The Democrat Thread

[southsider2k5]

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.

 

It doesn't mean it, but it certainly begs the question. Of course no one has really asked that question, because the conclusion is instantly that cops love crushing skulls.

[StrangeSox]

It doesn't mean it, but it certainly begs the question. Of course no one has really asked that question, because the conclusion is instantly that cops love crushing skulls.

 

Some do, yeah. It's a line of work that draws a disproportionate amount of authoritarians by nature.

 

No one's asking the question because there doesn't appear to be any evidence or indication of the protesters intentionally provoking a violent response.

[southsider2k5]

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.

 

 

Some do, yeah. It's a line of work that draws a disproportionate amount of authoritarians by nature.

 

No one's asking the question because there doesn't appear to be any evidence or indication of the protesters intentionally provoking a violent response.

 

That's not what this report said.

[StrangeSox]

That's not what this report said.

 

That report said that they were pelted on Tuesday morning; the Iraq war vet who had his skull fractured was shot at by police on Tuesday night. The article does say:

 

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.

 

but is the appropriate response to that a barrage of tear gas and rubber bullets? Do we know that this occurred in the same area where this man was shot? Do we know that it wasn't an agent provaceteur? Why aren't these questions being asked?

 

What about the video Balta posted, which did not appear to indicate any violent acts towards the police, nor any warning from the police?

Edited October 27, 2011 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

That report said that they were pelted on Tuesday morning; the Iraq war vet who had his skull fractured was shot at by police on Tuesday night. The article does say:

 

 

 

but is the appropriate response to that a barrage of tear gas and rubber bullets? Do we know that this occurred in the same area where this man was shot? Do we know that it wasn't an agent provaceteur? Why aren't these questions being asked?

 

Why bother, the police are already assumed guilty.

[StrangeSox]

Why bother, the protesters are presumed guilty and clearly intentionally got themselves gassed and skull-fractured.

[southsider2k5]

Why bother, the protesters are presumed guilty and clearly intentionally got themselves gassed and skull-fractured.

 

Except that basically hasn't been said. When the question got asked, it was met with indignant dismissal.

[Y2HH]

Except that basically hasn't been said. When the question got asked, it was met with indignant dismissal.

 

As it usually is. Nobody likes police until they need one. Then it's why weren't they there in 0.0035 seconds?

[GoSox05]

Does it even matter? The police could have fired live rounds into the crowd and not one of them would have been fired.

Edited October 27, 2011 by GoSox05

[StrangeSox]

Here's a report from an independent journalist at the Occupy Oakland protests, including video of her being assaulted by police for the crime of videotaping them.

 

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/25/occupy_oakland_open2011/

 

That's why questioning that tries to absolve police from culpability for their actions in response to non-violent crowds gets met with indignant dismissal. It portrays an ignorance of the history of police action at leftist protest movements.

[Y2HH]

Here's a report from an independent journalist at the Occupy Oakland protests, including video of her being assaulted by police for the crime of videotaping them.

 

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/25/occupy_oakland_open2011/

 

That's why questioning that tries to absolve police from culpability for their actions in response to non-violent crowds gets met with indignant dismissal. It portrays an ignorance of the history of police action at leftist protest movements.

 

Yes, because we should believe the Salon blogger over the f***ing Associated Press report that says otherwise.

 

AP report : Police were met with violence, later that night the protestors inched closer and closer to the police line prompting gas, etc.

 

Salon report : We did nothing wrong and the police are mean and corrupt and bossed us around and started trouble.

 

In the end, I'm sure 99% of the protestors were peaceful, and 99% of the police were peaceful. Problem is, in a crowd type/mob situation, 1% on both sides is all that's required for some of the other 99% to pay the price.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Y2HH

[Y2HH]

Does it even matter? The police could have fired live rounds into the crowd and not one of them would have been fired.

 

Riiiight, because police are never fired. Too bad they are, more often than you know.

[southsider2k5]

Here's a report from an independent journalist at the Occupy Oakland protests, including video of her being assaulted by police for the crime of videotaping them.

 

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/25/occupy_oakland_open2011/

 

That's why questioning that tries to absolve police from culpability for their actions in response to non-violent crowds gets met with indignant dismissal. It portrays an ignorance of the history of police action at leftist protest movements.

 

And ignoring the history of violence in left wing movements is just as ignorant. Especially when we know that there are known illegal activities being planned and staged behind the scenes to intentionally draw attention and sympathy to the movement.

[StrangeSox]

Yes, because we should believe the Salon blogger over the f***ing Associated Press report that says otherwise.

The salon blogger was assaulted by police for the crime of videotaping them. Nothing in the AP report contradicts that.

[GoSox05]

I wonder if the police would ever do something like this to a tea party protest?

[StrangeSox]

And ignoring the history of violence in left wing movements is just as ignorant. Especially when we know that there are known illegal activities being planned and staged behind the scenes to intentionally draw attention and sympathy to the movement.

 

We know this?

[southsider2k5]

I wonder if the police would ever do something like this to a tea party protest?

 

Totally different animal. For #1, there were no illegal occupations of public spaces being attempted.

[southsider2k5]

We know this?

 

Yes.

[Balta1701]

I wonder if the police would ever do something like this to a tea party protest?

What the #occupy protests need is a series of people standing around with legally permitted AK-47's.

[NorthSideSox72]

I wonder if the police would ever do something like this to a tea party protest?

The Tea Party protests were not of the same nature. There are definitely similarities, but none of them tried to "occupy" anything, and that is the key difference here. I can't believe I am defending the Tea Party, but in this case, I am.

 

The idea that somehow lefty protestors are more likely to be violent is a joke, as the opposite is probably true. But it IS true that this particular movement has much more often chosen illegal methods of protest (mostly about trespassing and traffic obstruction and what not), than the Tea Party ones have.

 

[StrangeSox]

Yes, because we should believe the Salon blogger over the f***ing Associated Press report that says otherwise.

 

AP report : Police were met with violence, later that night the protestors inched closer and closer to the police line prompting gas, etc.

 

Only evidence appears to be police claims, not independent verification, so incredibly skeptical.

 

Salon report : We did nothing wrong and the police are mean and corrupt and bossed us around and started trouble.

 

Has video of self being shoved to ground for the crime of filming, credible.

 

In the end, I'm sure 99% of the protestors were peaceful, and 99% of the police were peaceful. Problem is, in a crowd type/mob situation, 1% on both sides is all that's required for some of the other 99% to pay the price.

 

1% of protesters throwing bottles at police doesn't get the other 99% to jump in; 1% of police firing rubber bullets and teargas into the crowd generally gets the other 99% of the police involved. A forceful response provoked by bottle-throwing can still be a disproportionate response of force.

[StrangeSox]

Yes.

 

oh, ok.

[Y2HH]

Only evidence appears to be police claims, not independent verification, so incredibly skeptical.

 

 

 

Has video of self being shoved to ground for the crime of filming, credible.

 

 

 

1% of protesters throwing bottles at police doesn't get the other 99% to jump in; 1% of police firing rubber bullets and teargas into the crowd generally gets the other 99% of the police involved. A forceful response provoked by bottle-throwing can still be a disproportionate response of force.

 

Wrong, it's exactly how riots begin.

 

Not only wrong, but willfully ignorant.

 

It's pretty clear you're anti-cop, which is fine...but it means it's futile to even try having an discussion about this with you.

 

You : The police are guilty and protestors are innocent.

 

Me (and a few others) : 99% of both sides are pretty innocent, but 1% caused problems.

 

That's the difference here.

[Y2HH]

The Tea Party protests were not of the same nature. There are definitely similarities, but none of them tried to "occupy" anything, and that is the key difference here. I can't believe I am defending the Tea Party, but in this case, I am.

 

The idea that somehow lefty protestors are more likely to be violent is a joke, as the opposite is probably true. But it IS true that this particular movement has much more often chosen illegal methods of protest (mostly about trespassing and traffic obstruction and what not), than the Tea Party ones have.

 

Stop being rational. When we make blind comparisons like this, it's obvious they're the EXACT SAME.

[StrangeSox]

It sure as hell doesn't look like there's many (if any at all) people assaulting the cops in every video and photo available. It sure as hell does look like a large amount of the police force began firing on the crowd, whether or not it was provoked.