The Occupation of Wall Street Spreads

[Formless]

No, fuckhead, I'm not trying to do any such thing. Decontamination is the term used in instructional materials when training to use this stuff.

1) citation needed.

2) provided you can provide the citation, that just proves that the people who wrote them are as idiotic, deceptive, or illiterate as you (take your pick). That is not how anyone else uses the term, especially the people you are trying to take issue with.

3) more shifting the goalposts with the "bbb-but the carrier agent!" Everyone can read your claims earlier in the thread when you responded to Einhander.

[weemadando]

No shit you do, you fucking moron. That's the way it's supposed to incapacitate. That isn't either A) under debate or B) a problem - or at least it wasn't a problem for the bumper crop of hypocrites on this board until it was OWS getting sprayed with it, at which point we got a lot of yelling and screaming about pepper spray, as if pepper spray was somehow the problem and not the cases in which it was used properly and those where it wasn't. One wonders if we'd see the same level of concern if it were the Tea Party getting sprayed.

Pardon me if I'm missing the point, but isn't this more about the use of OC/capsaicin/pepper spray on people who are not threatening, resisting or attacking anyone. But hey, I guess if you've got it you might as well use it.

[SVPD]

I think you're saying 'decontaiminate' when you mean 'dilute' which are two different things. When you've got a chemical irritant in your eyes, you just flush it with a ton of water to dilute.

I don't think "dilute" is correct, either; it's not mixing with the carrier agent to reduce the concentration. Anyhow, like I said, decontaminate is the term used in training, and either way, it's semantic nitpicking. I explained that what I meant by that was that it washes away the carrier agent and the excess chemical therein, and why. I may be at fault for not making my point completely clear intitially, but nitpicking the meaning of "decontaminate" and carrying on about the remaining vurning sensation are just distractors.

[SVPD]

Pardon me if I'm missing the point, but isn't this more about the use of OC/capsaicin/pepper spray on people who are not threatening, resisting or attacking anyone. But hey, I guess if you've got it you might as well use it.

I already made it perfectly clear that I was attempting to address misrepresentation of what OC is and what it does, not whether it was used lawfully, morally, ethically, in accordance with policy, or anything like that, in any given incident. If people want to discuss that, they can knock themselves out. I'm objecting to attempting to score points in those discussions by misrepresenting how the shit works, and so far, there are a lot of nitwits pretending to knowledge of the chemistry they don't posess, and poo-poohing formal training because it might call into question the hystrionics they are engaged in.

[weemadando]

Oh well. I guess we'll keep on being hypocrite liberal crybabies crying over our leftie pinko protester brethren.

Because it's only an issue when police brutality targets people you like I suppose.

[SVPD]

No, fuckhead, I'm not trying to do any such thing. Decontamination is the term used in instructional materials when training to use this stuff.

1) citation needed.

I'm not going to cite classroom training I received. That was the term my instructors always used in the course of instruction, it was on the written test, and presumably their instructor materials. I do not have access to that, and I am not going to dig it up because you want to nitpick semantics to pretend the real issue is somehow whether the term "decontaminate" is accurate.

2) provided you can provide the citation, that just proves that the people who wrote them are as idiotic, deceptive, or illiterate as you (take your pick). That is not how anyone else uses the term, especially the people you are trying to take issue with.

No, it does not, because decontamnation need not be complete for the term to be accurate, and as pointed out, the word is a synonym for "wash" and "clean". That is how almost everyone uses the term; your attempt to pedantically limit it only to complete decontamination because you can't just say "oh, ok, maybe that's really how it works" and go back to addressing the more important issue of whether it was used under improper circumstances.

3) more shifting the goalposts with the "bbb-but the carrier agent!" Everyone can read your claims earlier in the thread when you responded to Einhander.

This is not in any way shifting of the goalposts; at most you can claim I was imprecise or unclear in responding to Einhander. It is not a violation of the rules of the board to make an unclear argument and then explain yourself in more detail, nor is it "shifting the goalposts" to do so.

The fact of the matter here is that you are pursuing an entirely semantic line of argument rather than anything of actual substance.

[SVPD]

Oh well. I guess we'll keep on being hypocrite liberal crybabies crying over our leftie pinko protester brethren.

Because it's only an issue when police brutality targets people you like I suppose.

Hey fuckhead,

I never said police brutality wasn't an issue. However, the fact of the matter is that each incident needs to be addressed based on its own circumstances and the merits thereof.

See that quote at the top of the page? "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." That's the problem here. Police brutality is being judged in this thread based on the bandwagon of agreement with each other, sympathy for what OWS represents, unjustified assumptions about the feelings of the police, and a general lack of objectivity on the entire situation.

Have there been episodes of polcie brutality? Absolutely. However, pointing out that this yelling and screaming about OC both A) misses the point; it isn't important what OC does; it's important when, where and why it was used B) isn't accurate and C) wasn't an issue until it was a protest movement people sympathized with got hit with it is not in any way "it's only an issue when it targets people like you."

The real fact of the matter is that OWS is overwhelmingly popular here, and understandably so, many of its major reasons for protesting are important and perfectly valid complaints. However, the fact is that despite pretensions to intellectual honesty, this thread long since devolved into a contest to see who could express the most outrage; something that probably wouldn't have happened had it been certain other groups protesting.

[Formless]

No, fuckhead, I'm not trying to do any such thing. Decontamination is the term used in instructional materials when training to use this stuff.

1) citation needed.

I'm not going to cite classroom training I received. That was the term my instructors always used in the course of instruction, it was on the written test, and presumably their instructor materials. I do not have access to that, and I am not going to dig it up because you want to nitpick semantics to pretend the real issue is somehow whether the term "decontaminate" is accurate.

So, as we can see, "instructional materials" actually means "the idiot who passed my incompetent ass". Nice way to lie, asshole.

2) provided you can provide the citation, that just proves that the people who wrote them are as idiotic, deceptive, or illiterate as you (take your pick). That is not how anyone else uses the term, especially the people you are trying to take issue with.

No, it does not, because decontamnation need not be complete for the term to be accurate, and as pointed out, the word is a synonym for "wash" and "clean". That is how almost everyone uses the term; your attempt to pedantically limit it only to complete decontamination because you can't just say "oh, ok, maybe that's really how it works" and go back to addressing the more important issue of whether it was used under improper circumstances.

And by the time you manage to wash the stuff off (notice: IRL you don't get to go directly over to the hose and blast your eyes before the shit can really get in them) partial decontamination is completely meaningless. Its already in your eyes, mouth, nose, etc.

3) more shifting the goalposts with the "bbb-but the carrier agent!" Everyone can read your claims earlier in the thread when you responded to Einhander.

This is not in any way shifting of the goalposts; at most you can claim I was imprecise or unclear in responding to Einhander. It is not a violation of the rules of the board to make an unclear argument and then explain yourself in more detail, nor is it "shifting the goalposts" to do so.

Soooo.... want to retract this statement?

The stuff doesn't need to be water-soluble, chemically speaking. The water washes it away through mechanical action. It's going to burn for 45 minutes or so, tops, and that depending on the person who is hit, and the conditions under which it occurs. The active ingrediant is cayanne (sp?) pepper extract and the individual little particles are "spikey"; the water doesn't dissovle them, it pushes them away mechanically.

Because for someone who claims he just wants people to better understand how OC sprays work, you sure have a way of using common words to mean things only you seem to understand.

The fact of the matter here is that you are pursuing an entirely semantic line of argument rather than anything of actual substance.

Retard, its only "semantic" in that your words do not mean what you claim they intend.

[Block]

Here, page 62 they use decontamination to talk about washing away excess or remaining particulate.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm not a fan of peaceful protestors getting beaten and sprayed with riot control agents by police, but some of the stuff I'm seeing here is just silly.

I'd like to point out that there's an interesting difference here between things like pepper spray and, say, waterboarding. When some blowhard starts talking about how waterboarding isn't really torture, and he goes and gets waterboarded, he's likely to change his mind.

Here we've got people who, in their line of work, are routinely sprayed with pepper spray and the like as part of training. Contrast this to waterboarding. Waterboarding is torture. Are riot agents? Are they really "torture in a can?" Would it be better to just give police bigger beating-sticks to hit people with instead, like we used to do?

I'm kind of doubtful of that, under the circumstances. Maybe we'd better ask the people here who've been hit by pepper spray whether they'd prefer pepper spray to getting beaten by a club.

Why the fuck does the carrier agent even matter? YOU HAVE AN IRRITANT IN YOU GODDAMN EYES AND IT ISN'T GOING ANYWHERE. Are you some kind of retard, or is there something you know that you aren't sharing, SVPD? Oh, wait, you just said yourself that it won't take away the pain.



You know what, just go smash a jalapeno in your eyes and go away you trolling fucktard.

Because if your eyes stay covered in whatever foam or liquid was sprayed on you, there is a lot of irritant chemical sitting there waiting to be absorbed into your skin. Washing off the excess chemical will not make your eyes stop hurting, but it can keep you from soaking more and more of the stuff into your eyeballs until they get damaged. Or it can stop you from hurting hours or days later as the stuff gets ground into your skin.

What, did you think that when you're splashed with riot control agents, that there's just a mild little dash of the stuff that's all absorbed and starts affecting you immediately? Hardly.

I think you're saying 'decontaiminate' when you mean 'dilute' which are two different things. When you've got a chemical irritant in your eyes, you just flush it with a ton of water to dilute.

In this case, it may dilute the chemical irritant already on the skin, but it also physically removes droplets or gel full of concentrated irritant waiting to soak into the skin later on. I can see the utility of doing both, even if neither of them totally neutralize the effect.

---

No shit you do, you fucking moron. That's the way it's supposed to incapacitate. That isn't either A) under debate or B) a problem - or at least it wasn't a problem for the bumper crop of hypocrites on this board until it was OWS getting sprayed with it, at which point we got a lot of yelling and screaming about pepper spray, as if pepper spray was somehow the problem and not the cases in which it was used properly and those where it wasn't. One wonders if we'd see the same level of concern if it were the Tea Party getting sprayed.

Pardon me if I'm missing the point, but isn't this more about the use of OC/capsaicin/pepper spray on people who are not threatening, resisting or attacking anyone. But hey, I guess if you've got it you might as well use it.

That strikes me as a far more reasonable criticism than the sidetrack about decontamination procedures- because it has nothing to do with pepper spray as such; people should be just as upset, if not more upset, if the police were using clubs instead of pepper spray.

But even then we get into weird and disturbing places like "Those dirty cops! We need to know where their children go to school and their social security numbers!" That makes me... uncomfortable, to say the least.

[Ryan Thunder]

But even then we get into weird and disturbing places like "Those dirty cops! We need to know where their children go to school and their social security numbers!" That makes me... uncomfortable, to say the least.

I tried to point out the hypocrisy of complaining about collateral damage in wartime and then not caring about it here and was simply ignored, from the looks of it.

[Simon_Jester]

But even then we get into weird and disturbing places like "Those dirty cops! We need to know where their children go to school and their social security numbers!" That makes me... uncomfortable, to say the least.

I tried to point out the hypocrisy of complaining about collateral damage in wartime and then not caring about it here and was simply ignored, from the looks of it.

Well, I quietly agreed and didn't say anything. You weren't really noticed, partly because the comment was so elliptical that it wasn't registered as a point someone might have to agree or disagree with.

Which is one problem with one-liners.

[Lord Zentei]

But even then we get into weird and disturbing places like "Those dirty cops! We need to know where their children go to school and their social security numbers!" That makes me... uncomfortable, to say the least.

Yes, this bothered me to, to say the least. And moreover, I tried to think of something which would turn public sentiment more effectively against OWS than some vigilantes tracking down the children of police officers and threatening them or, Bob forbid, harming them. But I honestly couldn't think of anything.

[White Haven]

The debate regarding Anonymous somewhat reminds me of an online protest limited to the World of Warcraft community a couple years ago. Blizzard was moving to force people to use their real names publicly attached to their accounts, because everyone wants to whore on the Facebook social network pie. When people got pissed at that, it was brushed off at all levels on the grounds that 'nobody can get much information from your name alone,' One enterprising player took only the names of a number of key, high-ranking Blizzard and Activision employees and parleyed those into exactly this sort of incredibly detailed information about those involved, up to and including where their kids went to school. Now that was a quite responsible protest, in that the instant Blizzard backed down, the site went 'poof.' It was especially poetic in that instance, because the two activities (forced disclosure of name-gathered information) were precisely the same.

In addition to simply reminding me of that incident, I draw two things from it in comparison to current events for consideration. Firstly, of course, is that those were all extrapolated from names alone based on internet research. The information's out there, and anonymity doesn't exist for the most part. Secondly, and the core of the protest itself, is the concept that unacceptable behavior can be countered with other, related unacceptable behavior as a counter and, possibly, a deterrent. This is, in fact, the entire basis of any legal system. We decide that robbery is unacceptable, but so is forced imprisonment. We decide that one unacceptable behavior should be countered with another. We sometimes imprison the wrong people. That's a horrible, horrible thing, but we as a society decide that risking imprisoning the wrong person from time to time is worth it to retail the punishment and deterrent.

But that starts to break down when the people who are supposed to perform the retributive unacceptable activity and the people performing the initial act are the same group. Ideally, they could be trusted to police themselves, pun fully intended. If, and I stress if, that is not the case, then pursuit of other options of demonstrating societal disapproval is acceptable. It's not ideal, but it is better than letting something like Oakland go unpunished. As a society, we grant enormous power to law enforcement, and abuse of that power is absolutely not at all a tolerable condition.

[Simon_Jester]

White Haven, I get your argument, but if you're dead-set against letting abuse of police power go unpunished... well, I'm just about as dead-set against deliberately making people into targets for vigilante retaliation by any and all random people with a grudge.

Especially when, and this is important, it's done injudiciously, by an organization which itself cannot be held responsible for its actions. Some of the shit Anonymous has gotten up to over the years is pretty heinous. Having them get on the case of policemen accused of committing acts of police brutality (who may or may not have done anything, since I'm sure Anonymous can get the wrong names just like the TSA can)... well. Who watches the watcher that's watching the watchmen? What do we do if they release the wrong name and some guy who's got nothing to do with beating and gassing random protestors winds up getting harassed by assholes?

Sure, it's a terrible thing when an organization we normally trust to use power responsibly doesn't, and isn't as quick and reliable as we want about punishing the individuals responsible. But what the hell kind of answer is it to then turn to an organization that no one with a brain would trust to use power responsibly? One that practically stands for irresponsibility, and boasts about their immunity from accountability?

[White Haven]

It's a bad answer, no argument there, but a bad answer is, to me, far better than no answer. The point, and this is particularly ironic given that Anonymous is being used to help make it, is that you don't get to be anonymous just because you're in uniform with a bunch of other people. You're accountable. You point to that Olsen video, for example, and ask 'who threw that grenade?' and the people in that video know they were there. That means that either they're not telling anyone else, or the police know, and aren't telling anyone else, and neither is acceptable when you have such a blatantly egregious incident caught on tape. Either the proper authorities take care of business instead of clamming up, or the improper unauthorities will do it for them, and in a far less discriminating fashion. Do I want Anonymous involved? Not terribly. I'd rather the police stop shielding the culprits and deal with it themselves. If the threat of outing by Anonymous helps drive that along by promising that the information's going to get out in some form whether they want it or not? Fine.

[Simon_Jester]

I think this one just becomes unresolvable.

To you, police abuses are so distasteful that anything that might jar the system such that people who commit them will get punished is okay.

To me, this kind of unaccountable-by-nature vigilantism is so distasteful that I don't approve of it even if it's being done in the name of accountability for police-abuses.

Is the disease worse than the cure, or the cure worse than the disease?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Video of second Iraq War vet getting beaten. I'm not clicking that crap, but it's out for everyone to see now.

[White Haven]

The correct answer of course is 'don't cause the dilemma in the first place, you hatfuckers' and kicking the guilty in the balls over and over and over again.

[Thanas]

Video of second Iraq War vet getting beaten. I'm not clicking that crap, but it's out for everyone to see now.

Looking at the video I can certainly feel the great danger the police must have been in to beat a guy with five jackboots officers. Man, and his middle-aged cardigan wearing friends were looking positiviely terroristly right there.

[Losonti Tokash]

And did you see the cop who hurt his hand punching him? Clearly assault on an officer.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The debate regarding Anonymous somewhat reminds me of an online protest limited to the World of Warcraft community a couple years ago. Blizzard was moving to force people to use their real names publicly attached to their accounts, because everyone wants to whore on the Facebook social network pie. When people got pissed at that, it was brushed off at all levels on the grounds that 'nobody can get much information from your name alone,' One enterprising player took only the names of a number of key, high-ranking Blizzard and Activision employees and parleyed those into exactly this sort of incredibly detailed information about those involved, up to and including where their kids went to school. Now that was a quite responsible protest, in that the instant Blizzard backed down, the site went 'poof.' It was especially poetic in that instance, because the two activities (forced disclosure of name-gathered information) were precisely the same.

How many Blizzard employees have been ambushed and gunned down by a stranger simply for being a Blizzard employee? I'm guessing around zero. My point is that I'm not sure you're considering the full consequences of the release of such personal information with police officers.

It's a bad answer, no argument there, but a bad answer is, to me, far better than no answer. The point, and this is particularly ironic given that Anonymous is being used to help make it, is that you don't get to be anonymous just because you're in uniform with a bunch of other people. You're accountable. You point to that Olsen video, for example, and ask 'who threw that grenade?' and the people in that video know they were there. That means that either they're not telling anyone else, or the police know, and aren't telling anyone else, and neither is acceptable when you have such a blatantly egregious incident caught on tape. Either the proper authorities take care of business instead of clamming up, or the improper unauthorities will do it for them, and in a far less discriminating fashion. Do I want Anonymous involved? Not terribly. I'd rather the police stop shielding the culprits and deal with it themselves. If the threat of outing by Anonymous helps drive that along by promising that the information's going to get out in some form whether they want it or not? Fine.

I don't think we're quite to the point that you should find it acceptable that an organization is potentially and recklessly placing lives in danger. You specifically cite the officer who threw the grenade. What injuries did his action cause? Is the potential for what could happen due to an illegal and reckless action worth the benefit? I do not think so.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Video of second Iraq War vet getting beaten. I'm not clicking that crap, but it's out for everyone to see now.

So, was he beaten with the batons before the take down because I'm not seeing any obvious strikes. There could be strikes taking place but I didn't notice any.

Looking at the video I can certainly feel the great danger the police must have been in to beat a guy with five jackboots officers. Man, and his middle-aged cardigan wearing friends were looking positiviely terroristly right there.

What should have happened, Thanas? The narrator states that we caught the tail end of a take down. Why are you obsessed with the number of officers? Have you ever attempted to take a determined person into custody?

And did you see the cop who hurt his hand punching him? Clearly assault on an officer.

At what point did you see this officer delivering punches? It could very well be assault on an officer if that veteran grabbed that officers fingers and twisted or took direct action that caused injury. We saw the end of the take down. We do not know what caused this situation.

I will remind everyone that when you're placed under arrest you do not have the right to resist. If you resist and soft techniques do not work or whatever technique the officer is using to effect the arrest then the officer can elevate that level of force. These include physical strikes, baton's, OC spray, and Tasers are all acceptable escalations with the use of force. This is backed up by lots of court precedence, police experience, and combat experience.

-----------------------------

I've enjoyed the back and forth on the Oleoresin Capsicum, or OC spray. Keevan and Formless should write letters to every military training group and law enforcement training group in the nation and tell them that they're doing it wrong.

[Keevan_Colton]

I don't think we're quite to the point that you should find it acceptable that an organization is potentially and recklessly placing lives in danger. You specifically cite the officer who threw the grenade. What injuries did his action cause? Is the potential for what could happen due to an illegal and reckless action worth the benefit? I do not think so.

Honestly, you are being a sickening waste of genetic material. Apparently the risk presented by using chemical weapons on people trying to administer aid to a man suffering serious head trauma (and it turns out some degree of brain damage) is LESS than someones name being known.

[Keevan_Colton]

Keevan and Formless should write letters to every military training group and law enforcement training group in the nation and tell them that they're doing it wrong.

Given that you can only cite procedure and training manuals, whereas we've been talking about the chemistry and the fact that these techniques do not actually help the person suffering from the spray...yes you are doing it wrong. The fact is that water doesnt do anything to deal with pepper spray, you need a medium in which it is soluble to carry away the contaminant. Which is why those same manuals generally mention the use of non-oily soaps and other similar chemicals to actually REMOVE the contaminant. The water doesnt do it. It can remove some of the other irritants in CS which is probably why it's ended up part of procedure but OC is NOT water soluble.

Science > Procedure.

Frankly though, since you can find that someone throwing grenades at people is LESS reckless than knowing someones name...you are doing it wrong with regards to life never mind understanding chemical weapons.