The Democrat Thread

[southsider2k5]

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.

 

That is the whole question right there. Especially when you are way outnumbered.

[GoSox05]

So many policeman have been killed at protests in this country. I could see why they would feel threatened by mostly college kids.

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

Right, there hasn't really been any aspect of civil disobedience in the Tea Party protests/gatherings. I'm not sure about the claim that leftist protesters aren't more likely to be violent is true, either. Mostly because you don't see the radical ultranationalist rightwing elements (secessionist/Aryan nation militia group types) at Tea Party rallies, but also radical leftism doesn't exactly have a non-violent history. Note that you need to start really dissecting apart "the American left" into leftists and liberals to see that granularity.

[Y2HH]

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.

 

So the AP are liars, and all the innocent bloggers without agendas are telling the truth.

 

And internet video is possibly one of the WORST things you can use, since they always show what's happening when the police strike -- not the 5 minutes before hand. Context means everything. The only videos that could mean anything in such a case are unedited ones, which you won't find coming from OWS backers.

 

If that video is in context, the cop will get fired, trust me.

[Y2HH]

So many policeman have been killed at protests in this country. I could see why they would feel threatened by mostly college kids.

 

Wow, the willful ignorance on display here is just astounding. ASTOUNDING.

[NorthSideSox72]

Y2HH is right by the way, that it usually takes just a few people in a large crowd to change the timbre of things really, really quickly. Like, in seconds. This is also true, though less so due to training, for police.

 

So many policeman have been killed at protests in this country. I could see why they would feel threatened by mostly college kids.

You are seriously saying it is OK for protestors to be violent, because cops aren't often killed responding to them? If so, then don't complain when the police use non-lethal force that only occasionally kills people in response to illegal acts.

 

[StrangeSox]

[/b]

 

That is the whole question right there. Especially when you are way outnumbered.

 

Even if we grant the AP story as 100% true, you still have a very small portion of people throwing bottles or rocks at armed police in riot gear and pretty large numbers. Firing large amounts of tear gas and rubber bullets, both of which have some degree of lethality, into an almost entirely peaceful crowd who does not appear to be starting an offensive is a disproportionate response.

[Y2HH]

Right, there hasn't really been any aspect of civil disobedience in the Tea Party protests/gatherings. I'm not sure about the claim that leftist protesters aren't more likely to be violent is true, either. Mostly because you don't see the radical ultranationalist rightwing elements (secessionist/Aryan nation militia group types) at Tea Party rallies, but also radical leftism doesn't exactly have a non-violent history. Note that you need to start really dissecting apart "the American left" into leftists and liberals to see that granularity.

 

And then there's the rational among us who KNOW there are idiot tea party members at these rallies, spouting racist crap -- just like a few of the OWS people spouting anti-Jew rhetoric...

 

AKA the vast minority amongst them.

 

But be real...does that make all OWS protestors antisemitic?

 

No. It doesn't.

[StrangeSox]

So the AP are liars, and all the innocent bloggers without agendas are telling the truth.

 

Nope. The AP is reporting the story as they were told; the claims of violence appear to come from the police themselves. That's not an independent source.

 

 

[Y2HH]

Nope. The AP is reporting the story as they were told; the claims of violence appear to come from the police themselves. That's not an independent source.

 

Aww...

 

http://occupywallst.org/forum/occupy-oakla...protesters-wer/

 

Should we dismiss that, too?

 

I mean, I'm sure MSNBC paid off a OWS protestor to rat themselves out.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

And then there's the rational among us who KNOW there are idiot tea party members at these rallies, spouting racist crap -- just like a few of the OWS people spouting anti-Jew rhetoric...

 

AKA the vast minority amongst them.

 

But be real...does that make all OWS protestors antisemitic?

 

No. It doesn't.

 

AFAIK the "antisemitic" stuff was coming from a single individual. That's a bit different from the tone and representative polling done on Tea Party ideologies. But, anyway, I was defending the TP in that post as non-violent.

 

[GoSox05]

Y2HH is right by the way, that it usually takes just a few people in a large crowd to change the timbre of things really, really quickly. Like, in seconds. This is also true, though less so due to training, for police.

 

 

You are seriously saying it is OK for protestors to be violent, because cops aren't often killed responding to them? If so, then don't complain when the police use non-lethal force that only occasionally kills people in response to illegal acts.

 

No, I'm saying if you look at the history of protests in this country, which group has overreacted more often? There have been many occasions where protesters have been killed in this country.

 

I'm not anti-cop. I'm just saying they can overreact.

[StrangeSox]

Aww...

 

http://occupywallst.org/forum/occupy-oakla...protesters-wer/

 

Should we dismiss that, too?

 

I mean, I'm sure MSNBC paid off a OWS protestor to rat themselves out.

 

Thank you. Thrown bottles by a few people still doesn't justify the police response. Also the possibility of agent provocateurs, which we know were used at the Pittsburgh G-whatever protests a few years ago.

[StrangeSox]

I'm not anti-cop. I'm just saying they can overreact.

 

Not possible.

 

 

(Yes, I know these were NG's)

[NorthSideSox72]

Thank you. Thrown bottles by a few people still doesn't justify the police response. Also the possibility of agent provocateurs, which we know were used at the Pittsburgh G-whatever protests a few years ago.

Actually, I'd say bottles being thrown from the crowd defintely justifies chemical response. In fact it is a lower level of force than is being exerted by the protestors in that scenario.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Not possible.

 

 

(Yes, I know these were NG's)

You are the only one saying it is not possible.

 

[Y2HH]

No, I'm saying if you look at the history of protests in this country, which group has overreacted more often? There have been many occasions where protesters have been killed in this country.

 

I'm not anti-cop. I'm just saying they can overreact.

 

It's a razor's edge type of situation for them, and it's always easy to second guess it. If they let things get out of hand just a second longer than they should have, a situation like that can turn into a full out riot, complete with looting and many innocent bystanders getting hurt or killed. Then what you have is the exact opposite of what you have here...and you'd all be b****ing the police should have stepped in sooner and done something BEFORE the violence erupted.

 

It's a fine line...and it's easy to sit behind a computer, watch a few videos and call the police names...it's a different story when you have to be there and know how easily a riot can break out in a situation that's obviously escalating.

 

If you've ever seen a riot, you'd know most of those rioting are normally law abiding citizens that get crazy...and suddenly turn into a primal savages.

 

Whatever the case may be, be thankful you don't have to be there/weren't there. But believe me when I tell you this, MOST cops -- I'd say 99.5% of them -- they don't want trouble...ever. They'd rather go through their entire shift not seeing anyone do anything wrong than to get caught up in a situation like this.

[StrangeSox]

You are the only one saying it is not possible.

 

It is possible that some protesters threw bottles/other objects. It's more likely than an agent provocateur. The police response to the crowd is still a disproportionate use of force. It's also possible that this use of force was unprovoked. I don't think that can really be questioned given what really started getting media coverage of OWS, the unprovoked macing of protesters by NYPD.

[southsider2k5]

It's a razor's edge type of situation for them, and it's always easy to second guess it. If they let things get out of hand just a second longer than they should have, a situation like that can turn into a full out riot, complete with looting and many innocent bystanders getting hurt or killed. Then what you have is the exact opposite of what you have here...and you'd all be b****ing the police should have stepped in sooner and done something BEFORE the violence erupted.

 

It's a fine line...and it's easy to sit behind a computer, watch a few videos and call the police names...it's a different story when you have to be there and know how easily a riot can break out in a situation that's obviously escalating.

 

If you've ever seen a riot, you'd know most of those rioting are normally law abiding citizens that get crazy...and suddenly turn into a primal savages.

 

Whatever the case may be, be thankful you don't have to be there/weren't there. But believe me when I tell you this, MOST cops -- I'd say 99.5% of them -- they don't want trouble...ever. They'd rather go through their entire shift not seeing anyone do anything wrong than to get caught up in a situation like this.

 

We saw what happened not too long ago in Vancouver when the police response wasn't convincing enough at the beginning.

[StrangeSox]

Actually, I'd say bottles being thrown from the crowd defintely justifies chemical response. In fact it is a lower level of force than is being exerted by the protestors in that scenario.

 

Throwing bottles at police in riot gear is a higher use of force than launching chemical rounds into a largely peaceful group?

[GoSox05]

We saw what happened not too long ago in Vancouver when the police response wasn't convincing enough at the beginning.

 

What happened in Vancouver is a totally different thing than an organized protest.

 

Also did you just compare OWS protesters to Canuck fans? How dare you.

[StrangeSox]

We can all agree that Canuck fans are the scum of the earth and deserve whatever they get.

[southsider2k5]

We can all agree that Canuck fans are the scum of the earth and deserve whatever they get.

 

Agreed.

[southsider2k5]

What happened in Vancouver is a totally different thing than an organized protest.

 

Also did you just compare OWS protesters to Canuck fans? How dare you.

 

It is different, but it also what happens if the response is not adequate to the level of the crowd. It doesn't take long for things to go that extra level in a mob situation.

[StrangeSox]

The motivations and intentions of the crowd are important factors.