The Occupation of Wall Street Spreads

[Shroom Man 777]

To be fair, the camera was only looking at one direction. So, who knew.

[SVPD]

That's because you can't see what the guy holding the camera is doing, since he's pointing it away from himself. No telescope (metaphorical or literal alike) would help you because the video doesn't show critical information. Did he have a rock or a bottle? Did he step in front of someone who did at the last moment and get hit by accident? We can't see what he or the other protestors are doing or getting ready to do. We hear a little shouting about the 99% but that's it. The video also cuts off right after "he shot me."

This is not reliable evidence. Did that particular cop just decide to shoot the guy with the (presumably a cell phone) recording device? Maybe. However, it is also quite possible that he was doing something like raising a bottle to throw, either for real, or simply in order to get the police would do something so he could post that carefully truncated video on YouTube.

I'm sure that you'll claim that given past behavior of the Oakland PD the former is far more likely, but I could just as easily say that given the past behavior of the protestors, the latter is more likely, especially given that a lot of the evaluations of police behavior are from videos like the one shown, or the one KS was commenting on that don't actually show anyone getting beaten; the claim is simply made "oh, it happened before we started recording!"

This is a huge problem with the "video evidence" being shown on YouTube; what is recorded, which videos, and what portions of them are shown, are selected by the protestors. There's a definite conflict of interest there.

Now, again, it's possible that one cop, after just standing there calmly for almost 40 seconds plus however much longer he stood there before that and then just all of a sudden decided to up and blast this one guy. But it's also possible not. Either way, this video is a very carefully selected snippet that is intended to show only the guy getting shot, nothing else, and to thereby imply that there is nothing else of consequence to be shown. People do this with video because they know perfectly well there are people out there who will simply dismiss questions about what the video doesn't show or why that call into question a certain interpretation, especially when that interpretation is what they already had their minds made up was the case in the first place.

The bottom line is, you're right. We don't see anything justifying the shooting. That is because we do not see nearly enough to make a judgement, period.

[Shroom Man 777]

Would be another argument for the whole cops should bring video documentary devices. You already have those for routine squad cars, why not for critical dangerous and sensitive riot control? Guise post some stuff about cops brutalizing some veteran, police can counter that by posting videos (or using these videos in court) of that shellshocked veteran trying to assault them with arrows or something, justifying their thing.

Then you could have these videos be televised in those World's Most Exciting Riot Crackdown TV shows.

[Losonti Tokash]

I always wonder if you guys make these crazy situations up for cases that don't involve violence inflicted by the police. Like if you go to a domestic abuse incident and the woman has a black eye, do you say "well we didn't see what happened and it is possible she did something to deserve it anyway"? After all, since we do not literally see everything within 360 degrees of this guy for an extended period, it's possible he may have been brandishing a weapon, even though none of the other police reacted to him in any way. Meanwhile we've got the OPD inflicting brain injuries and ruptured organs on protesters and you just go "man they broke some windows, clearly just as bad???" Or even better, that this guy was trying to provoke the police into shooting him.

[SVPD]

Would be another argument for the whole cops should bring video documentary devices. You already have those for routine squad cars, why not for critical dangerous and sensitive riot control? Guise post some stuff about cops brutalizing some veteran, police can counter that by posting videos (or using these videos in court) of that shellshocked veteran trying to assault them with arrows or something, justifying their thing.

Then you could have these videos be televised in those World's Most Exciting Riot Crackdown TV shows.

I'd be all in favor of the cops having video devices of their own, but there would invariably be accusations of improper conduct, both by tainting evidence, and accusations of the same selective posting of video that the protestors are engaging in if they were to start posting them online.

That's really ok though; there's no reason the police should be trying to win a YouTube video posting war anyhow. The problem arises when the conclusions of a court of law suddenly become unacceptable to some people because it doesn't match their personal conclusion from a YouTube video.

[Flagg]

I always wonder if you guys make these crazy situations up for cases that don't involve violence inflicted by the police. Like if you go to a domestic abuse incident and the woman has a black eye, do you say "well we didn't see what happened and it is possible she did something to deserve it anyway"? After all, since we do not literally see everything within 360 degrees of this guy for an extended period, it's possible he may have been brandishing a weapon, even though none of the other police reacted to him in any way. Meanwhile we've got the OPD inflicting brain injuries and ruptured organs on protesters and you just go "man they broke some windows, clearly just as bad???" Or even better, that this guy was trying to provoke the police into shooting him.

Don't be a moron Los, clearly the police were in the right to shoot a cameraman who was doing nothing to agitate an entire line of riot cops. Besides, the example of domestic abuse you gave clearly doesn't apply unless a police officer gave her the black eye. Then clearly she must have been UP TO SOMETHING.

[SVPD]

I always wonder if you guys make these crazy situations up for cases that don't involve violence inflicted by the police. Like if you go to a domestic abuse incident and the woman has a black eye, do you say "well we didn't see what happened and it is possible she did something to deserve it anyway"? After all, since we do not literally see everything within 360 degrees of this guy for an extended period, it's possible he may have been brandishing a weapon, even though none of the other police reacted to him in any way. Meanwhile we've got the OPD inflicting brain injuries and ruptured organs on protesters and you just go "man they broke some windows, clearly just as bad???" Or even better, that this guy was trying to provoke the police into shooting him.

What exactly is so "crazy" about the idea that a protestor may have done something to indicate he was about to engage in a violent act? Protestors are just such nice people that they wouldn't do that?

What you're doing here is called "begging the question". "Do you guys make up crazy scenarios...?" is just a cute way of saying "I'm simply not going to consider your points; instead I'm just going to word my question in such a way that no matter what you answer, you're conceding that you're just making this stuff up for no better reason than I simply don't want to believe the protestors might do something like that." It's essentially just "have you stopped beating your wife?" re-worded to this situation.

Your lines about "inflicting brain injuries and ruptured organs" is just as bad, implying multiple incidents of each (I'm aware of ONE brain injury and ONE ruptured organ so far) and implying that because those were done, they were necessarily incidents of brutality. One of them was, but the ruptured spleen one, unless I'm confusing it with a different incident, KS pointed out that the video conveniently starts after the alledged beating. You also simply dismiss the protestor's actions as "breaking a few windows" which is easily done since the protestors aren't recording themselves doing anything wrong and posting it on YouTube, now, are they?

Let's look at your domestic violence analogy. When we show up at a domestic violence situation we do not simply say "Oh look, woman with a black eye, off to jail you go!" with nary a question as to what happened, but you are claiming it's "crazy" to not engage in such precipitous action with this video. Instead, we investigate. If the husband and wife are totally surprised we showed up, and it turns out a panicky neighbor called after seeing it and she got it at karate class.. guess what? We don't arrest the man because it's a "crazy scenario" and we already have our mind made up men are just like that. If the man claims the woman came at him with a knife or something first, we look at whether that could have happened. Is there a knife around? If so, where is it? In the knife holder in the kitchen? Hmm.. very convenient for him, most kitchens have those. His story is not plausible. Is it laying in the middle of the floor? That makes it a lot more plausible, and we don't just dismiss it as "crazy", despite the fact that a lot of domestic violence "advocates" would really like us to.

Was it you that was actually at one of the Occupy protests? If so, maybe you should stop looking at your own event through such trusting, rose-colored glasses, since you obviously want KS and I to be critical of improper police action. When you demand that we simply unquestioningly accept protestors' versions of events and ignore that they are the ones taking, selecting, and posting video and just agree with whatever you say, it's very hard to take you seriously. Neither of us has claimed there has been no improper or even brutal action by some police officers since there unquestioningly has, and it's far from unreasonable to point out problems with the protestors' version of events. They are human beings, and it's not like anyone is really vetting who is involved; there are certainly going to be plenty of scumbags in amongst the honest protestors.

[SVPD]

Don't be a moron Los, clearly the police were in the right to shoot a cameraman who was doing nothing to agitate an entire line of riot cops. Besides, the example of domestic abuse you gave clearly doesn't apply unless a police officer gave her the black eye. Then clearly she must have been UP TO SOMETHING.

Could you post the video, or however else it is you know what the cameraman was doing? I'd be very interested to know how you came by this evidence.

[White Haven]

The audio, for one. The video has fairly clear audio of the cameraman's own voice, fainter but still audible detection of voices on the far side of the riot police line, and clear pickup of the gunshot. Unless the cameraman had a squad of ninjas creeping about behind him...

As for the cameraman himself doing something threatening, the camera doesn't display the kind of erratic motion that would indicate that. Look at many of the other protest videos; when the cameramen are doing anything but standing still or moving very slowly and carefully, the camera goes wild immediately. Obviously we don't have footage of the cameraman himself, but the lack of any erratic camera movement would tend to argue against his free hand being about to peg a brick or something of that nature.

Of course given that nothing was thrown until (possibly, given that the video ends) after the police shot the cameraman down, that also raises the question of whether the police should be engaging in preemptive strikes on the suspicion of possible attack. Given that the police DID strike first in this case, I'd have a hard time feeling sorry for them if a few bricks got hummed their way as a result.

[SVPD]

The audio, for one. The video has fairly clear audio of the cameraman's own voice, fainter but still audible detection of voices on the far side of the riot police line, and clear pickup of the gunshot. Unless the cameraman had a squad of ninjas creeping about behind him...

I did not think the audio was terribly clear, and in any case, lifting an arm to throw makes no sound whatsoever.

As for the cameraman himself doing something threatening, the camera doesn't display the kind of erratic motion that would indicate that. Look at many of the other protest videos; when the cameramen are doing anything but standing still or moving very slowly and carefully, the camera goes wild immediately. Obviously we don't have footage of the cameraman himself, but the lack of any erratic camera movement would tend to argue against his free hand being about to peg a brick or something of that nature.

Again, I don't see that lifting an arm to throw would result in this kind of "erratic behavior". Maybe, but probably not. Generally when we see those videos, the situation is already chaotic, while this one is calm until the shot is fired. Clearly that means no one did anything violent up to the point, but violence has to start somehow. It could have been because the officer fired, it could ahve been because he saw the cameraman or someone else do something.

It also doesn't account for the possibility that the cameraman was intentionally trying to keep the video as steady as possible in order to get a video of the cop shooting him, because he was doing something he knew was likely to result in that. Do you really think this sort of thing would not go on?

Of course given that nothing was thrown until (possibly, given that the video ends) after the police shot the cameraman down, that also raises the question of whether the police should be engaging in preemptive strikes on the suspicion of possible attack. Given that the police DID strike first in this case, I'd have a hard time feeling sorry for them if a few bricks got hummed their way as a result.

When you see someone about to throw an object at you, doing something to prevent that is not a "preemptive strike on the suspicion of possible attack." Engaing in bodily behavior that indicates you are about to attack someone is a threat, and allows self defense. This is true whether a cop or a private citizen is the target of the threat.

This is not grade school where you can cock your arm back, then "whiff" a punch and go run to teacher that the other kid hit you first if he thinks you're really about to hit him, and retaliates. This is the adult world.

As for whether you'd feel sorry, that's irrelevant. More importantly, even if this officer was in the wrong (and don't mistake my comments above; you do give reasons to believe he shot improperly, although not conclusive ones) that does NOT excuse throwing rocks at the cops in general. The rest of the police are just standing there.

[Shroom Man 777]

He means that if the camera man was doing something with his other hand (like say throwing a boulder), then his camera would've been shaky like a Bourne Cloverwitch Blairfield Project video because one-handing a camera gets you shitty shots.

[Simon_Jester]

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I want some tinpot dictator or some self-appointed vanguard party to form a new kind of society. I don't think that's possible, and I'm pretty sure that ultimately those best qualified to decide are the 99% themselves. If the politicians in so-called representative democracies were really our representatives, then there would not be increasing numbers of people who feel their needs and voices are being ignored by the rich and powerful.

My point is that by attempting to de facto declare war on the Establishment, you're left with no choice but to become a revolutionary and hope for the radical overthrow of society. And when you take a position like "cops are just hired goons of the rich!" you're pretty much declaring war on the Establishment- because you're excluding the possibility that they might be restrained, might actually be less bad than what real hired goons would look like (say, if Wall Street hired Blackwater to provide security for itself against OWS), because hell, they might even be on your side while doing their duty to maintain some kind of public order through it all.

By rejecting all these things, and the very concept of a neutral police force, what are you left with except a call for revolution that will give you a tinpot dictator or self-appointed vanguard party, whether you wanted one or not?

[Losonti Tokash]

So here's the issue. We keep getting stories and/or videos of peaceful protesters being severely injured either by police action or in their custody. There's plenty of media showing protesters being restrained without consideration for their safety.

We get instances like Scott Olsen where not only do the police 5 feet away fail to render aid, they grenade the people who actually do try to help him. I don't know what your opinion was, but KS agreed that the cop who threw that grenade ought to be prosecuted.

There was a video earlier of a group of non-violent, cooperative protesters sitting on the ground were assaulted and pepper sprayed in the face before being restrained in a prone position.

We had a second veteran get confronted by at least a half dozen officers and came out of it with a lacerated spleen whose cries for help were ignored for 18 hours. It's likely the injur came from repeated blows to the torso, which has been stated to not be a valid target for batons. It's suggested they missed and accidentally hit his abdomen, presumably while he was lying on the ground.

We now have a cameraman being shot with no apparent provocation, after years of police threatening and harrassing bystanders recording their actions nationwide. You have suggested that the cameraman was apparently being threatening or just happened to walk in front of someone who was.

And yeah, I'm at these protests as a street medic. It's been made fairly clear that protesters' welfare is not a top priority, or else the police wouldn't interfere with their prompt treatment. I've also been doing a lot more internal policing of idiots trying to sir shit up than it seems the police have done. It doesn't even matter if you guys are or not, no one sees it and the wall of secrecy or whatever just adds to the feeling of corruption.

Or you get shit like in Occupy DC where was a car runs into multiple groups of protesters and the police decline to press charges. We're not the ones undermining the relationship between the police and their communities. You guys have been working on that for literally my entire life.

[SVPD]

He means that if the camera man was doing something with his other hand (like say throwing a boulder), then his camera would've been shaky like a Bourne Cloverwitch Blairfield Project video because one-handing a camera gets you shitty shots.

Maybe. Maybe not. I do not know that this is necessarily true, especially if you are concentrating on getting a good camera shot.

[Shroom Man 777]

If you're concentrating on a good camera shot, then you'd be two-handing it because one-handing it gives you shit shots, or if you are one-handing it, you would otherwise not be throwing around boulders and stuff. Or the guy could be holding the camera with one hand, and with a really strong and steady arm, and concentrating on a good shot, while holding another object with his other hand half-mindedly while waving it around threateningly or vaguely or in a way that might be interpreted as threateningly or maybe outright throwing it, while concentrating on a good shot? Whatever. For all we know, the guy might've been a quadruple-amputee and was holding onto the camera with his mouth while his seeing eye dog was pushing him on his wheelchair.

Well, who knows what really went on there. Though I think the onus, or the scrutiny, should be on part of the very powerful institutions whose members are protected by layers of secrecy or heavy bureaucratic obstruction and who are capable of dealing (and have dealt, repeatedly) great injury to people, and whose powers should naturally be under strict oversight, rather than a mob of crusty ragtags who people dismiss as know-nothing purposeless unorganized liberal effete college slackers with designer jeans and Macbooks (at least, they dismiss these guys as such, until it is convenient to portray them as a great and dangerous and destabilizing communist horde bent on socializing all our precious bodily fluids)*.

*It's interesting, the dichotomy in the portrayals of the enemies of the establishment. On one hand, they love downplaying the opposition as weak girly men living in caves or being primitive foreigners or know-nothing unemployed weed-smoking yuppies, in order to reassure their power base that things are going good and that all is fine. On the other hand, they also love scaremongering and portraying the other side as this grave apocalyptic threat that will destroy the American way of life or whatever, in order to galvanize their power base and mobilize them into doing dumb things, like willingly voting for the regime to curb their civil rights, or cheering on hypethyroid stormtroopers stomping protesters and bayoneting people with white phosphorus tear gas shotgun grenade launcher baton pistol gunblades or whatever.

God, I love how the media pretty much ignored these Occupy movements during the starting days, until the time came that people could open their windows and see the Occupiers Occupying their Occupation with their own eyes. It's morning again in America.

[Losonti Tokash]

Shroom, would you agree that the important question here is whether the police realize the public largely does not feel safe/protected by them?

[Civil War Man]

It's not necessarily impossible to get a fairly steady camera shot with one hand, but it is a lot harder than it is with two hand and a lot of people won't be able to pull it off at all.

But that's really beside the point. Even if we assume that whatever training and manuals deemed the police responses in these situations to be appropriate, it is not necessarily what their response should be. Doing stuff like throwing a tear gas grenade at a group trying to help an injured protester, shooting a cameraman that other police did not seem to be threatened by, or spraying someone in the face with pepper spray because they won't stand up just foments an antagonistic relationship between the police and everyone else. A relationship that isn't helped at all by the complete opaqueness of many police departments, who won't give any comment regarding internal affairs beyond "we are investigating."

It generates a sentiment that the police are completely ambivalent about the safety of the protesters at best, or that they are openly hostile at worst, regardless of whether that is true or not. It's telling that the demonstrations where most violence seems to occur (ie Oakland) tend to be places where there is a history of hostility between the police and the general population.

[Shroom Man 777]

Shroom, would you agree that the important question here is whether the police realize the public largely does not feel safe/protected by them?

Nobody gives a fuck about what the public largely feels, they're a bunch of know nothings and if they knew what was good for them, they'd stop taking videos of cops doing things. The police's job is to keep the public in line. By force, if need be.

Now, its time for some obligatory Watchmeng quotes.


Goddamn, I love working on American soil, Los. Ain't had this much fun since Colfax and Kiwii.

How long can we keep this up?

Senate is pushing through some new bill that's gonna outlaw smarm. Our days are numbered. Till then, it's like you always say: we're society's only protection.

From what?

You kidding me? From themselves.

We were supposed to make the world a better place! What the hell happened to us? What happened to the American dream?

What happened to the American Dream? It came true! You're looking at it!

[SVPD]

So here's the issue. We keep getting stories and/or videos of peaceful protesters being severely injured either by police action or in their custody. There's plenty of media showing protesters being restrained without consideration for their safety.

There are plenty of stories and videos that are being interpreted that way by people that are untrained in police procedures and riot control, and there are plenty of references to "peaceful" protestors that are not engaged in active assault, but are still breaking the law.

We get instances like Scott Olsen where not only do the police 5 feet away fail to render aid, they grenade the people who actually do try to help him. I don't know what your opinion was, but KS agreed that the cop who threw that grenade ought to be prosecuted.

I agree with KS. The problem, however, is that we do not just get unspecified additional "instances like Scott Olson." Each incident has to be treated on its own merits; that's how the legal system works. If you want it dealt with en masse, just declare OWS a revolution, we'll call out the National Guard, and law enforcement can wash its hands of the whole mess.

I certianly don't want that, and I don't think you do either. However, the price of that is that you cannot just paint broad brush strokes of the police, especially when a great deal of that broad brush is the invention of media created by the protestors in order to convey the message they want to convey. I notice this point is being very carefully avoided.

There was a video earlier of a group of non-violent, cooperative protesters sitting on the ground were assaulted and pepper sprayed in the face before being restrained in a prone position.

What video was this?

Furthermore, if they are non-violent, that does not make them "cooperative". If they were lawfully ordered to move (for whatever reason) or were placed under arrest (for whatever reason; you're being quite short on details) then they were no being cooperative, and if cooperation could not be secured by lesser means, it is lawful to use pepper spray to secure compliance. The courts have already ruled on this; rules for use of force are well-established precedent. The fact that you re a protestor does not give you the right to violate the law and then claim being arrested is a problem simply because you were "peaceful".

Moreover, you seem to want me to simply accept at face value your characterization of events. I'll judge for myself whether the protestors were peaceful and cooperative, since you want to judge for yourself whether the police were doing something they shouldn't have.

We had a second veteran get confronted by at least a half dozen officers and came out of it with a lacerated spleen whose cries for help were ignored for 18 hours. It's likely the injur came from repeated blows to the torso, which has been stated to not be a valid target for batons. It's suggested they missed and accidentally hit his abdomen, presumably while he was lying on the ground.

It's "likely" according to who? First of all, we didn't ever see what happened in the actual confrontation. Second, the fact that the torso is not a target does not mean that it can't be struck; batons are used in chaotic situations and its very easy to miss; no one stands still for them. Third, as pointed out, there can be a form of delayed laceration. Fourth, where and under what circumstances was he "Calling for help for 18 hours"? Is this just his story? Are we to believe him just because he's a veteran?

I'd be willing to bet if he were a war veteran accused of shooting up an Iraqi family, that "veteran" status would not be getting him nearly as much sympathy and trust; instead, we'd see cyncial pooh-poohing of his side of the story. Yet as soon as he says what you want to beliveve, it's unquestionably true.

Not only that, but you guys keep bringing up "veteran" like it actually matters. Is it somehow worse if this happens to a veteran? That's interesting. I'm a veteran. I'll be sure to let my wife know that if she get's beaten by the police it's less serious than if it happens to me.

We now have a cameraman being shot with no apparent provocation, after years of police threatening and harrassing bystanders recording their actions nationwide. You have suggested that the cameraman was apparently being threatening or just happened to walk in front of someone who was.

The reason there's no apparent provocation is that the camera is positioned so that any provocation would be out of its field of view. Claiming "no apparent provocation" in this instance is incredibly self-serving and dishonest. Of course it's not apparent; the camera doesn't point that way.

As for supposed "years of the police threateneing and harrassing bystanders recording their actions nationwide", the fact that these bystanders like to edit video, post it on YouTube to conduct trials of public opinion rather than address matters in court, and now apprarently want to publish private information like SSNs indicate that the police have been right to be concerned about the motives and actions of these "bystanders". While there are a number of solutions to this, the fact of the matter is that it is not simply honest citizens recording the cops and just happening to catch things on video; it's a great deal of highly selective filming, editing, and posting.

It is amazing to me that people seriously take videos on YouTube at such unquestioning face value. Who is vetting these videos? That's right; no one. I guess skepticism is not such a good thing when it calls your own assumptions into question, is it?

And yeah, I'm at these protests as a street medic. It's been made fairly clear that protesters' welfare is not a top priority, or else the police wouldn't interfere with their prompt treatment. I've also been doing a lot more internal policing of idiots trying to sir shit up than it seems the police have done. It doesn't even matter if you guys are or not, no one sees it and the wall of secrecy or whatever just adds to the feeling of corruption.

It "has been made fairly clear" by who? To who? I have news for you, in any sort of riot or combat situation, you do not stop in the middle of fighting and render aid.

Your attitude here is representative of the entire problem. "It doesn't matter if the police ARE doing it, we aren't seeing it, so it adds to the 'wall of secrecy'." If they were doing it, you'd be howling even louder about them hauling away protestors to jail. I'd be really interested to see what your "internal policing" is like. This sounds an awful lot like "we basically just want the cops to arrest people we want arrested." How many of these "idiots trying to stir shit up" are people who don't agree with OWS?

Or you get shit like in Occupy DC where was a car runs into multiple groups of protesters and the police decline to press charges. We're not the ones undermining the relationship between the police and their communities. You guys have been working on that for literally my entire life.

In other words, you have your mind already made up and are unwilling to look critically at the behavior of people you agree with. Guess what? I've spent my entire life watching people make bullshit accusations against law enforcement, since long before I had any desire to be in law enforcement or inkling that I'd be doing that; I was well into adulthood when I switched to this career.

Why were the cops unwilling to press charges? Do they even know who was driving the car? You leave details like this out, but the real bottom line is this: You want your interpretation of events to stand unquestioned. This is the real problem with people like you; you want to cricticize but when someone calls your thoughts into question you just can't take it, and retreat into resentment that this is a country where the police are citizens and are allowed to question your actions just as you question theirs.

[SVPD]

Shroom, would you agree that the important question here is whether the police realize the public largely does not feel safe/protected by them?

OWS is not "the public". You feel that way; you do not get to speak for the public at large.

[SVPD]

If you're concentrating on a good camera shot, then you'd be two-handing it because one-handing it gives you shit shots, or if you are one-handing it, you would otherwise not be throwing around boulders and stuff. Or the guy could be holding the camera with one hand, and with a really strong and steady arm, and concentrating on a good shot, while holding another object with his other hand half-mindedly while waving it around threateningly or vaguely or in a way that might be interpreted as threateningly or maybe outright throwing it, while concentrating on a good shot? Whatever. For all we know, the guy might've been a quadruple-amputee and was holding onto the camera with his mouth while his seeing eye dog was pushing him on his wheelchair.

Who said anything about boulders? All you're doing here is trying to make it sound as if the possibility he was doing something he didn't want the camera to see is inherently silly and unreasonable, while the possibility that he was doing nothing of the sort is perfectly resonable, because that's the possibility you like better. This is just ridiculing the other position and trying to make it sound like an argument. I realize this is your thing, since you almost never say anything really substantial, but there it is.

Well, who knows what really went on there. Though I think the onus, or the scrutiny, should be on part of the very powerful institutions whose members are protected by layers of secrecy or heavy bureaucratic obstruction and who are capable of dealing (and have dealt, repeatedly) great injury to people, and whose powers should naturally be under strict oversight, rather than a mob of crusty ragtags who people dismiss as know-nothing purposeless unorganized liberal effete college slackers with designer jeans and Macbooks (at least, they dismiss these guys as such, until it is convenient to portray them as a great and dangerous and destabilizing communist horde bent on socializing all our precious bodily fluids)*.

Your predjudicial language aside, I think that the scruntiny should be equally on the angry protestors who feel business and banks have taken over the country as well as on the working stiffs who are trying to maintain law and order, and that equal weight ought to be given to both what the video shows, and the fact that it's a carefully selected short snippet of a narrow field of view, and put on the internet by people with a vested interest in a certain perception.

See how much better it sounds when we address the valid concerns of both sides instead of trying to use predjudicial language to simply dismiss things we're uncomfortable with?

*It's interesting, the dichotomy in the portrayals of the enemies of the establishment. On one hand, they love downplaying the opposition as weak girly men living in caves or being primitive foreigners or know-nothing unemployed weed-smoking yuppies, in order to reassure their power base that things are going good and that all is fine. On the other hand, they also love scaremongering and portraying the other side as this grave apocalyptic threat that will destroy the American way of life or whatever, in order to galvanize their power base and mobilize them into doing dumb things, like willingly voting for the regime to curb their civil rights, or cheering on hypethyroid stormtroopers stomping protesters and bayoneting people with white phosphorus tear gas shotgun grenade launcher baton pistol gunblades or whatever.

It's interesting, that you think constantly shouting things like SPARTAFREEDOMERICA or whatever pertains to the topic at hand and simply using a lot of prejudicial language to dismiss any inconvenient details is really convincing. I'm sure it is when you'r having an outrage contest with people you basically agree with on the internet, but the fact is that you're simply unable to address counterpoints. Not because it's not possible, but because you simply don't want to; you want your view of events to simply stand unquestioned. This is why you're constantly making posts that are nothing but factless, pointless sarcasm; you know perfectly well that no one is going to seriously spend time addressing such bullshit because you're saying nothing concrete to be addressed. This lets you pretend that people can't address the "truth" you're pointing out, when in point of fact all you're doing is rendering your own position unworthy of the time necessary to address it.

In that regard, this post from you is highly unusual in that it has something at least concrete enough to address, although it's heavily laden with the usual prejudicial terminology in order to beg the questions at hand. 90% of the time you're not really saying anything at all and I wouldn't even bother.

God, I love how the media pretty much ignored these Occupy movements during the starting days, until the time came that people could open their windows and see the Occupiers Occupying their Occupation with their own eyes. It's morning again in America.

I guess not slavishly agreeing to the Occupier's every word and claim, and failing to constantly keep them on the news at all hours is "ignoring" them.

[Shroom Man 777]

People Power is not "the public". You feel that way; you do not get to speak for the public at large.

Don't worry man, it's not like there hasn't been a whole lot of controversies, scandals and other horrible things that have happened before the People Power thing started, to affect how the public views the police at large. And I think the people making up the People Power are also part of that same public, even though not everyone, not even most, in "the public" is in the People Power or may agree with them.

[Losonti Tokash]

The car in DC ran over two people, continued driving and hit another, then tried to drive off but was surrounded. Two of those people went to the hospital. The police reasoning was "he had a green light."

There was no riot going on when Olsen was shot. There was no chaos or violence that would have prevented those police from helping him or allowing him to be carried away. There was no reason to ignore a man crying for help while puking and shitting blood and being unable to walk. There's no reason to pepper spray a person in the face wbho is literally doing nothing but sitting down. Whether it's legal or not is irrelevant, it makes you a fuckstick.

I don't even know what the fuck you're babbling about when you say we'd just complain more if you actually showed your were investigating police abuse. Ideally you wouldn't even do it internally due to conflict of interest but that's not likely.

PS those idiots are either dumb kids who shut the hell up when we tell them, or mentally ill folks who show up. The police here didn't beat the shit out of us for staying out late so we actually have a positive relation ship with them.

Anyway, you're fucking fooling yourself if you think you're a calming presence to damn near anyone. Stop acting so damned surprised when people's rights get abused one too many times with no repercussions and shit blows the fuck up. What got this movement national attention was even more about the asshole who peppersprayed two girls on a sidewqalk (punished with a paid vacation!) Or when the NYPD said the march could go on the Brooklyn Bridge, then trapped and arrsted everyone.

[Shroom Man 777]

Who said anything about boulders? All you're doing here is trying to make it sound as if the possibility he was doing something he didn't want the camera to see is inherently silly and unreasonable, while the possibility that he was doing nothing of the sort is perfectly resonable, because that's the possibility you like better. This is just ridiculing the other position and trying to make it sound like an argument. I realize this is your thing, since you almost never say anything really substantial, but there it is.

I'm saying that filming with one hand results in a shitty video, particularly if you have to do something with the other hand, and if you want to do something naughty with your other hand, you won't be really concentrating with your camera hand and you won't be able to film a decent video unless you're like Chow Yun Fat, except instead of twin Berettas, it's a camera in one hand and a rock/molotov cocktail/bad thing in another. Filming a decent shot involves the guy looking into the screen/eye-thing to make sure he's actually shooting something in the video, and not videoing the pavement or the ground or getting a shit image, like those guys in Cloverfield or Blair Witch Project got (maybe because they were busy fending off monsters/witches/whatever with their other hands).

That his video is actually legible, compared to the vast majority of shitty hand-filmed videos out there, means that it is most likely he's holding onto his camera with both hands, or concentrating most of his attention on his camera, while moving slowly and making sure his camera is positioned properly to film things (and most likely this means he's looking into his camera's screen/eye-thing), which means that if he's doing naughty things with his other hand, then it'd be pretty awkward for him.

Just try filming something legible on video, even with a small camera, with one hand while trying to do another thing with your other hand.

Your predjudicial language aside, I think that the scruntiny should be equally on the angry protestors who feel business and banks have taken over the country as well as on the working stiffs who are trying to maintain law and order, and that equal weight ought to be given to both what the video shows, and the fact that it's a carefully selected short snippet of a narrow field of view, and put on the internet by people with a vested interest in a certain perception.

See how much better it sounds when we address the valid concerns of both sides instead of trying to use predjudicial language to simply dismiss things we're uncomfortable with?

Except, when the protesters do something naughty, they can get arrested, and even when they're doing nothing, they can get the shit beaten out of them. If the cops do something bad, what do they get? Some internet fatties mocking and jeering them and forcing the hand of other internet peoples to defend them from mean internet words?

There's already equal scrutiny. Don't tear gas and rubber bullets and beating sticks already scrutinize those protesters enough? If we want to give police a similar level of this kind of scrutiny, then by all means, I'm all for equal opportunity scrutiny.

Tear gas and rubber bullets and beating sticks are very uncomfortable, and I think those OWS guys wouldn't be able to simply dismiss something that uncomfortable.

It's interesting, that you think constantly shouting things like SPARTAFREEDOMERICA or whatever pertains to the topic at hand and simply using a lot of prejudicial language to dismiss any inconvenient details is really convincing. I'm sure it is when you'r having an outrage contest with people you basically agree with on the internet, but the fact is that you're simply unable to address counterpoints. Not because it's not possible, but because you simply don't want to; you want your view of events to simply stand unquestioned. This is why you're constantly making posts that are nothing but factless, pointless sarcasm; you know perfectly well that no one is going to seriously spend time addressing such bullshit because you're saying nothing concrete to be addressed. This lets you pretend that people can't address the "truth" you're pointing out, when in point of fact all you're doing is rendering your own position unworthy of the time necessary to address it.

In that regard, this post from you is highly unusual in that it has something at least concrete enough to address, although it's heavily laden with the usual prejudicial terminology in order to beg the questions at hand. 90% of the time you're not really saying anything at all and I wouldn't even bother.

That assumes that I'm trying to enter a debate or raise points when all I'm doing is just expressing disdain and mockery and contempt towards your nation whenever it bombs innocent people, gets caught torturing the fuck out of its prisoners, has mercenaries sell child prostitutes to its allies, invades whole nations over mistaken evidence and gets thousands of your own citizens killed, violates the rules of war and human rights, erodes your civil liberties, starts killing your own citizens via secret President-authorized assassinations, does all of these things that results in bankrupting your country, fucks up other people's nations and other people's peoples, and finally when it's done with all these things, also fucks up its own people by giving billions of dollars to the companies that caused your financial crisis while people get poor, and then tear gas and rubber pellet-shotgun and stickbeat the hell out of the people protesting this and other injustices. I'm just mocking all these events, which have now culminated in all these Occupation things you're seeing today. There are no points in my posts, they are spontaneous exclamations and excretions aimed at America's ugly face.

Most of the time, I don't really care to have anything for people to address, or to have anything for people to care to address, and you're free to not bother with it at all. It doesn't matter, to me or to you.

I guess not slavishly agreeing to the Occupier's every word and claim, and failing to constantly keep them on the news at all hours is "ignoring" them.

I'm talking about how narry a word was on the mainstream news about the Occupy movement when it began, until the Occupation movement ended up everywhere. I wasn't talking about you since I said "God, I love how the media pretty much ignored these Occupy movements during the starting days", unless you're some kind of law enforcing journalist, in which case you would count as a media.

[Flagg]

So here's the issue. We keep getting stories and/or videos of peaceful protesters being severely injured either by police action or in their custody. There's plenty of media showing protesters being restrained without consideration for their safety.

There are plenty of stories and videos that are being interpreted that way by people that are untrained in police procedures and riot control, and there are plenty of references to "peaceful" protestors that are not engaged in active assault, but are still breaking the law.

Remember Los, only the police are allowed to decide when abuse is taking place, because they are trained in it.