The Occupation of Wall Street Spreads

[Ziggy Stardust]

From that video, it doesn't even seem like the police are making an effort to move the protesters or get through to the tents. They just start wailing on the nearest ones for a couple of minutes, then stop.

[Simon_Jester]

That part is easy enough to explain- though I'm filling in some blanks here because you can't make out what anyone's saying, so this is what I think happened.

The police have orders to get to the tents and get them removed. They have a crowd that's in the way. As a fairly standard method of dispersing a crowd, the police form a line, demand that the crowd disperse, then start pushing forward and trying to clear their way with baton jabs.

The students don't really fall back much, either because the ones in front refuse to do so, or because the ones further back in the crowd refuse to flow out of the way, or both. Since the bulk of the crowd does not move, the police at the edge of the crowd are stuck continuing to jab with batons and try to drive the crowd back, hence hitting them with the batons.

Ideally, the crowd falls back in response to that- but here, it doesn't happen. To get through, the police would have to beat down at least a hard crust of people at the edge of the crowd, and possibly an even larger number of people further back. If you look at the protestors' side of the line, you can see a few people who are being held back by fellow protestors, or assuming... well, I'm going to call it a fighting stance for lack of a better term, clearly intending to hold their current position and at least resist baton strikes rather than falling back.

So you've got a tactic for dispersing crowds by the implied threat of force, and a crowd that plainly isn't going to disperse unless you apply a lot of actual force. Not a good situation.

Then whoever was in charge realized "holy shit, we're not going to be able to drive the crowd back without physically pummeling a bunch of people into submission" and pulled back rather than try to keep up the stickbeatings.

Elapsed time: around ninety seconds.

That part actually kind of makes sense- it seems like an abortive attempt to use the threat of force to disperse the crowd, which was called off when the police realize that the crowd isn't going to move out of the way (for whatever reason).

The details concern me- the amount of force used, the behavior of the several policemen who started surrounding and pummeling a few people at the edge of the line who weren't in a good position to pull back even if they wanted to, things like that. But I can see how the whole thing could happen without anyone deliberately plotting to beat up a bunch of demonstrators.

[Count Chocula]

A university chancellor ended his last sentence in a preposition? Tsk, tsk. I will say, though, that his message is clear, cogent and well-worded.

By linking arms and trying to keep the police from dismantling the tent village, those protesters were actively resisting arrest. They knew what was going to happen BEFORE the police came in to disperse and arrest them, a little bit of context that's missing in the videos.

On the poking with the batons piece: the police can't swing the batons, as noted. That means they can't whack heads (good), OR legs. It's not as easy to jab someone's thigh with a baton, inducing a pain reaction and maybe breaking that person's link in the chain, as you would suppose, which leaves the torso as the best target. This is Puncturing Weapons 101, but with batons.

Also, I took a close look at those three poor, pooor protesters backed up against the bushes. They kept their arms linked, which means they were NOT dispersing. I also noticed that at least one protester grabbed a baton. The police went in to open up a weak link, break the chain, and disperse the protesters. They went in hard, THEN STOPPED TO RE-EVALUATE. If anything, going up against a known hard-core minority of OWS Berkeley kids, they showed admirable restraint. I don't see the excessive force, I see a use of perceived necessary force and regrouping. Me, I would've stacked my guys behind a row of riot shields and rushed the middle of the line. Hey, at least there's no tear gas.

[Simon_Jester]

The problem with those three students, Choc, is that they were pretty close to being backed into a corner. The only way for them to get out of the way was to sidle past a knot of policemen who were beating them with sticks, with their backs scraping against the bushes they'd been pinned against, while being beaten with sticks.

That's not "disperse, you hippies!" That's "run the gauntlet, maggots!"

If we could read the minds of everyone involved, I suspect it would just be a tactical mess-up, something you could call "confusion of the melee."

From the protestors side, a few people at the edge of the protest line see the center sag backwards and wind up pinned against an impassable obstacle on three sides by the police line. They're probably too busy getting hit with sticks to think very clearly, and there is some instinct-level tendency to defend yourself against someone beating when you are cornered or nearly cornered- to at least block them or grab the stick so they'll stop hitting you with a stick.

From the police side, they advance a little (as expected) but the knot of protestors on the 'flank' doesn't break up as fast as expected, leaving them in this little three-man salient that they aren't abandoning- "refuse" to abandon, from the point of view of the snap judgment of a few people on the ground at the time. So the police keep trying to push them back, but the guys at the base of the salient don't get out of the way and give them a clear line of retreat that doesn't involve being beaten with sticks. Not good.

Which may be an issue. I would think, ideally, that riot police should always be trained to try and give people a way to back down, because otherwise you will unavoidably wind up with cornered people who see no way out other than to get beaten up, and some of them are going to fight when they shouldn't and it all goes to hell.

[Count Chocula]

Simon, those three were backed into a shrub line but were not dispersing. They remained linked. Police attempted to lay hands on them and break the chain, but (duh) leverage was not in their favor. So they took a few more pokes AND BACKED OFF. If those three had broken link and covered, they'd have had zipties and no further blows. But they were/are hardcore so SMACK! which still failed.

Reminder: the police here know they are dealing with a subgroup that will resist. They did not go into the line in a 100% beatdown mode but used their training then BACKED OFF. Those three rejoined the line IIRC.

From what I can tell in the video, the police were either not 100% committed to breaking the line or didn't understand that a flying wedge into the line would break it and give avenues of escape from the center. Maybe both. To me, this looks like a case of resistible force meets immovable object!

[Alphawolf55]

I'm sorry but how is linking arms violent protest? I thought violence had to cause actual harm to another group.

I mean by that definition wouldn't Gandhi have been committing "violent protest"

[Count Chocula]

Violent protest is resistance by force. Refusing to disperse and presenting your body as a physical barrier, which has to be overcome by force, is implicitly violent. Linking arms to reinforce the integrity of your barrier against encroachment is multiplication of force. BTW, Gandhi used force by daring violence from the British; their refusal to participate in his invitation does not mean his protests weren't resistance by force.

[LaCroix]

Violent protest is resistance by force. Refusing to disperse and presenting your body as a physical barrier, which has to be overcome by force, is implicitly violent.

By your definition, the only non-violent protest possible is when the people go home as soon as the police tells them to. Which is no protest at all. Your definition of violence is so broad that it is useless.

People standing there and taking a beating is civil disobediance, which is the definition of non-violent protest.

[The Yosemite Bear]

yes, thank you, and I'm just imagining how violent King and others become by that guy's definition, how dare they assult those police dogs and fire hydrants durring the civil rights era....

[Simon_Jester]

I agree. It seems disingenuous to argue "your face is violently resisting my fist!" and blame you for my bloody knuckles. If there are laws which work that way, I think it's a sign of how messed up the law can get, and of course how strong a vested interest the establishment has in preventing people from dissenting against it too loudly.

It's one thing if there is some serious issue at stake, if I'm saying "beat me up or I will physically prevent anyone from passing through the center of town today!" But it's another matter entirely if the argument is "beat me up or I will remain in this area" when the cost of them remaining in the area is low.

While creating a situation where police must decide whether to hit me or stop trying to do something is definitely... confrontational... I wouldn't call it "violent" or "use of force." Not if I'm not hitting back.
__________

Also, Choc, if you look at the situation around 0:20, they're trying to force a wedge- they've very comprehensively broken the line, and that knot of people pinned against the bush is no longer connected to the rest of the line. The guy who makes a grab for a policeman's baton (around 0:25) was physically restrained by other protestors later in the video; the three on the end kept getting hit even though they were no longer in the way, at a point where it would be impractical for them to do much but hang on and keep getting pounded, until the police backed off at around 1:00.

That they didn't immediately unlink arms and topple to the ground while physically being beaten with sticks with their backs to an impassable obstacle... well. I honestly don't see how you can expect human beings to react that way 100% of the time. It certainly doesn't square well with the right-wing tradition of the rugged individualist who defends himself competently and doesn't take crap off of people... but then, I don't know if you consider that tradition to be sound. It certainly has its problems, I won't deny.

If you corner people, they are a lot less likely to become compliant than if you give them a way to pull back in this situation. Monkey reflexes kick in, and people stop thinking like a citizen of a state whose lawfully empowered agents will beat and arrest you if you don't retreat, and start thinking more like a hairless ape who is being attacked by another hairless ape with a stick.

[PainRack]

Violent protest is resistance by force. Refusing to disperse and presenting your body as a physical barrier, which has to be overcome by force, is implicitly violent. Linking arms to reinforce the integrity of your barrier against encroachment is multiplication of force. BTW, Gandhi used force by daring violence from the British; their refusal to participate in his invitation does not mean his protests weren't resistance by force.

Ok... Unless Kamikaze Sith comments on this, I'm going to protest bullshit.

Part of my training as a military policeman involved riot control(old leftover from the days when the SAF was used to keep the peace) and I have never seen this definition in my training manuals ever. Granted, I'm not an officer who would be expected to know all this shit, but seriously, refusing to disperse and etc is implicitly violent?

I would agree that they didn't use excessive force but your counter-logic is just absurd.

[Alphawolf55]

Violent protest is resistance by force. Refusing to disperse and presenting your body as a physical barrier, which has to be overcome by force, is implicitly violent. Linking arms to reinforce the integrity of your barrier against encroachment is multiplication of force. BTW, Gandhi used force by daring violence from the British; their refusal to participate in his invitation does not mean his protests weren't resistance by force.

Then how does one protest non-violently. Is only protest that is given okay from the Government now the only non-violent protest regardless if the individuals involved are actually trying to hurt anyone?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Then how does one protest non-violently. Is only protest that is given okay from the Government now the only non-violent protest regardless if the individuals involved are actually trying to hurt anyone?

According to him and Captain Margo Bennett, there is no such thing as a nonviolent protest other than complete and total surrender to the criminals whose behavior prompted the protest in the first place.

[Shroom Man 777]

Man, so this is why hydroponic potato cucumber analists consider liberals to be the most violent forms of scum in the DC multiverse. Ooooh, they're so violently refusing to move when we shout at them! Fear him, for his body mass index is inversely proportional to his capability to do violence! Behold, Mahatmas Ghandi, most violent of all men! Tag-teaming with King Martin Luther, with his 99 Indulgent Black Panthers, for the WCW Intercontinental Championship! They will use steel chairs... and sit on them! Viewer discretion advised! Brrrr!

[CaptainChewbacca]

Well, this is probably bad

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Salt Lake City police say a man found dead inside his tent at an encampment of protesters likely died from a combination of drugs and carbon monoxide poisoning.

Police Chief Chris Burbank ordered the protesters to pack up their tents and leave Pioneer Park by Saturday night after the body was discovered Friday morning.

The Occupy Salt Lake group has been in the park for weeks, protesting what they say is corporate greed, in solidarity with the larger Occupy Wall Street protests in New York and elsewhere.

Burbank says authorities found a propane heater inside the dead man's tent.

He says the Occupy group can protest in the park during the day, but cannot stay overnight.

Organizers say they don't plan to leave.

Also, apparently shanty towns aren't very hygenic.

The chorus began quietly at a recent strategy session inside Zuccotti Park, with a single cough from a security team member, a muffled hack between puffs on his cigarette. Then a colleague followed. Then another.




“It’s called Zuccotti lung,” said Willie Carey, 28, a demonstrator from Chapel Hill, N.C. “It’s a real thing.”

As the weather turns, the protesters in Zuccotti Park, the nexus of the Occupy Wall Street protests in Lower Manhattan, have been forced to confront a simple truth: packing themselves like sardines inside a public plaza, where cigarettes are shared and a good night’s sleep remains elusive, may not be conducive to good health.

“Pretty much everything here is a good way to get sick,” said Salvatore Cipolla, 23, from Long Island. “It’ll definitely thin the herd.”

The city’s health department said that officials had visited the park and that it would continue to monitor conditions with winter looming. “It should go without saying that lots of people sleeping outside in a park as we head toward winter is not an ideal situation for anyone’s health,” the department said in a statement. .

Dr. Philip M. Tierno Jr., the director of clinical microbiology and immunology at NYU Langone Medical Center, said the conditions could leave park-dwellers susceptible to respiratory viruses; norovirus, the so-called winter vomiting virus, which can lead to vomiting and diarrhea and which could quickly overwhelm the limited bathroom facilities in the area; and tuberculosis, which is more common in indigent populations and can be spread by coughing.

Even some camping in the park have grown concerned in recent weeks with the living quarters. Damp laundry and cardboard signs, left in the rain, have provided fertile ground for mold. Some protesters urinate in bottles, or occasionally a water-cooler jug, to avoid the lines at public restrooms. Food, from orange peels to scrambled eggs, is often discarded outside tents.

“I’m amazed that in a park full of revolutionaries, there are large contingents that can’t throw away their own trash,” said Jordan McCarthy, 22, a member of the protesters’ sanitation team.

More at the link. I wonder how long they'll continue in the face of such wretched conditions.

[Vendetta]

Then how does one protest non-violently.

Cry about it on facebook?

I'm sure eventually they'd send the FBI to kick your door in or something, but it'll take them a while to whip up sufficient technofear to make the rest of the populace not care.

[Starglider]

Fortunately Canary Wharf has been awarded an injunction allowing the private security to remove all protestors from on the site, so we won't have these riff-raff making the place look untidy and spoiling our champagne brunches...

someone I work with actually said that in earnest.

[The Yosemite Bear]

private security in Canary Wharf...

wait isn't that area overrun with Cybermen?

[PainRack]

Having seen the video and the rationale for pushing the crowd back, I'm going to withdraw my statement about the police not using excessive force.

This could had been better handled....

[Kamakazie Sith]

The video;
That video illustrates perfectly why OC spray and tear gas are used. Those hard strikes probably caused significant injuries, were ineffective at achieving the desired result, and just looked really fucking bad. Now as far as the force used in that video? A baton can't be swung when in formation like that. There are other strikes while in a line formation but those are generally used for defense just like 40mm rounds. If they had other options such as OC spray and/or tear gas then things don't look good for them. Though keep in mind there might have been other concerns for why OC spray was not used.

Non-violent protests;
To me a violent protest is a protest in which property is being destroyed and/or people are being injured. That's not the case with most of the OWS. However, that doesn't excempt you from force being used on you if you resist arrest. Most use of force to effect an arrest states that the force used must be reasonable to effect the arrest. That means physical strikes, OC spray, Taser, Baton, and pretty much anything that I missed short of lethal force can all be used to effect an arrest if lesser options aren't effective. (That means that if you're a meat head when you're being arrested the use of force will escalate until you're brought into custody). Now, that use of force can't be an unreasonable seizure. Meaning if someone were impervious to everything but bullets you would not be able to shoot them to effect an arrest in this situation. Fortunately, that isn't necessary.

Comments made by SDN users:
I've noticed a lot of sarcastic "those protesters must have posed a huge threat...blah blah blah." Again, they don't have to be a threat. If your resistance can't be defeated by lesser force options then it will escalate. That's why I say...don't resist or if you're going to don't carry on to long if you find that you're able to stand your ground.

Overall:
The police in that video shouldn't have even tried if their plan was to use physical force on those protesters. Were they planning on beating every single one? That would take a lot of energy so is probably not realistic.

[PainRack]

The video;
That video illustrates perfectly why OC spray and tear gas are used. Those hard strikes probably caused significant injuries, were ineffective at achieving the desired result, and just looked really fucking bad. Now as far as the force used in that video? A baton can't be swung when in formation like that. There are other strikes while in a line formation but those are generally used for defense just like 40mm rounds. If they had other options such as OC spray and/or tear gas then things don't look good for them. Though keep in mind there might have been other concerns for why OC spray was not used.

Non-violent protests;
To me a violent protest is a protest in which property is being destroyed and/or people are being injured. That's not the case with most of the OWS. However, that doesn't excempt you from force being used on you if you resist arrest. Most use of force to effect an arrest states that the force used must be reasonable to effect the arrest. That means physical strikes, OC spray, Taser, Baton, and pretty much anything that I missed short of lethal force can all be used to effect an arrest if lesser options aren't effective. (That means that if you're a meat head when you're being arrested the use of force will escalate until you're brought into custody). Now, that use of force can't be an unreasonable seizure. Meaning if someone were impervious to everything but bullets you would not be able to shoot them to effect an arrest in this situation. Fortunately, that isn't necessary.

Comments made by SDN users:
I've noticed a lot of sarcastic "those protesters must have posed a huge threat...blah blah blah." Again, they don't have to be a threat. If your resistance can't be defeated by lesser force options then it will escalate. That's why I say...don't resist or if you're going to don't carry on to long if you find that you're able to stand your ground.

Overall:
The police in that video shouldn't have even tried if their plan was to use physical force on those protesters. Were they planning on beating every single one? That would take a lot of energy so is probably not realistic.

It just doesn't make sense to me why they simply just formed a line and then suddenly rushed at the protesters...

The whole concept of riot drill, tear gas and etc was formed for this purpose. Perhaps there was some health hazard involved?Weather?

[Simon_Jester]

Chewie, as to the crowded conditions, remember that quite a few of the protestors are unemployed people thrown out of work by the recession who don't have a lot in the way of better places to go- that's what they're protesting.

Aside from that, I suspect that the protests will persist through the winter, although you'll certainly see rotation and some people coming and going when they get sick. As far as having the determination to do so, they need only a fraction of what this lady's been showing for the past three decades, and there's a certain strength in numbers. The protests may shrink in numbers, or disperse entirely in relatively minor cities, but I don't think they'll cease to exist... and in the runup to the 2012 campaign, or if we see major spending cuts in the name of deficit reduction, they'll flare back up.

Non-violent protests;
To me a violent protest is a protest in which property is being destroyed and/or people are being injured. That's not the case with most of the OWS. However, that doesn't excempt you from force being used on you if you resist arrest. Most use of force to effect an arrest states that the force used must be reasonable to effect the arrest. That means physical strikes, OC spray, Taser, Baton, and pretty much anything that I missed short of lethal force can all be used to effect an arrest if lesser options aren't effective. (That means that if you're a meat head when you're being arrested the use of force will escalate until you're brought into custody). Now, that use of force can't be an unreasonable seizure. Meaning if someone were impervious to everything but bullets you would not be able to shoot them to effect an arrest in this situation. Fortunately, that isn't necessary.

I'm not sure the police were trying to arrest all those people- remember, their goal was just to take down the tents. What are your views on this?

Overall:
The police in that video shouldn't have even tried if their plan was to use physical force on those protesters. Were they planning on beating every single one? That would take a lot of energy so is probably not realistic.

They might also lose. If a large crowd starts thinking that you're going to try to beat them all into submission... we'll, if I were trying to do that, I'd be scared as hell that they might suddenly make a collective decision to start physically fighting.

As it was, there wasn't a lot of fighting back- one or two belligerent guys on the front of the protest line that I saw in the video. But there wasn't a systematic attempt by the crowd to use violence on the police, and a good thing, too.

The difference between a crowd, a mob, and a riot can all be a matter of good crowd control skills.

[Alphawolf55]

Comments made by SDN users:
I've noticed a lot of sarcastic "those protesters must have posed a huge threat...blah blah blah." Again, they don't have to be a threat. If your resistance can't be defeated by lesser force options then it will escalate. That's why I say...don't resist or if you're going to don't carry on to long if you find that you're able to stand your ground.

We're being sarcastic about the fact that the Police Captain claims that linking arms is a form of violent protest.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It just doesn't make sense to me why they simply just formed a line and then suddenly rushed at the protesters...

No, it doesn't. I think something else happened but I don't know if it justifies that kind of a response and the video evidence doesn't show us anything obvious.

The whole concept of riot drill, tear gas and etc was formed for this purpose. Perhaps there was some health hazard involved?Weather?

Maybe. Still I don't think the video shows that...

I'm not sure the police were trying to arrest all those people- remember, their goal was just to take down the tents. What are your views on this?

Right. Same use of force rules apply. Though technically they could all be arrested for interferring.

They might also lose. If a large crowd starts thinking that you're going to try to beat them all into submission... we'll, if I were trying to do that, I'd be scared as hell that they might suddenly make a collective decision to start physically fighting.

As it was, there wasn't a lot of fighting back- one or two belligerent guys on the front of the protest line that I saw in the video. But there wasn't a systematic attempt by the crowd to use violence on the police, and a good thing, too.

The difference between a crowd, a mob, and a riot can all be a matter of good crowd control skills.

Agreed.

We're being sarcastic about the fact that the Police Captain claims that linking arms is a form of violent protest.

I was referring to posts before that comment by the Police Captain but the latest ones did remind me to address it. However, FYI I think that Police Captain is a moron.

[Terralthra]

ANARCHY
posted 11.7.2011
Everybody’s been too damn polite about this nonsense:

The “Occupy” movement, whether displaying itself on Wall Street or in the streets of Oakland (which has, with unspeakable cowardice, embraced it) is anything but an exercise of our blessed First Amendment. “Occupy” is nothing but a pack of louts, thieves, and rapists, an unruly mob, fed by Woodstock-era nostalgia and putrid false righteousness. These clowns can do nothing but harm America.

“Occupy” is nothing short of a clumsy, poorly-expressed attempt at anarchy, to the extent that the “movement” – HAH! Some “movement”, except if the word “bowel” is attached - is anything more than an ugly fashion statement by a bunch of iPhone, iPad wielding spoiled brats who should stop getting in the way of working people and find jobs for themselves.

This is no popular uprising. This is garbage. And goodness knows they’re spewing their garbage – both politically and physically – every which way they can find.

Wake up, pond scum. America is at war against a ruthless enemy.

Maybe, between bouts of self-pity and all the other tasty tidbits of narcissism you’ve been served up in your sheltered, comfy little worlds, you’ve heard terms like al-Qaeda and Islamicism.

And this enemy of mine — not of yours, apparently - must be getting a dark chuckle, if not an outright horselaugh - out of your vain, childish, self-destructive spectacle.

In the name of decency, go home to your parents, you losers. Go back to your mommas’ basements and play with your Lords Of Warcraft.

Or better yet, enlist for the real thing. Maybe our military could whip some of you into shape.

They might not let you babies keep your iPhones, though. Try to soldier on.

Schmucks.

FM

Of all the people to pull the "protesting the government while we're bombing brown people is ANARCHY AND TREASON!" card, I wasn't expecting it to be Frank Miller.