The Occupation of Wall Street Spreads

[Block]

Who cares? Any cop that witnesses brutality and doesn't immediately attempt to arrest the one responsible is an accomplice.

Again, another example of "fuck your rights" when it suits you. You're a hypocrite, Flagg. You have no place in discussions regarding civil rights when you throw them out the window when the situation suits you.

As for arresting on observed instances of police brutality - most departments have a policy that should you witness brutality then it must be immediately reported to a supervisor.

Eat a dick, apologist. Cops have no right whatsoever to hide their identities while on duty and any that do are just as bad as criminals wearing a mask.

You're right, they shouldn't, but Anonymous releasing their SSNs, bank account numbers, names of their children, home addresses, etc. is equally as bad if not worse.

[Lord Zentei]

Of course undercover work is a situation where cops identities should be shielded. Those are special circumstances. I don't see how riot police fit in there, though. As far as I'm concerned hiding your badge number is as much of an admission of bad intentions as walking into a bank with a ski mask on. And it's not like police have all the privacy rights of a civilian, either. They have a higher responsibility given to them by the people they are supposed to protect but all too often abuse.

Yeah, but undercover cops get to hide their identities because they would be placed at risk doing their duties if their identities were known. The same logic can logically be applied to riot police. Bad intentions don't have to enter into it.

Actually, it was more that I was wondering whether they have actual rights to hide their identities, seeing as your rant was probably more moralistic than legalistic. (Wasn't it?)


EDIT: fixed quote tags.

[Flagg]

Again, another example of "fuck your rights" when it suits you. You're a hypocrite, Flagg. You have no place in discussions regarding civil rights when you throw them out the window when the situation suits you.

As for arresting on observed instances of police brutality - most departments have a policy that should you witness brutality then it must be immediately reported to a supervisor.

Eat a dick, apologist. Cops have no right whatsoever to hide their identities while on duty and any that do are just as bad as criminals wearing a mask.

You're right, they shouldn't, but Anonymous releasing their SSNs, bank account numbers, names of their children, home addresses, etc. is equally as bad if not worse.

I agree with that, but still have no sympathy whatsoever for the cowardly asshats anonymous is doing it to.

[Flagg]

Yeah, but undercover cops get to hide their identities because they would be placed at risk doing their duties if their identities were known. The same logic can logically be applied to riot police. Bad intentions don't have to enter into it.

Actually, it was more that I was wondering whether they have actual rights to hide their identities, seeing as your rant was probably more moralistic than legalistic. (Wasn't it?)

I don't see how it applies to riot police at all, unless you want to make it applicable to every police officer in which case they might as well wear ski masks and have carte blanche to do whatever the fuck they want to whomever they want. Which is pretty much how it is now unless a camera happens to be trained on them. They have badge numbers for a reason, that's the way to identify them and report their illegalities, and if they hide that then they may as well be wearing a mask.

And yes, I'm making a moral argument not a legal one.

[madd0ct0r]

I thought it was decided a few pages back that police hiding their numbers was greatly exaggerated?

It certainly has happened in the past, espcially within the UK, but I don't recall seeing more then isolated incidents crop up during OWS.

[Lord Zentei]

I don't see how it applies to riot police at all, unless you want to make it applicable to every police officer in which case they might as well wear ski masks and have carte blanche to do whatever the fuck they want to whomever they want. Which is pretty much how it is now unless a camera happens to be trained on them. They have badge numbers for a reason, that's the way to identify them and report their illegalities, and if they hide that then they may as well be wearing a mask.

Eh, I guess it's a sliding scale. I can see reprisals being a logical consequence of undercover work, and might give it a pass in the case of anti-riot work, though not for supervising protests. Traffic cops? Not so much. But in general I agree with your sentiment.

[Broomstick]

I walk into my bank with my face fully covered almost every day I go between November and April.

Yes, it's like that in my area, too, but they have a sign in the vestibule letting you know you're expected to uncover your face once you're inside, out of the cold. Failure to do so may attract unpleasant attention.

Likewise, there are times police officers can conceal their identities (like undercover work) and other times the expectation is for them to NOT conceal their identities (such as when you or I are speaking to a bank teller face to face).

[Flagg]

And what legitimate reason does a cop have to cover his badge number?

[Lord Zentei]

If they had legitimate reasons to conceal their identities, I imagine the police station would have issued gear including outfits that do not reveal their identities.

[Darmalus]

Didn't riot cops covering up identifying marks come up in a past thread? I think it was a thread about the WTO riots? As I remember, the explanation then was that they cover up the marks so provocateurs couldn't get people flinging rocks and stuff at specific cops. Maybe this is the same deal?

[FSTargetDrone]

Yes, it's like that in my area, too, but they have a sign in the vestibule letting you know you're expected to uncover your face once you're inside, out of the cold. Failure to do so may attract unpleasant attention.

The PNC banks in my part of Pennsylvania require you to remove any headgear when entering the bank (sign on the outer doors). Conversely, the branch locations of the same bank at the local supermarkets have no such requirement when doing business with the walk-up tellers.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Eat a dick, apologist. Cops have no right whatsoever to hide their identities while on duty and any that do are just as bad as criminals wearing a mask.

I see you continue to be behind the curve on this subject. Don't worry I'll hold your hand through it.

When I said "That or it is in reaction to groups like Anonymous posting their personal information all over the internet." I was responding to a remark Terralthra made when he said "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." Since he jumped to a malicious reason I offered another reason that is not malicious in nature.

That doesn't mean I think that officers should have the right to conceal their identity unless they're working an undercover assignment. Why you thought probably would have amazed me five years ago but given your posting history I know you simply do not read the thread...you just nitpick.

I agree with that, but still have no sympathy whatsoever for the cowardly asshats anonymous is doing it to.

Guilty until proven innocent eh? Anonymous isn't that good. The officers whose information was released to the internet had their names visible which is why Anonymous was able to obtain their private personal information. This is also why I suggested what I did to Terralthra.

To reiterate - I think all police, except for those in special assignments, should have their names and/or badge numbers visible at all times while on duty.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I thought it was decided a few pages back that police hiding their numbers was greatly exaggerated?

It certainly has happened in the past, espcially within the UK, but I don't recall seeing more then isolated incidents crop up during OWS.

Based off the photographs provided it does appear that way.

[K. A. Pital]

EDIT
@STAS:
Sorry for disappearing in the middle of our discussion like that. I had a lot of crap to deal with and was unable to reply.

SDN is not a chat and people rarely if ever apologize for dropped discussions. Suffice to say the last few weeks have been crazy on my side as well.

[Losonti Tokash]

So how's the New England snows affecting the Occupation over there?

Raw Shark already posted an article for Boston, but here in Nebraska we've been running cold weather workshops. They've mostly been run by an occupier who is former Army and was stationed in Alaska for a few years, and I've been helping people recognize and treat signs of hypothermia and frostbite.

People kept saying Denver would get chased off by the snow. They're still there.
People kept saying Boston couldn't stand the cold. Still there.
People are hoping we can't weather some rain and snow ourselves. We'll still be here.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Don't paint with too broad a brush. The reactions in the various cities has been quite different, as are local conditions for the protestors.

... what? I never made any claim that the reactions in all cities have been the same.

I must admit that I'm puzzled by your claim that the media isn't saying anything, there's plenty of information to be had online.

Not a single article I have read online has addressed my question. The articles are always so biased one way or the other, they either make it look like the cops came out of nowhere and started beating people for no reason, or they make it seem like the protesters were rioting and breaking shit and had to be kicked out. I haven't seen a single thing talking about the LEAD-UP to, say, the violence in Oakland or Denver or wherever.

[Phantasee]

So how's the New England snows affecting the Occupation over there?

Raw Shark already posted an article for Boston, but here in Nebraska we've been running cold weather workshops. They've mostly been run by an occupier who is former Army and was stationed in Alaska for a few years, and I've been helping people recognize and treat signs of hypothermia and frostbite.

People kept saying Denver would get chased off by the snow. They're still there.
People kept saying Boston couldn't stand the cold. Still there.
People are hoping we can't weather some rain and snow ourselves. We'll still be here.

Occupy Calgary is much bigger than Occupy Edmonton, and there's been a lot of people expecting the cold to drive them off the Olympic Park down there.

Edmonton's group is a little stupid, in my opinion. They occupied a park that is actually private property of Melcor, and Melcor let them protest at first but asked them to leave when it looked like they were settling down. The protestors refused, and when Melcor finally got around to getting them formally evicted, the protestors said they'd leave on their own terms. That doesn't help with the perception that they're being petulant children instead of legitimate protestors with legitimate grievances.

How many of these Occupy movements are occupying public spaces and not private property?

[Losonti Tokash]

Most of the ones I know of. Omaha was on public land the first couple times they were kicked out by the police, and now they've moved to private property that the landowner gave them explicit permission to use. The notoriously corrupt OPD is still trying to get rid of them, though.

[Phantasee]

Occupying private property at the owner's invitation is obviously not a problem I'm just wondering if anyone else occupied private property and left when asked.

[D.Turtle]

Edmonton's group is a little stupid, in my opinion. They occupied a park that is actually private property of Melcor, and Melcor let them protest at first but asked them to leave when it looked like they were settling down. The protestors refused, and when Melcor finally got around to getting them formally evicted, the protestors said they'd leave on their own terms. That doesn't help with the perception that they're being petulant children instead of legitimate protestors with legitimate grievances.

How many of these Occupy movements are occupying public spaces and not private property?

The problem is that a lot of cities sold public spaces to private companies with the understanding that those parks would remain open to public use. IIRC, in most places they are actually prohibited from closing it to the public and require local laws/ordnances changed in order to kick out protesters. Basically the protesters are occupying public spaces owned by private entities and not "normal" private spaces.

This makes a big difference in my opinion.

[SpaceMarine93]

So, what's the Movement's chance of becoming as big as that damn Tea Party Movement?

[Dominus Atheos]

[Losonti Tokash]

It's also worth mentioning that if those same marines use tear gas against Iraqi soldiers, it would be a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

So, what's the Movement's chance of becoming as big as that damn Tea Party Movement?

Who knows? What's the chance of you freaking the fuck out when I tell you our numbers include tea partiers?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

So, what's the Movement's chance of becoming as big as that damn Tea Party Movement?

Who knows? What's the chance of you freaking the fuck out when I tell you our numbers include tea partiers?

I for one am finding it impossible to get through a workday without being asked about Occupy at least ten times from ten different people with ten completely different lifestyles and trajectories. I'd say the only people not on board with #OWS now are gangbangers, cops, stockbrokers, and church ladies. Everyone else is cheering them on as Bill Maher has said.

[Broomstick]

Thank you for that video. It's truth. It's funny. And it made my day.