The Occupation of Wall Street Spreads

[Civil War Man]

I would personally be surprised if there's any immediate first-hand accounts of camera smashing happening, since anyone who would be in a position to get their camera or cell phone smashed by a police officer was probably arrested at the same time.

Any reports of it would probably be second or third-hand until anyone who actually had their camera broken is released.

EDIT: Some changes for clarification's sake to account for Los replying to KS before me.

[White Haven]

I love the little 'besides Los' you slipped in there, KS, as if it were to be automatically assumed that the only person actually involved directly with the OWS protest and this thread is an unlikely source of information on the OWS protests. Cute.

As for the suppression of attempts to record and broadcast police actions, how about the mass, blatantly illegal suppression of media coverage of the NYPD counter-OWS operation recently? You know, the bit where journalists were detained and news helicopters were forced to land. At a quick glance, that's camera seizure writ very, very large. At a quick glance, I'm also seeing a number of OWS tweets warning about camera seizure, plus at least one account of a documentary camera being destroyed. It also mentioned

Journalists, and others with cameras have definitely been targeted by the authorities. Our camera was damaged when a cop threw me to the ground while we were filming riot police clubbing protestors who were occupying a sidewalk near Wall Street. With the ubiquity of camera phones, and digital video cameras almost all of the incidents have been captured on video in one form or the other.

And, in other news that cropped up while I was typing this post, new footage has emerged of the beating of Kayvan Sabehgi. Strange that we have to go to UK media to get honest reporting, rather than the 'before beating' <CUT> 'after beating' segments that were carried on US media. In it, we see a lone man with an accompanying cameraman on an unoccupied street standing in front of a police riot line with his hands in his pockets. The police then begin advancing and forcing him to back up to avoid coming in contact with them while chanting 'Move' over and over like some sort of ritual incantation, which just strikes me as odd, albeit not criminal. When he continues to back up, one police officer advances and begins screaming at him to leave, and then when he continues to back up begins to savagely beat him with a baton. Interesting note: No attempt to arrest him was made, only assault. Feel free to watch the video yourselves, it's pretty painfully clear.

Oh, and for extra fun, they attack the cameraman too. I will, however, grant that this bunch didn't try to destroy the camera.

[Bakustra]

Okay, Zinegata, you see, your posts are vomit. Straight-up puke on the screen. That is what they are. If you really want honest debates or communication (hahahaha no you don't, and you never did), then you probably shouldn't post godawful shit. But I'll do my best to respond to this without turning this post into "Opus 31: Variations on a Middle Finger, Standing Alone". However, I am going to break this down into a point-by-point, because I can.

Bakustra is not advocating actions that are not merely "not state-sanctioned". He is advocating means that are clearly illegal.

Again:

You're also wrong with point b), and indeed I wasn't lying at all- you are still treating protest as inferior to voting by assuming that the end-stage is a vote. Votes are part of democracy, but there are so many reasons that you might vote for someone that you can't translate your opinions into anything particularly concrete unless you're an actual single-issue voter. Protest, on the other hand, allows you to articulate positions and communicate them to the power-holders. They are equally important as a means of seizing the reins of power and trying to direct the state.

You know that part where Bakustra says that voting is not the end stage? Take a look at the word "revolution", because that's where it's gonna head.

This is why I made a post that consisted of nothing but yelling at you. You're so fucking far from "reasonable" that I fail to see how I can frame things beyond saying "You're wrong" only with more swears and feeble jokes. Your tone is not the problem. What is the problem is that you're either absolutely fucking insane, or you're deliberately playing dumb in order to call me vaguely nasty names. And since you could be calling me a fucking Nazi pedophile coprophiliac and making as much sense at this point, I could only conclude insanity.

Bakustra is saying that protests allow people to articulate positions and communicate them to the power-holders, and hence allowing you to seize the reins of powers... but you do not seize the reins of power by "debating" the other side into submission by protests. That's a bullshit idea and you know it. Protests that "seize the reins of power" without voting as the end state are ultimately revolutions - which in some cases can end peacefully (EDSA, Velvet, etc), in many cases violently (i.e. French Revolution).

What the fuck? What the fuck? You think that power is all hard power. This is exactly what you are fucking saying here- that the only way to direct power (which is what "seizing the reins" means, as a figure of speech, have you never read a book with horse-riding in?) is through control, aka hard power. You can also make use of soft power. Mass letter-writing campaigns, protests, and so on are all means of using soft power, aka influence, to convince politicians to do what you want. So are campaign contributions. E.g., in daily life, you can either threaten people, or ask them nicely. Threatening is hard power, asking them nicely is soft power. So are other non-coercive attempts to convince people. Revolutions are exertions of hard power. There are some clear differences between the two.

By the way, you have an odd fixation with the French Revolution. Why in God's name would you use it, and not the Russian Revolution? That's another reason why I conclude you to be insane- your choice of insults (e.g. Jacobin) are largely bizarre and strange. Why go for comparing people with Robespierre when you can compare them with Stalin or Mao and have it seem equally reasonable to the outside observer?

In a working democratic state, protests have largely been pushed further and further to the foreground in importance largely because of the power of accurate polling. It is silly to think that you need protests to "articulate" a position - when polls already do so regularly. The protests in Winsconsin did jack squat to stop the anti-union laws from being signed, but the widespread anger against the laws (which showed up in the polls even before the protests) is triggering a more effective backlash - in the form of recall elections which could cost Walker his job.

So again, protests are as important or even more importan than voting in a working democratic system? That's bullshit. Bluntly, lobbyists have been more effective at playing these influence and articulation games, and they don't need to organize protests.

Protests are largely useless in a working democratic state. Protests that attempt to "seize the reins of power" ultimately lead to revolution (which is again the apparent hope of some OWS members, which is what is discreditting the movement) unless the organizers get half a brain and realize they should have formed a political party and gain votes from the get-go instead. Denying that voting is the end state is to deny yourself any chance of victory, or an admission that you're advocating revolution.

Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The disparity between what Americans want, on average, (a social-democratic welfare state which does its best to ensure a good future for all its children), and what American politicians will give them, on average (a dysfunctional semi-corporatist state with token welfare which fucks most of its children over out of sheer stupidity) shows that polls are not an effective replacement for political action.

But what you're seeing is that once a politician showed himself to be uncaring about what his constituents thought or wanted, they proceeded to try and use hard power to force him out of office. Now, I know you're feeling the slightest tinge of smugness right about now (if you think that I'm "putting words in your mouth" at this point you're the world's most sophisticated spambot), but I never said that voting was bad. I said that it wasn't enough and indeed it isn't. Without those protests, we wouldn't have as much information with which to determine that the recall efforts are a response to Walker's attempt to kill unions that didn't vote for him. And neither would the other politicians looking to try and offer up the unions as a sacrifice to the god of the market. So this sends a clear warning to them.

Now then, a warning to the dull: the previous paragraphs made use of literary devices such as hyperbole, metaphors, and other kinds of figurative language. Following paragraphs will continue to do so. I apologize to my erudite readers for this, but I felt that it may be necessary.

The goal of a number of the protesters and of the Tea Party is to counter the influence of lobbyists, because they feel that giving the rich and powerful sole control over the- okay, that's a little too advanced. Let's fucking break this down. Okay- what you are advocating is that the average person does nothing but vote and the lobbyists are the only ones that influence politicians. Guess what, shithead? This renders the government anti-democratic and based on rule by the elites! Because the lobbyists are the ones who finance each campaign and inform each candidate, rule is based on how much money you can afford to give and the average citizen is only able to choose between whichever candidates the lobbyists decide are cool. If they attempt to form their own political party designed to counter this influence, they receive no money and are not allowed to try and inform people without becoming "anarchists". Looks like you're doing a pretty good job of tying your own noose there, but I felt I had to warn you before you finished it.

Every revolutionary eventually wants laws and governments so that they can run the country the way they want to. That's the point of a revolution. Topple the old system and replace it with a new that conforms with what you want

The purpose of voting is to give people an opportunity to elect - and if necessary remove - candidates so that they can get the laws and kind of government they want to.

No. Anarchists wish to be rid of laws, governments, and formalized hierarchies because they find these things to be inherently immoral. That is the definition of what an anarchist is. You can define "anarchist" as something different, but it's only a reminder that you're a madman and I don't see why I should have to turn and turn concepts and ideas to force those square pegs into the round holes of your mind.

Because again, if you do not ultimately aim for changing the results in the ballot box, you are not accomplishing anything.

If you want to affect change ANYWAY without going through the ballot box,

You're the people who keep panicking things like Gitmo will result in a "slippery slope" to a police state. It's my turn to say this is a slippery slope towards anarchy, and a pointless one at that unless they actually start changing votes!

Prove it. Prove that the only way protests have ever changed anything is through the ballot box. You are making a definite assertion here, so you should be proving it. If you want the right for people to take you seriously when you complain about "ad hominem", then you've got to hold yourself to a higher standard than just babbling mad.

Now, if disobedience to the law is a slippery slope towards anarchy (which apparently you don't really believe + you're a horrible shithead), then everyone I know who's driven a car, bar my saintly mother and one of great-grandmothers, may she rest in peace, is driving society towards anarchy by speeding. That is something which logically follows from "disobey law=anarchy!!", and if you don't like it, I suppose you'd have to prove that protest is anarchism, which would be hilarious if you were sane enough to realize the difficulty of it. As it is, you're tiresome and I feel like I'm on the verge of yelling again.

Would you prefer I tell him he can choose between being stupid or an anarchist the next time, and still have the same result of a steaming pile of bullshit ad-hominems?

Because I will note that he totally disregarded everything else I posted in favor of cherry-picking; because he's not interested to debate. He's just interested in mud-slinging.

Why should I debate with someone who is honest-to-god insane? Would you try and convince a paranoid schizophrenic that he was wrong about, say, his feelings of persecution? Well, you might, (ohhh nooo an ass homynem) but most people realize that it's pointless to try and argue, and instead you should try and get them help in the form of medicine and psychiatric aid. But you, however, do not have any such medical condition to evoke sympathy for your plight. You have simply stepped off of reality and gone, to be technical, cuckoo for cocoa puffs. So I don't see why I should be forced to attempt to engage in debate with someone who believes that civil disobedience is anarchy. Unless you wish to come out as an authoritarian, in which case you're actively contemptible.

[Broomstick]

This struck me from White Haven's link:

Such treatment of the press and anyone who has a camera reminds everyone of the power of the Occupy movement. It reminds citizens the movement that continues to escalate has the potential to truly create real and lasting change. The state would not use force in this manner if the powerful did not fear the possibility of this actually forcing the power structure to make adjustments.

So, all of you who don't get it, who don't understand the OWS movement, who view them as whining losers... the powers that be certainly do fear it now. They were hoping it would go away if ignored, but OWS didn't go away, it grew. Now they're trying to beat it into submission.

Don't doubt for a minute that the mayor of New York has seen the confiscated footage. Either he approves of what occurred, or if he doesn't he'll quash it just to avoid bad PR. When the civil rights movement started the media broadcast unarmed men and women being attacked by dogs and fire hoses. When that backfired they tried to suppress information on what was occurring. But those damned uppity darkies kept sitting down at the white lunch counters! Worse yet, there were white people sitting down next to them.

Now, those uppity unemployed and laid-off workers are occupying public spaces like respectable people. Worse yet, there are employed people sitting down next to them. They didn't just crawl off and starve to death or kill themselves out of self-disgust at being unemployed, they act like they're entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness like real (employed/wealthy) people. The fuckers just won't go away, and worse yet, they're getting sympathy from the overworked drones (how ever did they get the time and energy to do that, what with how many hours they're working?). Something Must Be Done!

I've mentioned it before - whether OWS accomplishes anything or not, by the time it ends there will be blood on the ground and some death.

[Eulogy]

I've mentioned it before - whether OWS accomplishes anything or not, by the time it ends there will be blood on the ground and some death.

Not to mention extreme enmity between the protesters and the swine who are supposedly sworn to protect them. Let's see people cooperate and be honest with the NYPD (just one of many) after this shit. It'll also encourage protesters to hide their cameras better, for the thugs have clearly shown that they are worse then teenagers who vandalize property and then try to spray paint the cameras and windows to hide evidence.

Lawsuits and officers getting ambushed are also possibilities. Even though they're not being punished now, this will bite the pigs on their asses.

[Kamakazie Sith]

There's extensive media reports of news choppers being forced down, press passes revoked for being in the area, and reporters being assaulted by NYPD and assisted by protesters. Theother99 live stream recorded a whole shitload of goings on and the police have admitted to deploying LRADs. On Tuesday they did not allow any media to see what was going on in the park and placed a bus between the press pen and the park. These are things actually reported by the media itself.

Yeah, I do not support the media blackout but that's not what I was asking about.

The NYPD even defied a restraining order forbidding them from Liberty Plaza and will likely never face any repercussions. I have zero faith that these police will be punished seeing how the Oscar Grant execution resulted in a cop serving an entire 8 months.

Maybe I'm reading the wrong information but the park was cleared out at 1am on the 15th of November. The restraining order was secured at 6am on the 15th of November. Is this incorrect?

Mehserle was sentenced to two years with 146 days already served. The judge gave him double time, so his term was reduced by 292 days. I don't know if that is unusual. Regardless, I think he should have spent the entire two years behind bars in addition to time served. So, I understand your lack of faith.

Sorry, but the vast majority of the violence is being done by police to protesters.

Of that I have no doubt.

This is not me going "well I heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy." This is dozens of people telling me "this is what happened when I was there."

That's better than one but your earlier post said something like "I spent an hour speaking with a friend" which implies one individual. Though I still have issues with you reporting something that you have not seen first hand without something else backing it.

Go look up the video with the Frank Sinatra song to see a group of unidentified officers tackle a guy for planting an american flag and punching a woman in the face who was holding up the bill of rights. The video of that vet who had his spleen ruptured just leaked to the Guardian. That kid who kicked a barricade who was hit over the head with teeth knocked out and blood streaming down his face. The scores of people arrested for resisting arrest but charged with nothing else. The police seeking out and arresting retired police captain Ray Lewis.

You seem to be confused. I have no doubt abuses are taking place. Hopefully you'll be able to follow up on your allegations with evidence of some kind.

This is what comes out even after organized attempts to suppress both the media and protesters from documenting the events.

That's exactly my point. Evidence still gets out. Though I should be more patient as it might take some time.

I would personally be surprised if there's any immediate first-hand accounts of camera smashing happening, since anyone who would be in a position to get their camera or cell phone smashed by a police officer was probably arrested at the same time.

Any reports of it would probably be second or third-hand until anyone who actually had their camera broken is released.

EDIT: Some changes for clarification's sake to account for Los replying to KS before me.

Good points. I've realized that it is not likely that these people are able to upload anything immediately either.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I love the little 'besides Los' you slipped in there, KS, as if it were to be automatically assumed that the only person actually involved directly with the OWS protest and this thread is an unlikely source of information on the OWS protests. Cute.

If Los told me he directly witnessed these incidents then I'd take him at his word. I don't immediately accept second hand information. I don't understand why some of you get so butt hurt over that.

As for the suppression of attempts to record and broadcast police actions, how about the mass, blatantly illegal suppression of media coverage of the NYPD counter-OWS operation recently? You know, the bit where journalists were detained and news helicopters were forced to land.

The media blackout has been very well documented but still links should be provided on any and all claims.

At a quick glance, that's camera seizure writ very, very large. At a quick glance, I'm also seeing a number of OWS tweets warning about camera seizure, plus at least one account of a documentary camera being destroyed.

Thank you.

And, in other news that cropped up while I was typing this post, new footage has emerged of the beating of Kayvan Sabehgi. Strange that we have to go to UK media to get honest reporting, rather than the 'before beating' <CUT> 'after beating' segments that were carried on US media.

Who knows. People probably don't trust US media. I know I don't. Though making the assumption that US media sources had this video but chose not to release it is a bit premature without evidence.

In it, we see a lone man with an accompanying cameraman on an unoccupied street standing in front of a police riot line with his hands in his pockets. The police then begin advancing and forcing him to back up to avoid coming in contact with them while chanting 'Move' over and over like some sort of ritual incantation, which just strikes me as odd, albeit not criminal. When he continues to back up, one police officer advances and begins screaming at him to leave, and then when he continues to back up begins to savagely beat him with a baton. Interesting note: No attempt to arrest him was made, only assault. Feel free to watch the video yourselves, it's pretty painfully clear.

Ritual incantation? LMAO. Thanks, White Haven. Hilarious.

Actually, the officer went to physicaly escort Kayvan away. Kayvan pulls away from the officer which results in the use of force and commands for Kayvan to get on the ground which Kayvan does not do. The video shows that the strikes were directed towards his legs and arms (both valid targets) but due to the dynamic situation some strikes likely missed his arms and struck his torso.

That being said, the officer does appear to be in the wrong. The officer left formation. Kayvan was backing away. Even though Kayvan pulled away the officer should have informed Kayvan that he was under arrest and then reasonably responded from that point on. Fortunately, it appears that officer had a visible name tag. Hopefully someone noted the name.

Oh, and for extra fun, they attack the cameraman too. I will, however, grant that this bunch didn't try to destroy the camera.

When did they attack the camera man? There is some sort of comotion but not clear evidence of an attack. Maybe a push?

[White Haven]

On what grounds was he being 'escorted away' to begin with? He was standing mostly alone in a city street, talking to (or at, I should say) police officers. He then backed up to avoid blatant police aggressive behavior despite there being no reason I could discern for them to have a need to drive him down the street. Why was someone even out there to 'escort' him anywhere? Where's the lawful cause? This ties into an earlier discussion about 'being arrested for resisting arrest.' He was beaten for trying to back up and avoid a physical confrontation with police. Circular much?

EDIT: To clarify, why should the officer have informed him he was under arrest? What for?

[Kamakazie Sith]

On what grounds was he being 'escorted away' to begin with? He was standing mostly alone in a city street, talking to (or at, I should say) police officers. He then backed up to avoid blatant police aggressive behavior despite there being no reason I could discern for them to have a need to drive him down the street. Why was someone even out there to 'escort' him anywhere? Where's the lawful cause? This ties into an earlier discussion about 'being arrested for resisting arrest.' He was beaten for trying to back up and avoid a physical confrontation with police. Circular much?

EDIT: To clarify, why should the officer have informed him he was under arrest? What for?

I can only guess. I'm assuming you've seen videos where an officer is on a loud speaker and an order is given for all people to leave the area and that failure to do so will result in an arrest. That order was probably given prior to the video. That line is designed to push people out of an area. Kayvan wasn't the only person on that street so I doubt they did it just for him. Anyway, once an order is given to disperse failure to do so is cause for arrest.

Here's an example from Utah Law, it is highly likely all states have similar laws.
76-9-104. Failure to disperse.
(1) A person is guilty of failure to disperse when he remains at the scene of a riot, disorderly conduct, or an unlawful assembly after having been ordered to disperse by a peace officer.
(2) This section shall not apply to a person who attempted to but was unable to leave the scene of the riot or unlawful assembly.
(3) Failure to disperse is a class C misdemeanor.

So, no. It doesn't tie into an earlier discussion regarding being arrested for resisting arrest. I'll also point out that such a thing is ridiculous. The elements for resisting arrest require that you are being placed under arrest for a crime and that you resist that arrest.

[White Haven]

The fact that it was ridiculous is rather the point I was trying to make KS.

[weemadando]

The fact that it was ridiculous is rather the point I was trying to make KS.

Sssshhhhh. Don't make him have to think about orders. We'd have to spend days cleaning up all the exploded brain.

[madd0ct0r]

hmm, looks to me like that police officer was out of line, quite literally.

Annoying that the video is cut at 30seconds - exactly before the officer breaks ranks to charge him.

I'd guess he said something, police officer lost his temper and went for him. and then the others joined in. fuck em. that's not right.

[Terralthra]

I'll just leave this here...

[Kamakazie Sith]

The fact that it was ridiculous is rather the point I was trying to make KS.

Don't play fucking stupid. You asked "why should the officer have informed him he was under arrest? What for?"

If your point was that this particular officers actions were ridiculous then just say "That officers actions were ridiculous" instead of asking questions, which is something normal people do when they don't know something instead of trying to imply something that could be plainly stated in one sentence. If you had done that instead of playing these fucking games my response would have been. "I agree with you White Haven." In addition if you actually were capable of comprehending my post you would realize that even asking that wouldn't be necessary. See my reply to you, for fuck sake...

That being said, the officer does appear to be in the wrong. The officer left formation. Kayvan was backing away. Even though Kayvan pulled away the officer should have informed Kayvan that he was under arrest and then reasonably responded from that point on. Fortunately, it appears that officer had a visible name tag. Hopefully someone noted the name.

Sssshhhhh. Don't make him have to think about orders. We'd have to spend days cleaning up all the exploded brain.

I'm sure the same result would take place if you actually had to put away your bias and perception about me and actually read my fucking post. Fuck off, troll.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I'll just leave this here...

Call it what it is: Armed robbery by billionaires using cops as the weapon.

[Agent Fisher]

I'll just leave this here...*snip image*

So, officers are trying to break a linked arm chain. And instead of beating them with batons or useing tasers or using choke holds to make them pass out to easily pull them, instead of that, they use a less-lethal OC spray to encourage them to break the chain on their own, making it much easier to take them into custody or at least remove them from the chain. How dare they!

[White Haven]

Or, again, they could recognize that reacting to nonviolent protest with assault, legal assault or no, is massive escalation of force, more likely to provoke violence and incite unrest than actually accomplish anything useful outside of the immediate short term goal of making people stop sitting on the ground together.

[Terralthra]

I'll just leave this here...*snip image*

So, officers are trying to break a linked arm chain. And instead of beating them with batons or useing tasers or using choke holds to make them pass out to easily pull them, instead of that, they use a less-lethal OC spray to encourage them to break the chain on their own, making it much easier to take them into custody or at least remove them from the chain. How dare they!

A linked-arm chain of people peacefully sitting on the park in UC Davis campus grounds, dear god, we have to stop them! Aren't the police so virtuous for only pepper-spraying them instead of beating them up!

The police have no business disrupting peaceful protests. The rights to assembly and speech are enshrined in exactly those words in the Constitution.

Don't worry, they managed to find time to choke them anyway:

[open_sketchbook]

Good rule of the thumb for law enforcement; if the methods you use to stop somebody from breaking the law cause more suffering than the lawbreakers, you are more than likely a dick for using it.

[Mr. Coffee]

Good rule of the thumb for law enforcement; if the methods you use to stop somebody from breaking the law cause more suffering than the lawbreakers, you are more than likely a dick for using it.

More and more I'm starting to think being a dick is a job qualification for law enforcement.

[loomer]

I'll just leave this here...*snip image*

So, officers are trying to break a linked arm chain. And instead of beating them with batons or useing tasers or using choke holds to make them pass out to easily pull them, instead of that, they use a less-lethal OC spray to encourage them to break the chain on their own, making it much easier to take them into custody or at least remove them from the chain. How dare they!

Don't you yanks have a right to peaceful protest and assembly? It's really more of a 'Cops use a chemical agent to disperse a lawful and non-violent protest, how dare they!' in this case.

[The Yosemite Bear]

well if someone COULD convince the Aturney General, The FBI could hold police departments responsible for "Denial of Civil Rights", you might see the local police attempts to break up the OWS protests by any means nessesarry a bit.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Just saw this bit about UC Davis on the news, apparently the cops only started using pepper spray after they were surrounded by 200 students who linked arms and refused to disperse.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Shame that the police department in Davis appears to have dispensed with physical fitness qualifications, they could have stepped the fuck over the crouching protesters and saved themselves some pepper spray for all the brutalities they intend later.

[Terralthra]

Just saw this bit about UC Davis on the news, apparently the cops only started using pepper spray after they were surrounded by 200 students who linked arms and refused to disperse.

The police marched into the center of a group of already seated protesters. The pictures clearly show the officers stepping directly over the protesters and spraying them from outside of the circle. That you are willing to buy any possible explanation that absolves police using pepper spray on non-violent assemblies, even when clear photographic evidence is on this page says a lot about you.