The Democrat Thread

[NorthSideSox72]

Then none of them should have been used to disperse a peaceful crowd (sans physical restraint in the event that a person is actually arrested).

If they were indeed a truly peaceful crowd, just sitting or standing there or talking and what not, then I agree, none of those are necessary or reasonable.

 

[Balta1701]

Here is helicopter news video of the start of the attack. The crowd stands there, milling around, people walking around, for the first :30. Then things start exploding in the middle of the crowd and everyone runs.

[NorthSideSox72]

Here is helicopter news video of the start of the attack. The crowd stands there, milling around, people walking around, for the first :30. Then things start exploding in the middle of the crowd and everyone runs.

Well, I watched the video. First thing worth noting is, they were "standing" in the middle of a large intersection. So certainly they needed to be dispersed. And apparently, the police used verbal and bullhorn warnings for quite a while beforehand. So as far as I am concerned, they all should have had the expectation they'd be arrested.

 

But now, the question is, what police tactics do you use? It would seem like the best thing to do, at least to start with, is to have the police move in a tight group to one area of the crowd, and start cuffing people and taking them away. Ideally, you just keep doing this repeatedly until everyone is gone. If things go relatively smoothly, there is no need to do much else.

 

My question is, was that sort of thing already tried? To me, that is the key here. If they tried that, and were met with physical resistance by a large crowd, then I am totally Ok with them backing off and firing gas cannisters into the crowd to disperse them. But if they skipped that step, and went straight from verbal warnings to gas cannisters, then I agree it was too much force escalation too quickly.

 

Does anyone know the answer to that key question?

 

[Y2HH]

Well, I watched the video. First thing worth noting is, they were "standing" in the middle of a large intersection. So certainly they needed to be dispersed. And apparently, the police used verbal and bullhorn warnings for quite a while beforehand. So as far as I am concerned, they all should have had the expectation they'd be arrested.

 

But now, the question is, what police tactics do you use? It would seem like the best thing to do, at least to start with, is to have the police move in a tight group to one area of the crowd, and start cuffing people and taking them away. Ideally, you just keep doing this repeatedly until everyone is gone. If things go relatively smoothly, there is no need to do much else.

 

My question is, was that sort of thing already tried? To me, that is the key here. If they tried that, and were met with physical resistance by a large crowd, then I am totally Ok with them backing off and firing gas cannisters into the crowd to disperse them. But if they skipped that step, and went straight from verbal warnings to gas cannisters, then I agree it was too much force escalation too quickly.

 

Does anyone know the answer to that key question?

 

Of course they don't. The police are the bad guys, they always use brutal unsafe tactics and the protestors are innocent victims that never do anything wrong. Never-mind the fact that they were clearly breaking the law by standing in the middle of an intersection, which is a huge safety issue in and of itself. Never-mind the fact they were disrupting other peoples lives via traffic issues and creating a chaotic environment despite "standing there". I'm sorry, but when I see a huge crowd "standing there", it makes me not want to be there, which is a personal disruption on what would otherwise be publicly accessible property I may wish to use for it's intended purpose, such as crossing the street. How am I supposed to know what they will or will not do if I attempt to walk around the area? Answer is I don't.

 

Let me be the first to say I'm not against you protesting, but do it legally, and do it right. That means NOT in the middle of a street, or in front of a business other people may wish to use. Unlike in the past, the Internet exists...organize yourself, advertise the protest, and do it peacefully without going out of your way to interrupt everything around you.

 

As the brother of a cop, this is again a situation where it's easy to armchair quarterback, but it's never easy when you have to make the spot decision on your own. What if it was you? While I know many of you wish the best of everyone, and feel you'd be ready for anything, the fact is when you tell someone to move, repeatedly, and they don't/outright refuse to do so -- it's obvious that they asking for confrontation. Now, as the cop standing face to face with them, what do you do? Do you attempt to move them in a peaceful manner, such as with handcuffs, not knowing what the surrounding (and imposing) crowds reaction will be? Far be it for me to say this to you, but these "evil pigs" have families they want to see again. They already live a life of acceptable risk every single day on that job, which is a thankless job because when 0.5% of them break the law or use brutal tactics, most of the country lump the other 99.5% of them in with the bad. Thus when police decide it's not worth the risk, after repeatedly asking people to stop breaking the law, and someone gets hurt...

 

Well...this is what you get. An outpouring of typical anti-police rhetoric combined with nothing but second-guess armchair quarterbacking at it's worst.

[Balta1701]

The fact that there is a clear gap between the police line and the protestors, the fact that there's no obvious activity near the police line , and the fact that everyone else is just milling around (and a substantial portion arent either flocking to or away from the confrontation) argues pretty strongly that they fired without warning.

 

If the police even threatened force, a decent chunk of that crowd would have moved quick, the other would have been pushed towards the threatening line.

 

There are also plenty of anecdotes saying the shots came from no where without warning, but those are admittedly anecdotes and I think the crowd behavior is much more conclusive.

 

I think it's probably very likely that they decided hours beforehand that they weren't going to go through the trouble of dispersing the crowd and arresting people who refused, and the weapons were easier and quicker.

[Y2HH]

The fact that there is a clear gap between the police line and the protestors, the fact that there's no obvious activity near the police line , and the fact that everyone else is just milling around (and a substantial portion arent either flocking to or away from the confrontation) argues pretty strongly that they fired without warning.

 

If the police even threatened force, a decent chunk of that crowd would have moved quick, the other would have been pushed towards the threatening line.

 

There are also plenty of anecdotes saying the shots came from no where without warning, but those are admittedly anecdotes and I think the crowd behavior is much more conclusive.

 

I think it's probably very likely that they decided hours beforehand that they weren't going to go through the trouble of dispersing the crowd and arresting people who refused, and the weapons were easier and quicker.

 

Except for the FACT that the newscaster, around the 2:10 mark, SAY the police issued repeated warnings.

 

Also, to edit -- using such tactics isn't something a single cop would make, this had to come from someone more powerful in City in question.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

Warnings to leave? Because those were out 6 hours in advance. Warnings that they were about to open fire?

[Balta1701]

Oh and the reason why that was in the street was that in response to the threat to break the camp up, it wound up turning into a march, and that location was where the police decided to stop the march.

[Y2HH]

Warnings to leave? Because those were out 6 hours in advance. Warnings that they were about to open fire?

 

I'd be VERY surprised if they didn't issue pretty clear warnings about that since that's standard procedure in such cirumstances. I'm dubious about the report as after the reporter clearly says they issued warnings, she immediately backtracks and claims "well, we couldn't hear them on the megaphone...and we don't know if issued warnings about the tear gas...but they still issued warnings"...that just reeks of a reporter trying to make something out of nothing.

 

I'm going to go with her first reaction to the question posed -- and that's that warnings were issued pretty clearly.

[Y2HH]

After reading up on this on a report posted by the Associated Press, sounds to me like the police/city were pressed to take the action they took.

 

"In Oakland, officials initially supported the protests, with Mayor Jean Quan saying that sometimes "democracy is messy."

 

But tensions reached a boiling point after a sexual assault, a severe beating and a fire were reported and paramedics were denied access to the camp, according to city officials. They also cited concerns about rats, fire hazards and public urination.

 

Demonstrators disputed the city's claims, saying that volunteers collect garbage and recycling every six hours, that water is boiled before being used to wash dishes and that rats have long infested the park.

 

When riot gear-clad police moved in early Tuesday, they were pelted with rocks, bottles and utensils from people in the camp's kitchen area. They emptied the camp near city hall of people, and barricaded the plaza.

 

Protesters were taken away in plastic handcuffs, most of them arrested on suspicion of illegal lodging.

 

Demonstrators returned later in the day to march and retake the plaza. They were met by police officers in riot gear. Several small skirmishes broke out and officers cleared the area by firing tear gas.

 

The scene repeated itself several times just a few blocks away in front of the plaza.

 

Tensions would build as protesters edged ever closer to the police line and reach a breaking point with a demonstrator hurling a bottle or rock, prompting police to respond with another round of gas."

 

After this all occurred -- on Tuesday -- the protestors planned to return to the scene on Wednesday (tonight). I have no problems with exercising their right to protest peacefully and within the law, but this doesn't sound very peaceful to me. It sounds like some of these protestors were looking for a fight, and when they got one, they cried foul.

 

Full article: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

 

So according to the AP, when the police arrived they were greeted by being pelted with rocks, bottles and various utensils? Far be it for me to say this, but just because police are waring riot gear, it doesn't make it ok to react like this, and then pretend it didn't happen while playing the innocent victim card.

 

In the end, I'm sure there will be proper investigation of any police doing more than they were supposed to do or instructed to do -- I'm sure there are endless amounts of footage on Youtube showing how evil the police were in this situation...and any officer doing anything illegal will undoubtedly be on tape doing it.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Y2HH

[southsider2k5]

Based on the history's of other occupy protests, this was all set up ahead of time. A part of the strategy has been to get a certain number of people arrested to keep attention and sympathy on the protests.

[GoSox05]

Based on the history's of other occupy protests, this was all set up ahead of time. A part of the strategy has been to get a certain number of people arrested to keep attention and sympathy on the protests.

 

Probably. I bet the Communist Party USA was behind it. With backing from Castro.

[southsider2k5]

Probably. I bet the Communist Party USA was behind it. With backing from Castro.

 

I wouldn't go as far as to call Chicago teachers communists...

 

http://biggovernment.com/kolson/2011/10/18...-scam-unmasked/

[GoSox05]

I wouldn't go as far as to call Chicago teachers communists...

 

http://biggovernment.com/kolson/2011/10/18...-scam-unmasked/

 

Nazi and Communists working together! Holy s***. This goes deeper than I thought.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

The fact that there is a clear gap between the police line and the protestors, the fact that there's no obvious activity near the police line , and the fact that everyone else is just milling around (and a substantial portion arent either flocking to or away from the confrontation) argues pretty strongly that they fired without warning.

 

If the police even threatened force, a decent chunk of that crowd would have moved quick, the other would have been pushed towards the threatening line.

 

There are also plenty of anecdotes saying the shots came from no where without warning, but those are admittedly anecdotes and I think the crowd behavior is much more conclusive.

 

I think it's probably very likely that they decided hours beforehand that they weren't going to go through the trouble of dispersing the crowd and arresting people who refused, and the weapons were easier and quicker.

 

You may be right, or maybe not, and frankly, where the crowd was standing just moments before they were fired on doesn't tell me much of anything.

 

As we learn more...

 

After reading up on this on a report posted by the Associated Press, sounds to me like the police/city were pressed to take the action they took.

 

"In Oakland, officials initially supported the protests, with Mayor Jean Quan saying that sometimes "democracy is messy."

 

But tensions reached a boiling point after a sexual assault, a severe beating and a fire were reported and paramedics were denied access to the camp, according to city officials. They also cited concerns about rats, fire hazards and public urination.

 

Demonstrators disputed the city's claims, saying that volunteers collect garbage and recycling every six hours, that water is boiled before being used to wash dishes and that rats have long infested the park.

 

When riot gear-clad police moved in early Tuesday, they were pelted with rocks, bottles and utensils from people in the camp's kitchen area. They emptied the camp near city hall of people, and barricaded the plaza.

 

Protesters were taken away in plastic handcuffs, most of them arrested on suspicion of illegal lodging.

 

Demonstrators returned later in the day to march and retake the plaza. They were met by police officers in riot gear. Several small skirmishes broke out and officers cleared the area by firing tear gas.

 

The scene repeated itself several times just a few blocks away in front of the plaza.

 

Tensions would build as protesters edged ever closer to the police line and reach a breaking point with a demonstrator hurling a bottle or rock, prompting police to respond with another round of gas."

 

After this all occurred -- on Tuesday -- the protestors planned to return to the scene on Wednesday (tonight). I have no problems with exercising their right to protest peacefully and within the law, but this doesn't sound very peaceful to me. It sounds like some of these protestors were looking for a fight, and when they got one, they cried foul.

 

Full article: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

 

So according to the AP, when the police arrived they were greeted by being pelted with rocks, bottles and various utensils? Far be it for me to say this, but just because police are waring riot gear, it doesn't make it ok to react like this, and then pretend it didn't happen while playing the innocent victim card.

 

In the end, I'm sure there will be proper investigation of any police doing more than they were supposed to do or instructed to do -- I'm sure there are endless amounts of footage on Youtube showing how evil the police were in this situation...and any officer doing anything illegal will undoubtedly be on tape doing it.

 

Multiple references there to skirmishes and violent actions. Are the protestors right about what happened? Or the police? Probably some of both. Either way, physical violence had occurred, so I'm not overly mad about the use of CS in this case. We will never know for sure of course.

 

I've actually been in a few crowd situations. And I've seen a successful, peaceful protest. They were all sitting down, talking and praying, in that case. We warned them multiple times they'd be arrested, they acknowledged it, some elected to leave, some stayed. Those that stayed, we restrained, and escorted out. None resisted physically, a few went limp for a bit, but that was the worst of it. They elected to protest peacefully.

 

If Occupy wants to be more aggressive, I can actually sympathize with why they may choose to. But they then have to accept the consequences.

 

Then there is the final element here... the larger a crowd like that gets, the higher the likelihood that even if the majority ARE peaceful, there will be one or a few people who turn it into something else. That's just the nature of the beast. I don't really believe that most of the Occupy protestors are violent people, or even want to be violent in this case... just as I don't think that most of the Tea Party people at those rallies are proud KKK members. But in both cases, it just takes a few bad apples, and those are the ones we see on TV... those are the ones who cause a protest to become a riot.

 

 

[Y2HH]

Multiple references there to skirmishes and violent actions. Are the protestors right about what happened? Or the police? Probably some of both. Either way, physical violence had occurred, so I'm not overly mad about the use of CS in this case. We will never know for sure of course.

 

I've actually been in a few crowd situations. And I've seen a successful, peaceful protest. They were all sitting down, talking and praying, in that case. We warned them multiple times they'd be arrested, they acknowledged it, some elected to leave, some stayed. Those that stayed, we restrained, and escorted out. None resisted physically, a few went limp for a bit, but that was the worst of it. They elected to protest peacefully.

 

If Occupy wants to be more aggressive, I can actually sympathize with why they may choose to. But they then have to accept the consequences.

 

Then there is the final element here... the larger a crowd like that gets, the higher the likelihood that even if the majority ARE peaceful, there will be one or a few people who turn it into something else. That's just the nature of the beast. I don't really believe that most of the Occupy protestors are violent people, or even want to be violent in this case... just as I don't think that most of the Tea Party people at those rallies are proud KKK members. But in both cases, it just takes a few bad apples, and those are the ones we see on TV... those are the ones who cause a protest to become a riot.

 

Agreed.

[Y2HH]

[southsider2k5]

 

:lolhitting :lolhitting :lolhitting

[Balta1701]

Based on the history's of other occupy protests, this was all set up ahead of time. A part of the strategy has been to get a certain number of people arrested to keep attention and sympathy on the protests.

It's definitely true that people were willing to get arrested due to the camp breaking up. I won't complain about that.

 

The question is about the firing of stuff into the crowd.

[Balta1701]

Here's another statement from Oakland's mayor.

We support the goals of the Occupy Wall Street movement: we have high levels of unemployment and we have high levels of foreclosure that makes Oakland part of the 99% too. We are a progressive city and tolerant of many opinions. We may not always agree, but we all have a right to be heard.

 

I want to thank everyone for the peaceful demonstration at Frank Ogawa Park tonight, and thank the city employees who worked hard to clean up the plaza so that all activities can continue including Occupy Wall Street. We have decided to have a minimal police presence at the plaza for the short term and build a community effort to improve communications and dialogue with the demonstrators.

 

99% of our officers stayed professional during difficult and dangerous circumstances as did some of the demonstrators who dissuaded other protestors from vandalizing downtown and for helping to keep the demonstrations peaceful. For the most part, demonstrations over the past two weeks have been peaceful. We hope they continue to be so.

 

I want to express our deepest concern for all of those who were injured last night, and we are committed to ensuring this does not happen again. Investigations of certain incidents are underway and I will personally monitor them.

 

We understand and recognize the impact this event has had on the community and acknowledge what has happened. We cannot change the past, but we are committed to doing better.

 

Most of us are part of the 99%, and understand the spirit of the Occupy Wall Street Movement. We are committed to honoring their free speech right.

 

Finally, we understand the demonstrators want to meet with me and Chief Jordan. We welcome open dialogue with representatives of Occupy Wall Street members, and we are willing to meet with them as soon as possible.

Oakland's mayor believes that some portion of the police presence did not act professionally.

[StrangeSox]

Notably, 1%.

[Balta1701]

Notably, 1%.

1% of people with guns acting irresponsibly is a lot worse than a significant number of people with bottles.

[StrangeSox]

1% of people with guns acting irresponsibly is a lot worse than a significant number of people with bottles.

 

"WE.ARE.THE99%!"

 

I was referencing the ongoing theme of the occupations, not trying to downplay police violence.

[southsider2k5]

It's definitely true that people were willing to get arrested due to the camp breaking up. I won't complain about that.

 

The question is about the firing of stuff into the crowd.

 

It also brings the question of how much of it was staged and/or induced for TV.

[StrangeSox]

It also brings the question of how much of it was staged and/or induced for TV.

 

The point of a protest is publicity for your cause. Obviously they expected their removal from the park/march to be covered. That doesn't meant they intentionally provoked a violent response.