The Occupation of Wall Street Spreads

[Agent Fisher]

Ein, what was the point of those videos? To show that people of all ages are at these OWS events? That even senior citizens, when they block an intersection, would be arrested?

EDIT: Just to add in, arrested doesn't necessarily mean they'll be charged. For these senior citizens, they'll be detained while they're being removed and then most likely cut loose later in the day.

[RogueIce]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soecENbgPVc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfIb9VlKzeQ

Time to admit you don't have a leg to stand on. Bravo, you arrested Grandma's bingo club. Aren't you fuckers proud?

If you were looking to support what SVPD said earlier about how these YouTube videos don't always give the full context but are a way to let people work up their rage, you couldn't have done a better job of it.

Though in fairness to the first video, it's fairly neutral. The second one isn't.

Anyway, first off, the seniors were not arrested. As less than thirty seconds of Google effort gave me this story by the Chicago Tribune. I will grant some benefit of the doubt to you that the story does acknowledge initial claims of arrests being made, but:

The protests lasted about an hour, and while there were some claims at first that people had been arrested, police said protesters were cited for impeding the flow of traffic and let go without arrest.

Though the next paragraph starts off with, "Those arrested..." which is a rather odd thing to say.

Also, if you actually watch parts 1, 2 and 4 of the above video, you'll note a few things. First, in part 1, they do swing some wide views and you can see a fairly long row of vehicles backed up down one of the streets they were blocking. So this sit-in was clearly causing a nuisance to people who were just trying to get through downtown Chicago. Further, you can see police officers and at least one lady in civilian clothes (no idea if she's a protester or officer) telling the gathered crowd to get back on the sidewalk. So clearly the police issue was the blocking of the intersection, not the protest itself.

Also in parts 1 and 2, the police are using their PA system to say something, though I can't make out their words over the chants. So it's probably they did try telling the JASC crowd to stop blocking the street, or were just telling everyone else to stay on the sidewalk, or maybe something else altogether. Either way, it's impossible to tell from the videos I saw.

Further, parts 2 and 4 show more of the protesters walking away. Some of them have their arms casually at their side, while at least one lady was pumping her arms in the air. If the police were arresting all of them, that's a rather odd way for them to go about it. It wasn't for lack of handcuffs or ties; one of the officers has a bunch wrapped around his arm, so clearly if they wanted to use restraints they could have. It's difficult to tell, but I didn't see any signs of restraints being used on those who did walk away with their hands clasped behind their back (whether this was at police urging or their own decision is also unknown). And finally, in part 4, as the camera swings back to the crowd on the sidewalk, it goes over just enough to catch some of the street, where you see a couple cars driving by; so it would seem they allowed traffic to go through again.

This is all from the first, second and fourth parts of that series of video of which you only bothered to show one part. And yet they all gave some additional context to what we see in the part you posted. Amazing, huh?

Your second video is odd. The title claims "Seniors arrested" yet is apparently part of a Huffington Post story that is linked to it, with the writer's name being the same as the YouTube account name. What's odd about it is that the article also tells us that the protesters were cited and seems to make no mention of any arrest reports at all. And it also ends with these two paragraphs praising the Chicago police officers:

Participants in the demonstration said they were "proud of the police" for their handling of the demonstration. Individuals occupying the intersection were escorted to a cordoned-off street corner without being handcuffed, and were issued citations, despite many expecting to spend "one or two days in jail," protester and Senior Caucus board member Gene Horcher said.

"[The police were] perfect gentlemen," Horcher said, posing happily with his citation after his third demonstration advocating for social programs to retain funding. "They realize we're fighting for the same thing."

Emphasis mine.

In short, these videos show nothing of what you're getting yourself all outraged about, and a little extra effort (Hell, just showing the other three parts of the series you got the first video from) could have demonstrated this.

So much for "you don't have a leg to stand on." And while I don't know if the police officers themselves were proud of what they did, it seems the protesters who were involved were proud of them. Imagine that.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

My mistake. Good to see the Chicago PD actually setting examples on how this should be handled, then. There's still zero defense for Oakland cops shooting unarmed citizens. Your sig pretty much says it all anyway.

[Mr. Coffee]

[Kamakazie Sith]

Yes because defendants HATE when police leak video that results in mistrials and thus freedom.

I said fair trial. Not a trial that defendants would like,

I believe we were just talking about unwarranted assumptions KS and I believe a second camera (On the grassy knoll of course), falls into that grouping would you not agree?

I'm talking about a fairly standard police practice during protests and how it could impact investigations. I wasn't trying to submit an assumption as proof that these officers were justified.

So as to not make unwarranted assumptions let us review the last posted video which I believe was the Camera-man filming the cops who was shot with rubber bullets.

1. What was the official police statement.
2. What did the video show
3. With this available evidence what conclusion can we come to at this point with this evidence?

That we have a perspective of one side. Maybe it's just my experience being a cop but you don't just look at the information presented from one side and make a premature conclusion. Why you seem to think that is OK is concerning.

[Kamakazie Sith]

We can basically conclude (in both the case of the video and the case of the ruptured spleen) that the officers and departments involved need to be investigated by an outside agency.

Is there such an official third party in the U.S.? Do you have an equivalent to, e.g., the Independent Police Complaints Commission?

Yes. Many city governments have civilian review boards.

[Kamakazie Sith]

There's a major problem with the constant refrain from SVPD and KS of 'it needs to be investigated.' When you're dealing with the issue of systemic loss of trust in the police (in a given role, as a nod to Simon's post), having police say 'We're investigating this,' when the issue is a loss of trust in the police would be somewhat akin to an Enron rep saying 'We're going to investigate this,' instead of, say, the SEC. Right now, I trust independently-shot video footage more than the word of the same police organizations responsible for the alleged offenses in the first place, for two reasons. Firstly, because they've investigating themselves. Secondly, because even if they ARE investigating honestly, we never hear it. Every time this sort of thing comes up, the perpetrator gets put on a paid vacation no matter how damning the initial evidence...and then the whole matter falls into a black hole.

By this point, the police have a hell of a lot of repair work to do on their image, and an important first step in that is not only investigation (preferably NOT by themselves) but disclosure. Quietly determining many weeks or months or years later that there was an offense committed by police does nothing whatsoever to help their growing image problems. Even if their investigations are honest and the punishments laid out are more than slaps on wrists, if they're not prompt and transparent, they only have meaning in that they punish the guilty. That's only a small part of what needs to happen for there to be any sort of a push-back to counter what they apparently want to claim are faked or orchestrated videos.

I think I've been consistent in saying that I do think incidents of police abuse should be investigated by a third party. The problem is that might not be realistic. Cities, and counties have limited funds so hiring an outside investigating team to investigate every allegation of abuse by police would not be affordable. I hate to say it in this thread because I know it won't be popular but for every legitimate complaint...there are many more bullshit complaints.

[madd0ct0r]

the sad thing is, we're arguing completely about police procedure, when the basic copper has as much interest in OWS succeeding as any average guy.

What do people see as coming out of this?

[Murazor]

Out of the OWS movement, you mean?

I expect that it will either reach a critical mass of frustration as their demands are ignored and perception of police brutality rises, potentially resulting in riots (like those we saw recently in the UK), or that it will wither away after a few months, as the status quo reasserts itself and protesters lose their energy (as it happened to the 15-M movement in Spain).

[madd0ct0r]

We won\'t see the UK riots - that went from festering normality to \'yahoo, torch the place\' in a matter of days.

this is a far more restrained, organised and political movement.

And i think, only think, it takes a lot more to drive americans to the streets then the spanish, therefore they\'ll have a crapton more reserves to draw on in terms of their own anger, and non-protesting supporters gifting food, blankets and encouragement.

It might result in a delicate distancing game between wall street and the white house, and could lead to a very intresting congress if it acts as a psudeo-party to get a lot of independents in.

[Starglider]

In Europe protest movements are an extremely tempting block of votes for smaller parties, so there is almost always some engagement from the mainstream political machinery, even if it is minor parties. In the US third parties are considered jokes; this is why the Tea Party successfully focused their efforts on Republican candidate selection. Unless the Occupiers suddenly get focused on taking control of the Democratic party (not likely IMHO) they really don't have much way to influence US politics. Personally I think both the political and corporate/financial structures are massively corrupt and need significant demolition work - I respect protesters who seriously want to do this and loathe the 'everything will be fine with a bit more tax/regulate/spend' crowd - but as yet OWS has nowhere near the numbers and determination to bypass the existing US political system. An OWS-Tea Party coalition would certainly improve the numbers but with the amount of hate on both sides that doesn't seem likely either.

[Murazor]

And i think, only think, it takes a lot more to drive americans to the streets then the spanish, therefore they\'ll have a crapton more reserves to draw on in terms of their own anger, and non-protesting supporters gifting food, blankets and encouragement.

...

Let me assure you in no uncertain terms that it takes one hell of a lot to drive the people over here to the streets. You might have mistaken us with the French, who are a healthily rowdy bunch in regards to protesting when their interests are attacked, but Spaniards are extremely apathetic (or, rather, so deep in our collective funk that it takes lots to seriously rile us up).

[madd0ct0r]

Mea culpa. protests are quite common in Britain too, and I\'d assumed it was a general European thing. (not to mention you guys have the weather for it).

Where did the sapanish movement fail? did it fail? what lessons should OWS take from it?

[SpaceMarine93]

By the way, why do the media keep ignoring them anyway? Is it because the Occupy Movement was disorganized don't have concrete goals? Is it because the media is influenced by the Rich to give as little exposure as possible to them? And if this keeps up, does the Occupy movement has any actual chance of succeeding in changing America, at least as much as Tea Party has change it?

[Questor]

Maybe it's because I'm ensconced in the LA media market, but I don't notice the media ignoring OWS. Could there be more coverage? Sure.

I can't remember a drive time that they didn't get some mention, at least until yesterday. (Conrad Murray verdict would have overshadowed anything short of another SF earthquake, I think.)

Then again, KNX does seem to cover more out of its own resources.

[Starglider]

OWS is not generating that much news flow. Sitting in one place saying the same thing every day is not newsworthy, once it falls off out of the news cycle it is good for editorials only. Occasionally someone gets beaten up or a building gets taken over etc, but even that gets old and it's not photogenic the way the mass riots in Greece are. Compare with say the EU/Italian/Greek political farce which has dominated the headlines by generating constant soap-opera style news flow, and also has a direct impact on the economy (via asset prices).

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

[youtube]www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSat-nRefXY[/youtube]

There is no defense possible for what these cops did. NONE.

[Dominus Atheos]

Now now Einy, can't you see what a clear and present danger those students peacefully linking arms presented to those police officers? They were shouting mean things at them! It probably hurt their poor widdle feelings. Especially those three students crouching against the bush as police beat them from all sides. Those girls were obviously a huge danger to those heavily armed cops as they desperately tried to shield themselves from the baton blows with their backs against the hedges with no where to go.

You're clearly just a anti-authority anarchist Einy.

[madd0ct0r]

holy shit. there's your abdominal injuries.

[loomer]

So much for not targeting the belly, eh? Seems to be becoming a pattern on the part of the Cali police, and it sure as hell makes it more likely (not that there was ever any real fucking doubt from anyone not on the force) that the spleen injury of that last veteran was caused by the police.

[madd0ct0r]

well, KS and SVPD never denied it was caused by the police, only that they might have done it by accident.

This means the entire force in the above video are in the shit for breaking regs.

[Eulogy]

This means the entire force in the above video are in the shit for breaking regs.

It also means they are at great risk of facing a class-action lawsuit, one the Blue Wall can't block.

[Agent Fisher]

Uh, it kinda is the standard way of using a baton in a line formation. Now, they shouldn't have been jabbing anywhere near that hard. That seems super excessive. For moving a crowd though, you hold the baton like that and advance in a line, kinda poking the baton out to get the crowd to move back. At least, that's what I learned when taking police training courses in college. That's cause in a line formation, you can't get enough room to swing the baton for effective strikes, so you poke with it.



But again, that appeared incredibly excessive and the officers involved need to be investigated and if needed, charged.

[Simon_Jester]

The parts I don't get are twofold.

One can't even be inferred from the video- why did the police here decide to start trying to beat back the crowd at all? What was the objective? What was the point?

The other, a rather damning detail for the individuals involved, is the treatment of the people backed up against that bush- they were basically cut off from the rest of the crowd and getting beaten from multiple sides; if the goal were to drive the crowd back, why in heaven's name would they be doing that?

That's the part that I think looks really out of hand.

[Pollux]

The parts I don't get are twofold.

One can't even be inferred from the video- why did the police here decide to start trying to beat back the crowd at all? What was the objective? What was the point?

The other, a rather damning detail for the individuals involved, is the treatment of the people backed up against that bush- they were basically cut off from the rest of the crowd and getting beaten from multiple sides; if the goal were to drive the crowd back, why in heaven's name would they be doing that?

That's the part that I think looks really out of hand.

It's off-camera, but the protesters are standing in front of tents that they pitched outside of Sproul Hall, the campus administration building, as part of the Occupy Cal movement. The police are trying to disperse the crowd gathered around the tents so they can dismantle them in accordance with campus policy (the protesters, if you look closely, have linked their arms and formed a wall to try and prevent this).

It's terrible what has happened, but I can't say I didn't foresee this. The Chancellor's office sent out an email to everyone before the walkout that stressed that any sort of encampment would be disallowed.

Speaking of, if anyone's interested, here's the Chancellor's response to the scandal:

To the Extended UC Berkeley Community:

As you know, yesterday an effort was made to establish an encampment on Sproul Plaza, by the "Occupy Cal" movement. This followed and marred the aftermath of an impressive, peaceful noontime rally on Sproul on behalf of public education, which was attended by some 3,000 participants and observers, including many campus leaders. We compliment the organizers and speakers for setting an example of peaceful protest and mobilization. As we informed the campus community earlier this week, we understand and share the concern of the Occupy movement about the extreme concentration of wealth in US society and the steady disinvestment in public higher education by California and other States.

We want to clarify our position on "no encampments" so you better understand why we do not allow this to occur on our campus. When the no-encampment policy was enacted, it was born out of past experiences that grew beyond our control and ability to manage safely. Past experiences at UC Berkeley, along with the present struggles with entrenched encampments in Oakland, San Francisco, and New York City, led us to conclude that we must uphold our policy.

This decision is largely governed by practical, not philosophical, considerations. We are not equipped to manage the hygiene, safety, space, and conflict issues that emerge when an encampment takes hold and the more intransigent individuals gain control. Our intention in sending out our message early was to alert everyone that these activities would not be permitted. We regret that, in spite of forewarnings, we encountered a situation where, to uphold our policy, we were required to forcibly remove tents and arrest people.

We want to thank our student leaders, faculty, and community members who worked hard to maintain a peaceful context last night. We have been in discussions with the ASUC, Graduate Assembly, and other student leaders who have provided a number of alternative proposals for working with the student protesters. One such discussion led last night to our offering protesters the opportunity to use Sproul Plaza 24/7 for one week, as a venue for gathering and discussing the issues. However, we stipulated that no tents, stoves, and sleeping bags would be allowed. They could gather in Sproul for discussion, but not for sleeping. This was rejected by a vote of the mass of the protesters.

It is unfortunate that some protesters chose to obstruct the police by linking arms and forming a human chain to prevent the police from gaining access to the tents. This is not non-violent civil disobedience. By contrast, some of the protesters chose to be arrested peacefully; they were told to leave their tents, informed that they would be arrested if they did not, and indicated their intention to be arrested. They did not resist arrest or try physically to obstruct the police officers' efforts to remove the tent. These protesters were acting in the tradition of peaceful civil disobedience, and we honor them.

We regret that, given the instruction to take down tents and prevent encampment, the police were forced to use their batons to enforce the policy. We regret all injuries, to protesters and police, that resulted from this effort. The campus's Police Review Board will ultimately determine whether police used excessive force under the circumstances.

We call on the protesters to observe campus policy or, if they choose to defy the policy, to engage in truly non-violent civil disobedience and to accept the consequences of their decisions.

We ask supporters of the Occupy movement to consider the interests of the broader community---the tens of thousands who elected not to participate in yesterday's events. We urge you to consider the fact that there are so many time-tested ways to have your voices heard without violating the one condition we have asked you to abide by.

Robert J. Birgeneau, Chancellor
George Breslauer, Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost
Harry LeGrande, Vice Chancellor for Studies Affairs