#Occupythisthread

[southsider2k5]

Please stop playing dumb.

 

 

 

I'd imagine that the view that some police resort to authoritarian violent measures in response to people disobeying them is pretty common (note that this is not "for no reason," just an unjustifiable one). I'm not sure how you can argue against given video evidence of multiple incidents.

 

So its common knowledge that the very actions that were being taken can draw violent responses. Yet, you want me to believe that these events weren't orchestrated to draw this exact response? I'm not sure how anything else could be argued.

[Texsox]

Really SS, you don't believe the government used excessive force?

[southsider2k5]

Really SS, you don't believe the government used excessive force?

 

If you'll you notice, I have never actually made that claim. My claim was this was the purpose all along.

[StrangeSox]

So its common knowledge that the very actions that were being taken can draw violent responses. Yet, you want me to believe that these events weren't orchestrated to draw this exact response? I'm not sure how anything else could be argued.

 

They were orchestrated to draw attention, which they would regardless of police violence.

 

That protesters may anticipate and prepare for violent police overreaction does not excuse or justify it.

[StrangeSox]

If you'll you notice, I have never actually made that claim. My claim was this was the purpose all along.

 

LOL yes you have, you've presented a ridiculous dichotomy between beat/spray and doing nothing at all and you've attempted to place the blame on the victims by suggesting that they may have 'enticed' this violent overreaction.

[southsider2k5]

LOL yes you have, you've presented a ridiculous dichotomy between beat/spray and doing nothing at all and you've attempted to place the blame on the victims by suggesting that they may have 'enticed' this violent overreaction.

 

You're reading into it to further the propaganda from OWS. My contention all along was this was organized with the express purpose of drawing a response that could be packaged for TV and especially internet, where there is no context for anything, to draw sympathy and attention back to the movement. It is working like a charm too. Despite claims otherwise, the police have no good justification to, just for funzies, beating the crap out of people, like is being claimed here. The movement is intentionally breaking laws to draw responses. In some places it takes more to get that attention than others. In Oakland it took shutting down the port. Other places it has obviously taken less.

[southsider2k5]

They were orchestrated to draw attention, which they would regardless of police violence.

 

That protesters may anticipate and prepare for violent police overreaction does not excuse or justify it.

 

Eliciting violence is a step beyond any of that, which is what is going on here.

[StrangeSox]

You're reading into it to further the propaganda from OWS. My contention all along was this was organized with the express purpose of drawing a response that could be packaged for TV and especially internet, where there is no context for anything, to draw sympathy and attention back to the movement. It is working like a charm too. Despite claims otherwise, the police have no good justification to, just for funzies, beating the crap out of people, like is being claimed here. The movement is intentionally breaking laws to draw responses. In some places it takes more to get that attention than others. In Oakland it took shutting down the port. Other places it has obviously taken less.

 

 

Eliciting violence is a step beyond any of that, which is what is going on here.

 

First, I'd just like to highlight the ridiculous notion that sitting on the ground with interlocked arms is now "eliciting violence," as if they deserve that sort of reaction.

 

But more substantively, I've asked for plausible context that could justify these actions repeatedly and have yet to receive any. This is because there is nothing that could justify what is seen in the UCD video. The deeper issue is a complete blindness to police brutality in general and the assumption that if a police officer does something, it must be justified. A complete blindness to the attraction of authoritarians to police work and violent reactions when people do not heed their orders. Some people actually do like beating people up and may go into a line of work that gives them the authority to do so. As I've said before, this is not new to protests or policing in general; recognizing that fact does not lay the blame at the feet of the victims of police violence.

 

[StrangeSox]

Simple question:

 

Do you or do you not think that the actions of the police in the UCD video are justified if we assume no extenuating circumstances outside of what is shown?

[southsider2k5]

First, I'd just like to highlight the ridiculous notion that sitting on the ground with interlocked arms is now "eliciting violence," as if they deserve that sort of reaction.

 

But more substantively, I've asked for plausible context that could justify these actions repeatedly and have yet to receive any. This is because there is nothing that could justify what is seen in the UCD video. The deeper issue is a complete blindness to police brutality in general and the assumption that if a police officer does something, it must be justified. A complete blindness to the attraction of authoritarians to police work and violent reactions when people do not heed their orders. Some people actually do like beating people up and may go into a line of work that gives them the authority to do so. As I've said before, this is not new to protests or policing in general; recognizing that fact does not lay the blame at the feet of the victims of police violence.

 

You yourself stated that they knew what was going to happen, and went ahead and did it. Doing something to get a purposeful reaction is the very definition of eliciting a response.

[southsider2k5]

Simple question:

 

Do you or do you not think that the actions of the police in the UCD video are justified if we assume no extenuating circumstances outside of what is shown?

 

Massive assumption there, and a leap of faith I am not willing to make at this time. Way too much goes on with creative editing to make a case for one side or another to make this assumption.

 

Protests happen all of the time all over the United States, and a miniscule amount of them end in police violence. There is a very good reason for that.

[StrangeSox]

You yourself stated that they knew what was going to happen, and went ahead and did it. Doing something to get a purposeful reaction is the very definition of eliciting a response.

 

Violent police overreaction is a possible outcome of passive resistance, not the sole or desired cause.

 

Will you plainly condemn the actions depicted by the officer in that video, or do you think it was a justified response?

[southsider2k5]

Violent police overreaction is a possible outcome of passive resistance, not the sole or desired cause.

 

Will you plainly condemn the actions depicted by the officer in that video, or do you think it was a justified response?

 

IF that was all that was done, which I really, really doubt it was, it was not justified. Like I said, I seriously doubt that was all that was going on there.

 

I also believe fully that they got the desired outcome by eliciting a violent response.

[StrangeSox]

Massive assumption there, and a leap of faith I am not willing to make at this time. Way too much goes on with creative editing to make a case for one side or another to make this assumption.

 

It's a simple question to answer. Would you condemn the actions as depicted in an independent hypothetical scenario.

 

And, again, what possible scenario could you imagine that justifies it? Even the department's attempted justification, that they were "surrounded," is absurd on its face.

 

Protests happen all of the time all over the United States, and a miniscule amount of them end in police violence. There is a very good reason for that.

 

Sure, most police officers are authoritarian abusive assholes. It is certainly not because all police violence is justified.

 

[StrangeSox]

IF that was all that was done, which I really, really doubt it was, it was not justified. Like I said, I seriously doubt that was all that was going on there.

 

Why do you doubt that? What else could possibly have been going on that justifies the actions? Why has no other evidence or claims come forth? What about the letter from a UCD professor describing what happened in detail?

 

Under what possible scenario could an officer casually stepping over a group of sitting students, pulling a canister of mace, and then proceeding to slowly walk up and down the line spraying them in the face be justified?

 

I also believe fully that they got the desired outcome by eliciting a violent response.

 

Do you agree that even if this is their desired outcome that it still doesn't justify the outcome?

Edited November 21, 2011 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

It's a simple question to answer. Would you condemn the actions as depicted in an independent hypothetical scenario.

 

And, again, what possible scenario could you imagine that justifies it? Even the department's attempted justification, that they were "surrounded," is absurd on its face.

 

 

 

Sure, most police officers are authoritarian abusive assholes. It is certainly not because all police violence is justified.

 

You're assumptions are absurd. Amongst other protests I have spectated, was the 2006 immigration march on May Day. Depending on whose numbers you believe upwards of a million people were here. Plenty of laws were broken that day, if the majority of cops are "authoritarian abusive assholes" why didn't thousands people get the s*** kicked out of them that day? The answer is that the marchers didn't want it to end that way.

 

If the cops answer is going to violence first, why haven't these type of incidents been popping up all of the time, instead of an isolated few? Again, the answer is that wasn't the end the protesters were looking for.

 

The assumptions you are making for a propensity to violence don't bear themselves out to reality. I can tell you that first hand by seeing the biggest march to this date in Chicago.

[southsider2k5]

Why do you doubt that? What else could possibly have been going on that justifies the actions? Why has no other evidence or claims come forth? What about the letter from a UCD professor describing what happened in detail?

 

Under what possible scenario could an officer casually stepping over a group of sitting students, pulling a canister of mace, and then proceeding to slowly walk up and down the line spraying them in the face be justified?

 

 

 

Do you agree that even if this is their desired outcome that it still doesn't justify the outcome?

 

I can't answer that by simply trusting one video. My guess would be something else was going on there which was the trigger point.

[StrangeSox]

that should have been "aren't."

[southsider2k5]

that should have been "aren't."

 

Well that certainly changes that answer...

[StrangeSox]

I can't answer that by simply trusting one video. My guess would be something else was going on there which was the trigger point.

 

I'm not asking you to say what happened. I'm asking you to come up with some sort of scenario, hell, even an unlikely one, that justifies what happened. I don't think it is actually possible to do so. The officer nor anyone else was in any sort of danger.

[southsider2k5]

I'm not asking you to say what happened. I'm asking you to come up with some sort of scenario, hell, even an unlikely one, that justifies what happened. I don't think it is actually possible to do so. The officer nor anyone else was in any sort of danger.

 

If officers are facing a dangerous situation, I have no problem with that response. The problem is that many times the dangers aren't going to be visible in the camera shot, which is the point.

[StrangeSox]

Well that certainly changes that answer...

 

If protesters really want to elicit a violent reaction, there are more likely paths than sitting still on the ground with your heads down. If that truly is a good method for eliciting a violent reaction, then that's a condemnation of police forces, not protesters.

[southsider2k5]

If protesters really want to elicit a violent reaction, there are more likely paths than sitting still on the ground with your heads down. If that truly is a good method for eliciting a violent reaction, then that's a condemnation of police forces, not protesters.

 

But if you want to draw sympathy you set up someone with a video camera trained on the people not doing anything wrong, while people outside of the camera shot throw rocks, or throw bottles, or threaten police officers, attack police lines etc.

[StrangeSox]

If officers are facing a dangerous situation, I have no problem with that response. The problem is that many times the dangers aren't going to be visible in the camera shot, which is the point.

 

But under what scenario are people sitting on the ground on the quad presenting a dangerous situation? In what scenario can an office in a dangerous situation casually step over those people before taking his time to spray them all directly in the face?

 

Why is it really, really difficult for you to believe that some people are giant assholes and some of those people are cops because it gives them authority? Why is it difficult to believe that yeah, sometimes police really do beat or harm people for completely unjustified reasons?

[southsider2k5]

But under what scenario are people sitting on the ground on the quad presenting a dangerous situation? In what scenario can an office in a dangerous situation casually step over those people before taking his time to spray them all directly in the face?

 

Why is it really, really difficult for you to believe that some people are giant assholes and some of those people are cops because it gives them authority? Why is it difficult to believe that yeah, sometimes police really do beat or harm people for completely unjustified reasons?

 

That is kind of my point.