The Occupation of Wall Street Spreads

[White Haven]

It's a bit more complicated then "I don't want them protesting here". It's more along the lines of business owners and other citizens trying to get to work/appointments/whatever calling in to the police and complaining that they're unable to do so because the peaceful protesters are blocking streets and/or businesses which is illegal for that very reason so peaceful assemblies don't violate the rights of others. BTW - Other reports indicate that the protesters in Oakland were pelting the police with bottles and rocks BEFORE the police began using force.

Now, I agree with Broomstick that if it just amounts to an inconvenience then yeah let it go.

I fully grasp what you're trying to say, but I'm not sure the converse is true. My point remains that 'people can't get to work' and suchlike don't even begin to compare to 'police assaulting peaceful protesters with chemical weapons and batons.' The cure is so much worse than the disease as to be absolutely laughable, especially with the substantial possibility of police actions triggering a riot that wasn't there to begin with and causing even more harm.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I've seen combinations of news and livestream footage showing quite clearly a mass of protesters in the park, a line of riot police standing just outside the park, and the street beyond utterly /filled/ with police and police vehicles, blocked off. Never mind reports, I've seen the actual footage demonstrating that the road is closed because of the police presence, totally devoid of any protester presence. Hence the irony: it's only a bad thing when protesters do it, apparently.

Much like throwing grenades, come to think of it.

I stand by my earlier statement. Public Order Unit protocols call for the staging area to utilize a parking lot, park, or other open space and not streets because that defeats the purpose. If they were out in force like that then the decision had already been made to remove the protesters. If they were surrounded in the park then it is likely the decision had been made to arrest those protesters.

I can only speak from experience though. It is also possible that Denver PD is completely ignoring established Public Order guidelines and doing whatever they want. BUT - I have yet to see any direct evidence of that.

I fully grasp what you're trying to say, but I'm not sure the converse is true. My point remains that 'people can't get to work' and suchlike don't even begin to compare to 'police assaulting peaceful protesters with chemical weapons and batons.' The cure is so much worse than the disease as to be absolutely laughable, especially with the substantial possibility of police actions triggering a riot that wasn't there to begin with and causing even more harm.

Oh ok. So, you'd be ok if say christian protesters were blocking off access to a muslim church or KKK protesters were blocking off access to black owned businesses? Or is it ok to use force to break up those types of people?

[Terralthra]

I've seen combinations of news and livestream footage showing quite clearly a mass of protesters in the park, a line of riot police standing just outside the park, and the street beyond utterly /filled/ with police and police vehicles, blocked off. Never mind reports, I've seen the actual footage demonstrating that the road is closed because of the police presence, totally devoid of any protester presence. Hence the irony: it's only a bad thing when protesters do it, apparently.

Much like throwing grenades, come to think of it.

I stand by my earlier statement. Public Order Unit protocols call for the staging area to utilize a parking lot, park, or other open space and not streets because that defeats the purpose. If they were out in force like that then the decision had already been made to remove the protesters. If they were surrounded in the park then it is likely the decision had been made to arrest those protesters.

I can only speak from experience though. It is also possible that Denver PD is completely ignoring established Public Order guidelines and doing whatever they want. BUT - I have yet to see any direct evidence of that.

Denver Police code demands all officers have visible badge numbers on their outer garments while on duty and especially in any emergency situation. A substantial portion of the police forces - including riot police - had their badge numbers covered or otherwise not visible. One might argue that covering their badge numbers is evidence of premeditation to violate the code or the law in other ways and remain unidentified.

[Losonti Tokash]

KS, I just want to be clear on whether you are directly comparing these protests to demonstrations by hate groups against minorities, or if that was just a poor choice of words.

[Questor]

KS, I just want to be clear on whether you are directly comparing these protests to demonstrations by hate groups against minorities, or if that was just a poor choice of words.

He was asking if it would be OK for people White Haven likes (presumably, as none of those groups attract quite as much ire here as, say, business owners) to be inconvenienced or prevented from earning a living, and even the dullest person on this board could tell that, so what's your point other than trying to stir stuff up?

Seriously, there's not enough to be outraged about in this thread, so you want to manufacture more?

So, to take the same tack that you did:

Are you saying that all christian groups are hate organizations, or was that just a poor choice of words?

[salm]

All kinds of people are inconvenienced and prevented from earning a living all the time when the public transportation workers go on strike.
We get annoyed but we don´t beat them to work.
Therefore inconvenience and work prevention can´t be the sole reason for the use of force to remove the inconvenience inducing problem.

[Questor]

All kinds of people are inconvenienced and prevented from earning a living all the time when the public transportation workers go on strike.
We get annoyed but we don´t beat them to work.
Therefore inconvenience and work prevention can´t be the sole reason for the use of force to remove the inconvenience inducing problem.

Which is an answer to his question (kind of). Accusing him of being racist is not.

I assume then, that you would approve of the same kind of restraint being used when tea partiers or other conservative (or reactionary) groups are blocking access?

To continue along the hyperbole route, would you be equally opposed to the use of force to remove a non-violent, legal, protest at an abortion clinic?

[K. A. Pital]

I assume then, that you would approve of the same kind of restraint being used when tea partiers or other conservative (or reactionary) groups are blocking access?

To continue along the hyperbole route, would you be equally opposed to the use of force to remove a non-violent, legal, protest at an abortion clinic?

You may hate the assholes who do it, but would you really argue you should come at Tea Partiers with gas canisters and batons and beatings just to "clear access"? I mean, everyone hates the Tea Partiers, but seriously?

[Questor]

I assume then, that you would approve of the same kind of restraint being used when tea partiers or other conservative (or reactionary) groups are blocking access?

To continue along the hyperbole route, would you be equally opposed to the use of force to remove a non-violent, legal, protest at an abortion clinic?

You may hate the assholes who do it, but would you really argue you should come at Tea Partiers with gas canisters and batons and beatings just to "clear access"? I mean, everyone hates the Tea Partiers, but seriously?

No, I wouldn't.

But I would point out that there are those on this board who would, or at least would advocate that on the conveniently faceless, consequence-less, and influence-less location of an internet message board.

[madd0ct0r]

Really? becuase people who advocate hypocritical crap like that here tend to be crushed pretty quickly. Or learn better, in some cases.
And yes, that even applies to a legal, non-violent protest at an abortion clinic, or against gay marragie or whatever I don't stand for.

[salm]

All kinds of people are inconvenienced and prevented from earning a living all the time when the public transportation workers go on strike.
We get annoyed but we don´t beat them to work.
Therefore inconvenience and work prevention can´t be the sole reason for the use of force to remove the inconvenience inducing problem.

Which is an answer to his question (kind of). Accusing him of being racist is not.

I assume then, that you would approve of the same kind of restraint being used when tea partiers or other conservative (or reactionary) groups are blocking access?

To continue along the hyperbole route, would you be equally opposed to the use of force to remove a non-violent, legal, protest at an abortion clinic?

I have no problem with removing people by force as long as it´s a reasonable amount of force.

And of course I would be opposed to remove poeple by unreasonable force even if they´re dickheads. We have the occasional Nazi protest and I wouldn´t want the police to beat them up just because they´re annoying and I hate their guts with a passion.

[Losonti Tokash]

Questor, I wasn't accusing him of being racist. I was saying "is this really the example you want to make."

[Terralthra]

You may hate the assholes who do it, but would you really argue you should come at Tea Partiers with gas canisters and batons and beatings just to "clear access"? I mean, everyone hates the Tea Partiers, but seriously?

No, I wouldn't.

But I would point out that there are those on this board who would, or at least would advocate that on the conveniently faceless, consequence-less, and influence-less location of an internet message board.

Who might that be? Can you provide links? Quotes? Evidence?

[Questor]

You may hate the assholes who do it, but would you really argue you should come at Tea Partiers with gas canisters and batons and beatings just to "clear access"? I mean, everyone hates the Tea Partiers, but seriously?

No, I wouldn't.

But I would point out that there are those on this board who would, or at least would advocate that on the conveniently faceless, consequence-less, and influence-less location of an internet message board.

Who might that be? Can you provide links? Quotes? Evidence?

Of Internet Toughguyism? On this board? Yeah, I think I can.

If you don't mind, since I'm on my phone for about the next 18 hours, would it be acceptable to you if I post them sometime tonight (North America time)?

[Terralthra]

Sure. Just be sure that the people you find actually fulfill the requirements stated. Advocating riot police, violent measures, tear gas, batons, beatings, etc., for Tea Party protestors.

[Questor]

Sure. Just be sure that the people you find actually fulfill the requirements stated. Advocating riot police, violent measures, tear gas, batons, beatings, etc., for Tea Party protestors.

I will limit myself to postings advocating political violence against conservatives and conservative groups, you're reading more specificity into my post than was intended.

Or are you suggesting vigilantyism is somehow more acceptable than state action that at least might have some basis in law and proceedure?

[Thanas]

Terralthra, it is really freaking funny of you to go "no tough guyism" on this board considering I distinctly remember smacking several people down for it. Heck, HoS alone is full of it.

You gotta be some kind of special to believe idiots on this board do not advocate for violence against people they do not like.

[Terralthra]

Terralthra, it is really freaking funny of you to go "no tough guyism" on this board considering I distinctly remember smacking several people down for it. Heck, HoS alone is full of it.

You gotta be some kind of special to believe idiots on this board do not advocate for violence against people they do not like.

I distinctly recall many of those instances, but never recall anyone actually saying (peaceful) Tea Party protests should be cleared with tear gas and riot police.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Questor, I wasn't accusing him of being racist. I was saying "is this really the example you want to make."

Sure. The example is to make people think. I personally believe that your right to protest does not give you the right to infringe on the rights of others. If people refuse to move when told to do so then they're making a choice.

Though I can see that people immediately rush to tear gas, rubber bullets, and baton use. Even with protesters the use of force is based on what is reasonable and necessary. Under protocol those higher force options will be used when less severe options have failed to work or when the protesters begin using force against the police - and only then should those individuals be targeted.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Denver Police code demands all officers have visible badge numbers on their outer garments while on duty and especially in any emergency situation. A substantial portion of the police forces - including riot police - had their badge numbers covered or otherwise not visible. One might argue that covering their badge numbers is evidence of premeditation to violate the code or the law in other ways and remain unidentified.

That or it is in reaction to groups like Anonymous posting their personal information all over the internet.

However, regardless of their reason I do not support them concealing their identities as public safety officers. Though I'd still like to see evidence that this is actually taking place with a substanial portion of the police forces.

[Raw Shark]

That or it is in reaction to groups like Anonymous posting their personal information all over the internet.

However, regardless of their reason I do not support them concealing their identities as public safety officers. Though I'd still like to see evidence that this is actually taking place with a substanial portion of the police forces.

Here's a newspaper photo in which both officers apprehending a man fail to have their badge numbers displayed on their helmets or chests where (admittedly) most of the others shown clearly from the front in this series have them. I'm no expert, but at least one of them appears to have some sort of higher rank.

[Thanas]

I distinctly recall many of those instances, but never recall anyone actually saying (peaceful) Tea Party protests should be cleared with tear gas and riot police.

I don't think there is a difference between calling for bankers to be shot or calling for protestors to be dispersed.

[Agent Fisher]

The photo you link to has two officers, one in riot gear, the other with just a helmet, both with their badges on the outside of their uniform.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Here's a newspaper photo in which both officers apprehending a man fail to have their badge numbers displayed on their helmets or chests where (admittedly) most of the others shown clearly from the front in this series have them. I'm no expert, but at least one of them appears to have some sort of higher rank.

You should look at picture 28. Though the lack of consistency with the uniforms does bother me but it is likely that they had to pull resources from patrol, detectives, etc and those personnel probably don't have assigned riot gear.

[salm]

Questor, I wasn't accusing him of being racist. I was saying "is this really the example you want to make."

Sure. The example is to make people think. I personally believe that your right to protest does not give you the right to infringe on the rights of others.

Why not? A sufficiently large protest will always infringe on some rights of others. I think it heavily depends on how severe the infringement is.