was on the cbs website, and on youtube. you can google it just as well as i can. no need to be asinine about it.

EdsonNascimento

Drowned Out wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Drowned Out wrote:

No. Are you telling me it's ok for the police to mislead a protest march in order to gain an excuse to end it?

How do you come to that conclusion? The police LEAD the march? That is insane. Yes, they were in front. To make sure nobody caused havoc. But, they didn't say - hey! follow me!! I know the fastest way off this island.

You're taking the 'lead' part too literally. I meant in the context of a false impression....by giving the protesters ground, closing the bridge, and possibly making it appear to some that it was ok to cross. Honestly, I have only read a couple articles about this and haven't watch much video...but this is a tried and true tactic. Corralling was used very effectively and very unfairly at the Toronto G20 protests. There, regardless of what the protesters' intent was, they were going to jail. In fact, some people 'penned in' were not even protesters. There were several instances in which people wanted to leave and get out of the situation they found themselves in, but police had them surrounded and would not allow them to disperse. Do you think that's right? That once made aware that they were doing something the police were not ok with, they had no chance to disperse? (ie: marching across a closed bridge that not all protesters knew was ill-advised). The police intent with corralling is to intimidate and to crush the march and prevent it from becoming a more popular movement, not to keep anyone safe.

Here's the documentary I referenced earlier....Corralling examples a'plenty here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZxkAn-g4Xo

PS - still waiting on those other points....

Again, I got what you were saying, and you were the one taking it literally. They are not LEADING them onto the bridge - that is your literlal interpretation of what they are doing. They are ahead of them on the bridge executing their plan to prevent chaos.

EdsonNascimento

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

You are right. I don't. Neither do you. But, I do know their intent was to walk the bridge and attempt something. Were they going to stick to the walkways? I don't know. Neither do you. Netiher do the police officers. So, they took the safest route and said - I'd rather stop traffic, make sure nobody gets hurt and solve this problem peacefully. They were successful. I don't see how anyone can have a problem with this. Would you rather they took the chance that some DID flood into traffic and see what happened? Or would you prefer they take steps based on experience to diffuse the issue peacefully?

The protestors still had the option NOT to walk onto the bridge. In your "impartial" videos I didn't see the guns to the protestors heads to walk the bridge. Are you still developing that film?

it was on the cbs website, and on youtube. you can google it just as well as i can. no need to be asinine about it.

So, totally impartial people posted those videos? Fine. The point is - where's the part that shows the police forcing them into the "trap?" Not very intelligent leader. Not very intelligent followers if you ask me. Maybe, if I was drunk, I might not have taken the bullhorned notification that we would be arrested if we stepped foot on the bridge. But, basically, that's the leaders of the protest being completely irresponsible. If their followers did not know, they are the ones responsible to make sure they knew what they were getting themselves into.

gimmesometruth27

EdsonNascimento wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

You are right. I don't. Neither do you. But, I do know their intent was to walk the bridge and attempt something. Were they going to stick to the walkways? I don't know. Neither do you. Netiher do the police officers. So, they took the safest route and said - I'd rather stop traffic, make sure nobody gets hurt and solve this problem peacefully. They were successful. I don't see how anyone can have a problem with this. Would you rather they took the chance that some DID flood into traffic and see what happened? Or would you prefer they take steps based on experience to diffuse the issue peacefully?

The protestors still had the option NOT to walk onto the bridge. In your "impartial" videos I didn't see the guns to the protestors heads to walk the bridge. Are you still developing that film?

it was on the cbs website, and on youtube. you can google it just as well as i can. no need to be asinine about it.

So, totally impartial people posted those videos? Fine. The point is - where's the part that shows the police forcing them into the "trap?" Not very intelligent leader. Not very intelligent followers if you ask me. Maybe, if I was drunk, I might not have taken the bullhorned notification that we would be arrested if we stepped foot on the bridge. But, basically, that's the leaders of the protest being completely irresponsible. If their followers did not know, they are the ones responsible to make sure they knew what they were getting themselves into.

the video i am talking about was the one from the cbs reporter and crew walking with the crowd taht aired on the national network news last night. it is from a professional camera, not some shitty cell phone camera. why do you assume that it is sarcastically impartial??? there is no talking with you. too many assumptions and hypotheticals.

why not just admit you are all for police brutality and all for the subterfuge these cops pulled in this case that will shortly be under review in the courts. there has already been one lawsuit filed, and i am sure more will follow.

EdsonNascimento

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

why do you assume that it is sarcastically impartial??? there is no talking with you. too many assumptions and hypotheticals.

why not just admit you are all for police brutality and all for the subterfuge these cops pulled in this case that will shortly be under review in the courts. there has already been one lawsuit filed, and i am sure more will follow.

I do agree with what the police did. I do not agree with excessive use of force. But, I am not in the Police's shoes when these things go down. If they fell threatened, and they go a little overboard, then I'm fine with it. I do not agree with just walking over to people and beating them with sticks. But, I will cut the NYPD slack over a protestor every day of the week.

That video does not show what occured prior. I'm not saying they edited the actual footage they have. But, it does not necessarily (and I don't know that it doesn't either) give the entire context. So, the police get the benefit of my doubt.

Lawsuits - the refuge of the weak (in cases like this). We'll break the law to get our point across, but if you do anything that even pretends to cross the line, we'll use the law against you.

As others have said - I am sure there are incidents where police cross the line. No profession is full of angels. But, for the most part, they are trying to do their jobs to the best of their abilities and get home safely to THEIR children. It's a dangerous jobs that nuts like these only make tougher.

cincybearcat

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Lawsuits - the refuge of the weak (in cases like this). We'll break the law to get our point across, but if you do anything that even pretends to cross the line, we'll use the law against you.

That is the great irony of this.

EdsonNascimento

cincybearcat wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Lawsuits - the refuge of the weak (in cases like this). We'll break the law to get our point across, but if you do anything that even pretends to cross the line, we'll use the law against you.

That is the great irony of this.

Maybe, this was their plan all along. Brilliant!! They will get their college loans paid (and still not have a job that pays above poverty in the arts) after all!

Jeanwah

cincybearcat wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Lawsuits - the refuge of the weak (in cases like this). We'll break the law to get our point across, but if you do anything that even pretends to cross the line, we'll use the law against you.

That is the great irony of this.

How many times does it take to get through to you two???

Protesting is NOT ILLEGAL!!

gimmesometruth27

EdsonNascimento wrote:

I do agree with what the police did. I do not agree with excessive use of force. But, I am not in the Police's shoes when these things go down. If they fell threatened, and they go a little overboard, then I'm fine with it. I do not agree with just walking over to people and beating them with sticks. But, I will cut the NYPD slack over a protestor every day of the week.

That video does not show what occured prior. I'm not saying they edited the actual footage they have. But, it does not necessarily (and I don't know that it doesn't either) give the entire context. So, the police get the benefit of my doubt.

Lawsuits - the refuge of the weak (in cases like this). We'll break the law to get our point across, but if you do anything that even pretends to cross the line, we'll use the law against you.As others have said - I am sure there are incidents where police cross the line. No profession is full of angels. But, for the most part, they are trying to do their jobs to the best of their abilities and get home safely to THEIR children. It's a dangerous jobs that nuts like these only make tougher.

i hope your views on lawsuits remain consistent 20 years from now if you have a son or daughter that decides to stand up against an injustice, perceived or otherwise, and winds up on the wrong end of a police baton, or teargas, or handcuffs... but i somehow doubt that you would be so rigid in your thinking...

EdsonNascimento

Jeanwah wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Lawsuits - the refuge of the weak (in cases like this). We'll break the law to get our point across, but if you do anything that even pretends to cross the line, we'll use the law against you.

That is the great irony of this.

How many times does it take to get through to you two???

Protesting is NOT ILLEGAL!!

Correct. But, crossing the bridge (for example) after being told not to is. Nobody saying the protesting itself is illegal. But, it is illegal to assemble in certain places. Don't block public streets that we all pay taxes for without a permit. That is illegal.

EdsonNascimento

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i hope your views on lawsuits remain consistent 20 years from now if you have a son or daughter that decides to stand up against an injustice, perceived or otherwise, and winds up on the wrong end of a police baton, or teargas, or handcuffs... but i somehow doubt that you would be so rigid in your thinking...

I will. When my kid comes home and says so and so hit him, my first comment to them is - what did you do? (of course the first answer is nothing).

My kids are being raised to be responsible for themselves. They are also taught that there are processees to follow if you have a complaint or issue. If they show up on Wall Street whining they don't have a job because they chose to major in the arts, police batons, teargas and handcuffs will be their best options to coming home...

gimmesometruth27

the bridge incident is a microcosm of the entire protest. the focus should not be on that. there was actually police brutality early on, and there will be more later if the protesters stay there or if the numbers grow.

EdsonNascimento

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

the bridge incident is a microcosm of the entire protest. the focus should not be on that. there was actually police brutality early on, and there will be more later if the protesters stay there or if the numbers grow.

There is no doubt the bigger it gets the more chance for that to happen. But, why aren't those the exceptions? Only the protesters get to site exceptions?

The general rule will be that the police will act in good faith to the best of their abilities for the GREATER good. There will be exceptions to this rule.

I will guarantee, as we've already seen - there will be more protesters breaking laws than abiding. The ones abiding by the law will be the exception.

I know police are held to a higher standard (as they should be). If someone is breaking the law, they should be brought to justice on both sides. However, as I've already said - police have the benefit of my doubt in all incidents, and none of it should be tried in the court of public opinion.

cincybearcat

Jeanwah wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Lawsuits - the refuge of the weak (in cases like this). We'll break the law to get our point across, but if you do anything that even pretends to cross the line, we'll use the law against you.

That is the great irony of this.

How many times does it take to get through to you two???

Protesting is NOT ILLEGAL!!

It sometimes is depending on what you are doing, no?

cincybearcat

cincybearcat wrote:

I find this wall street occupation fascinating.

It's like they are stealing from the Tea party... the idea that if you throw out enough grievances that you are protesting, you can get a pretty big group to follow. It's all good now, I just wonder how it will end up with so many different agendas when push comes to shove.

Though I took some heat, looks like someone agrees with me...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/10/06/ ... index.html

Cosmo

cincybearcat wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

I find this wall street occupation fascinating.

It's like they are stealing from the Tea party... the idea that if you throw out enough grievances that you are protesting, you can get a pretty big group to follow. It's all good now, I just wonder how it will end up with so many different agendas when push comes to shove.

Though I took some heat, looks like someone agrees with me...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/10/06/ ... index.html

...
I agree with you. The Tea Party arose because of anger... anger at the political system and its symbionic relationship with corporations and banks. The original Tea Party intent was to oust every incumbant Representative when their term came up for election.
However, the Tea Party was hi-jacked by the Republican Party (using their voice box, FOX News). The current Tea Party is nothing more than the Christian Coalition without the hard-on about the abortion issue.

gimmesometruth27

EdsonNascimento wrote:

I will guarantee, as we've already seen - there will be more protesters breaking laws than abiding. The ones abiding by the law will be the exception.

I know police are held to a higher standard (as they should be). If someone is breaking the law, they should be brought to justice on both sides. However, as I've already said - police have the benefit of my doubt in all incidents, and none of it should be tried in the court of public opinion.

how the fuck can you begin to speculate the underlined part??

have you got a crystal ball or something??

it sounds to me like you are generalizing an entire population of people. most of those protesting have been well behaved. far more have been well behaved than not. now it seems like you are just baiting people to get a response...

and nothing should be tried in the court of public opinion?? thank god that was not the prevailing attitude during the the civil rights movement or the anti vietnam war movement. as long as there are media there with rolling cameras things are going to be tried in the court of public opinion whether you like it or not.