Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Pedestal of martyrs? No. Do they get treated...poorly? Yes. I want you to compare instances of police brutality against the tea party with instances of brutality against OWS. You will probably notice a distinct paucity in the former. You will notice things like the use of unauthorized high pressure pepper spray, firing tear gas canisters in people's faces for point blank range, unlawful arrests, and unlawful beatings in the latter.
Do you have examples of Tea Party utilizing the same tactics that Occupy employs but still being treated differently?
Here's a video of why you likely do not see the same police response against Tea Party Activists.
When the police ask these Tea Party protesters to move they followed these instructions.
In regards to the OP. Sexual abuse committed by police officers has happened before, is happening now, and will happen again. Is it a secret order of some kind? That is highly unlikely. It is likely an individual or small group is responsible for these attacks. The unfortunate reality of sex crimes can be hard to prove and even more so for groping attacks especially during chaotic situations. Hopefully, this victim has some evidence that will identify her attacker(s) and lead to a conviction.
Losonti Tokash wrote:While I certianly appreciate you calling me and my friends paranoid liars
the point I was making is that sexual assault on arrestees is nothing new or specific to Occupy.
...because you say so, and assume that it is a given for everyone else. You didn't make a point, you made a claim, I just asked you to back it up reasonably. You see you made two claims in your earlier post:
the point I was making is Sexual assault by police has been a major issue for at least my whole life, so them groping protesters isn't a shock either. That sexual assault on arrestees is nothing new or specific to Occupy.
Sexual assault on arrestees is nothing new or specific to Occupy. Fine. Concession accepted since earlier you inferred that it was targeted at occupy and are supporting that as the theme of this thread.
The sticking point obviously is your personal experience it brings to that statement. In YOUR "experience" the police are apparently a constant source of sexual assault. Do you understand that this is not true everywhere and that to make the claim that it must be true everywhere and for everyone is going to meet some resistance. Am I to believe I lived a charmed life because I have not been sexually assaulted by a cop? I interact with them five or six times a week, working with the homeless, or is it possible that the police everywhere do not act the same. This is why blogs are not so helpful as a source, because they are in the context of an individualized experience.
The fact that you doubt the veracity because major news organizations haven't reported on it is funny, though, considering those dame orgs barely even mention it when the police corral their reporters, confiscate recording equipment, and threaten to revoke press passes for journalists who were present at marches
No it's funny that you assume no news is... a conspiracy. it's irritating that you wish me to do the same, again, because I suppose your experience somehow trumps mine and no reasonable explanation is necesary.
It is interesting how you mock Alyrium saying news companies aren't interested in reporting accurately on Occupy since it's against their business interests, but then claim that we can't be believed since it would help us to lie about our opponents.
I said that OWS certainly DOES have a reason to lie about police brutality. I did NOT say that blogs should not be considered for THAT reason, I said that blogs lack the level of accountability that journalists have. and I was mocking you, for making that claim, not Alyrium and not your friends.
Last edited by D.Turtle on 2012-05-28 12:42pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:Fixed the tags. - D.Turtle
"Since when is "the west" a nation?"-Styphon "ACORN= Cobra obviously." AMT
This topic is... oh Village Idiot. Carry on then.--Havok
Bloggers have the same accountability that "real" journalists do, which is to say zero (unless they piss off the advertisers). I never said sexual assault by police was specific to Occupy. Ever. I've also never been sexually assaulted by police myself nor did I claim I had. I did not claim all police everywhere are secret rapists. Try a little less hyperbole and image macros next time.
Comparison complete. The Tea Party left much more rapidly when they were told to. No escalation was necessary.
This is for you and Sith:
I specified unlawful for a god damn reason. Unless (now you specifically, because I know K Sith well enough to know he does not think this, and actually respect him) you are under the delusion that police are the law, and any manner in which they choose to escalate something is lawful. To say nothing of the fact that many of the evictions and other forms of police intervention (including book confiscation) that have taken place are themselves unlawful and have resulted in delicious state and delectable federal lawsuits.
The police, or at least those giving them their orders, have demonstrated repeatedly that they are not acting in good faith.
THAT's an ad hominem. The Media Lies Because They Are Owned By The One Percent? You can't claim that the ABSENCE of media coverage is evidence of a coverup, that's Ron Paul's strategy, and he needs it to win, don't steal it from him.
No. It is pointing out why we should expect most mainstream media to ignore some things and hype up others. This is not exactly new, and on this board it has been accepted for a while. Moreover, what do you see covered about them? Negative aspects certainly get hyped. When interviews are done, we mostly see the craziest people who can be found, and every incident of crime (and we should expect some crime with groups of people that large through time) within an encampment is spun up to look like the camps are seething cesspits of ne'er-do-wells. Which, by and large, they are not.
Ziggy and You:
Mainstream Media is more trustworthy than blogs or left wing indie news
Me:
Actually, mainstream media has a well-defined conflict of interest when it comes to reporting on OWS due to their financial interests. Said blogs and left wing indie news has no such financial conflict, and no reason to lie because there is enough horrible shit that they dont need to make it up.
You attacked the credibility of a report based upon the source, with no logically viable reason whatsoever. That is an ad hominem. Textbook, one, as a matter of fact. Me? I claimed that some sources of information should not be expected to report on certain things (or to spin them) due to a financial conflict of interest. It is completely different, and not at all an ad hominem.
Blogs aren't peer reviewed
Neither is the NYT.
they aren't liable for libel there's no expectation for them to source their work, whereas media outlets at LEAST have to make sure they maintain enough public credibility to continuing maintaining an audience
I almost forgot about this:
Fox News a few years ago went to court and won the right to flat out lie in its reporting, due to Free Speech and Corporate Personhood. Virtually every other news outlet joined them by filing briefs in support of their position.
If you do a google search, you wont find mainstream media reporting on this, for the obvious reasons. They do the same shit. "News" corporations are just that. Corporations. They have one obligation and one obligation only: deliver a profit to their shareholders every quarter. Everything else is secondary. The conflict of interest is written into the god damn corporate charter.
The hell they don't, the Occupy movement is literally built on attracting disparate agendas into general unrest. Crying police foul attracts anyone with a grudge against police, or authority in general. Crying Man Repress Women mobilizes feminists and gets people marching about a rape culture.
Like they dont already have the feminists or people who dont like authority? Please. Again, no reason to lie, because they do not need to invent more than already exists.
Oh, and here we have it direct from one of the accusers
Prison Experiment =/= Police are probably molesting Occupiers.
Good job missing the point. If you give police (or anyone) power over another without sufficient safeguards and accountability, or worse yet, give them tacit permission, they do fucked up shit. All it takes is a couple of guys who take it upon themselves to do shit like this. It is not hard for them to get away with it when the very people a protester would report the incident to are bricks in their own personal blue wall, and the department has been known to do other unlawful things to the group you belong to.
The conduct of the NYPD is so bad with OWS that their own city lawmakers are suing them.
Why, exactly, are you so shocked at the possibility of sexual assault?
Can I interject myself in this self dialogue? No. Did it need to continue beyond "Is there proof?" No.
You should. Do you require Deductive Reasoning level proof before you form an opinion on ANYTHING or is requiring it in this case somehow special? All I am claiming is that some degree of sexual assault by police is likely. Not that it is some sort of shadowy conspiracy to silence protest, just that the conditions are right to create it and that if it gets reported, some fraction of those reports from whatever source are very likely true. Oh, and that it wont be covered by mainstream media for as long as they can conceivably ignore it due to a financial conflict of interest, and their legally guaranteed right to lie and distort.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/ Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
I submit my apology for the ghetto edit to the powers that be.
I said that OWS certainly DOES have a reason to lie about police brutality. I did NOT say that blogs should not be considered for THAT reason, I said that blogs lack the level of accountability that journalists have. and I was mocking you, for making that claim, not Alyrium and not your friends.
What reason? The desire to get more people into the movement, I guess? Well, we have one woman who has a large hand-print on her breast, and showed it on camera. Was this an accident? Is restraining a woman by grabbing her breasts part of normal protocol?
How well does this reason to lie stand up when we consider the fact that with as much true material as exists, that one need not make things up to rile up supporters? That is not a rational reason to lie. You need positive evidence. Do you have other incidents wherein OWS has flat-out lied about their treatment by police?
I said that blogs lack the level of accountability that journalists have.
You mean the legal right to lie or omit facts, and force journalists to do so? Combined with a financial, legal, and political conflict of interest that motivates media corporations to do so that is all a matter of public record? Please. Go on and tell me more about this accountability and trustworthiness you think said major media outlets have.
Hell, we even have something nice and recent regarding the zimmerman case, where major media did not report on something for months because it would have taken their highly profitable narrative down a peg. (not to drag this off topic, I use this as an example only. Any such discussion of the facts of this case should be done in the original thread. This just came to mind)
Simon_Jester wrote:Is police brutality less illegal when carried out against someone who behaves as Occupy Oakland behaved? My impression was that it is not.
You should go back and read what started this converation.
Alyrium Denryle wrote:I want you to compare instances of police brutality against the tea party with instances of brutality against OWS. You will probably notice a distinct paucity in the former. You will notice things like the use of unauthorized high pressure pepper spray, firing tear gas canisters in people's faces for point blank range, unlawful arrests, and unlawful beatings in the latter.
It probably helps a lot that the Tea Party people have, in many states, many people among their number with concealed or openly displayed firearms, while OWS does not. By default that would make the police more cautious in dealing with them; if you are the one in a thousand cops who's a twat, and want to fuck with someone but you might get shot dead, even if your comrades would put that person down, you will probably think twice.
Beyond that, as said, the Tea Party, unlike OWS, tend to follow the law.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth
My impression is that OWS tends to get brutalized more often, even when they follow the law. Am I mistaken?
I can understand the idea that if I'm part of Group X, and some of the members in Group X are slow to follow police orders, I might end up targeted. I might get gratuitous beatings, unlawful arrests, or the seizure of my property (such as books). From a practical point of view, yes, "you made the police annoyed with you" explains why you end up getting beaten or robbed or illegally arrested. But it is at best an explanation, not an excuse. I think we should keep that in our minds, if we want freedom of assembly to remain in place.
I also find that there is a somewhat perverse incentive here, if what you say is true, Necron. Because the armed crowd of protestors is then safer than the unarmed one, despite the fact that I think most of us would be less comfortable with OWS if they carried prominently displayed firearms.
I wonder how that would play in the media. Just imagine- dozens, nay hundreds of pistol-brandishers in Zucotti Park, exercising the same right to bear arms as the Tea Party. How do you think that would have ended?
Simon_Jester wrote:My impression is that OWS tends to get brutalized more often, even when they follow the law. Am I mistaken?
Hell if I know. The best way to find out would probably be if we have a way to compare the number of demonstrations policed in each case with the number of reprimands given to police officers or police officers prosecuted. Even then, there would be complicating factors.
Simon_Jester wrote:I wonder how that would play in the media. Just imagine- dozens, nay hundreds of pistol-brandishers in Zucotti Park, exercising the same right to bear arms as the Tea Party. How do you think that would have ended?
I understand that New York's state law (itself also entirely constitutional) makes this non-possible? If the State of New York were to adopt Arizona's policies, I have little doubt that the NYPD would obey the law.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth
Was there an Occupy Phoenix? Or for that matter other Occupy demonstrations in states where firearms laws are less restrictive? I'm sure there were; I seem to remember an Occupy Denver and I'm pretty sure Colorado's gun laws are on the loose side.
I still think that would be interesting to watch. I suspect we'd see a lot of talking heads calling Tea Partiers "patriotic" and Occupiers "dangerous armed radicals" in the same breath, for the same behavior.
Simon_Jester wrote:Was there an Occupy Phoenix? Or for that matter other Occupy demonstrations in states where firearms laws are less restrictive? I'm sure there were; I seem to remember an Occupy Denver and I'm pretty sure Colorado's gun laws are on the loose side.
Perhaps, but occupy ideology does not emphasize Zardoz's Gift of the Gun in the same way the right does, so I doubt they'd be as armed.
I still think that would be interesting to watch. I suspect we'd see a lot of talking heads calling Tea Partiers "patriotic" and Occupiers "dangerous armed radicals" in the same breath, for the same behavior.
Talking heads already say all kinds of stupid things about OWS and even the Tea Party at times: that doesn't mean that the police will behave any differently.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth
Beyond that, as said, the Tea Party, unlike OWS, tend to follow the law.
Not specifically aimed at you, but the argument itself:
See, I have no issue with Police breaking up a crowd if it goes Riot, or stopping a protest from going down a street where they dont have permits. What I have a problem with is when irrespective of whether or not a protest follows the laws, they still get their asses handed to them by police in riot gear. You know, like in Oakland, or Berkeley. Or when an individual gets beaten or egregiously harmed when they personally have committed no crime, like that Marine vet who got hit in the face with a gas canister at point blank range, or that guy in NYC who found his head used as a battering ram against a door made from wire reinforced glass. Or that peaceful crowd at Berkeley who were hemmed in by university police, beaten, and hit with high-pressure pepper spray. A note on that, the tents were a matter for Student Conduct, not the police, as it was a university policy issue, not a legal issue.
So, even when these protesters are not breaking the law, brutality occurs. Using that as an excuse does not fly.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/ Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Beyond that, as said, the Tea Party, unlike OWS, tend to follow the law.
Not specifically aimed at you, but the argument itself:
Really I put that one to show that I'm listening to Kamikaze's posts, I don't know what he bases that on.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth
Losonti Tokash wrote:Bloggers have the same accountability that "real" journalists do, which is to say zero (unless they piss off the advertisers).
Erm, the guy at NBC got fired, countless retractions and firings have occured due to falsely reporting news at legitimate sites. Bloggers are not held to the same standards as legitimate journalists. Note that I said legitimate, not Fox news or any of the other opinion shows that get sold as news.
Beyond that, as said, the Tea Party, unlike OWS, tend to follow the law.
Not specifically aimed at you, but the argument itself:
Really I put that one to show that I'm listening to Kamikaze's posts, I don't know what he bases that on.
Frankly, I have no clue what some of you are going on about. Perhaps we all read into each others posts too much. Let me be clear. I am in no way shape or form stating that excessive force, illegal arrests, robbery, rape, etc etc etc are justified or "less-illegal" just because Occupy or whatever group passively resists or engaged in any other form of activity that is considered illegal.
My mistake may have been reading into Alyriums post. It seemed like he was implying that the Tea Party is favored by the police in some areas. I responded that they are being treated differently because they are doing what is asked of them by law enforcement, unlike Occupy.
Hopefully, that clears this matter up. And Alyrium if that is not what you were implying then could you clarify?
Kamakazie Sith wrote:I responded that they are being treated differently because they are doing what is asked of them by law enforcement, unlike Occupy.
That's what I gathered too. I have no evidence on the matter, though, so I leave that argument to you. I'm not saying I disagree, indeed, I generally agree with what you say.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth
Beyond that, as said, the Tea Party, unlike OWS, tend to follow the law.
Not specifically aimed at you, but the argument itself:
Really I put that one to show that I'm listening to Kamikaze's posts, I don't know what he bases that on.
Well, you know, you get a group as large as Occupy and someone is going to commit some sort of crime at some point.
Police tackle person X, in the flail of limbs that happens during a tackle a police officer gets elbowed in the face, police officer then uses it to justify the original tackle claiming that the unlawful arrest was resisted...
To keep homeless people from becoming an eyesore, many cities have ordinances against public camping (which, given that these same cities defund homeless shelters, means that homeless people get exposed to the elements). Many cities also have ordinances that restrict civil protest. In other cases, rules just get made up/trickery is engaged in, and used to justify arrests. For example, on the Brooklyn Bridge, the protesters were supposed to use the walkway. Fine. However, police know crowd dynamics. With that many people, getting them to use relatively narrow walkways is fairly difficult. In fact, trying to get them to do it is dangerous unless it is done properly(press of bodies, narrow space etc). So what do the police do? Escort them onto the bridge proper. No barricades. No gradual funnel leading them through to the walkways so it goes down in an orderly fashion. No. Lead them onto the bridge and then arrest them by the hundreds. In a crowd that large, people follow those in front of them and cannot necessarily see where they are going. Then there is the camping ban in the nation's capitol. It was legal for people to camp in McPherson Square. They had been camping in it for months. That is of course until they were prohibited from doing so.
And of course, groups that large get unruly sometimes and crimes do get committed. However, even when that is the case, the police response is often... disproportionate and not what we might call target specific...
And even when crimes are not committed, the police often get nasty.
I am in no way shape or form stating that excessive force, illegal arrests, robbery, rape, etc etc etc are justified or "less-illegal" just because Occupy or whatever group passively resists or engaged in any other form of activity that is considered illegal.
I never thought you were. As I made mention, I know and respect you well enough to be sure you did not think that way. Some other people in this thread I can mention... I am not so sure. We may not agree on some things with regard to police conduct due to different experiences and biases, but I consider you an intelligent and virtuous person.
My mistake may have been reading into Alyriums post. It seemed like he was implying that the Tea Party is favored by the police in some areas. I responded that they are being treated differently because they are doing what is asked of them by law enforcement, unlike Occupy.
Well, sort of. It is more complicated. Say we separate out the "incidents with police" that are caused by crime. We just ignore them. There are still a good number of acts of violence perpetrated by police against Occupy that are not associated with any form of criminal activity that would warrant violence--such as the incident at UC Berkeley. There are also plenty of incidents where the police did not specifically target those individuals who engaged in such criminal activity, and instead indiscriminately beat up or even maimed innocent people--such as in Oakland. There are also incidents where police conduct raids on the homes of OWS organizers as a pretext to intimidate them or gain intelligence.
This does not happen at Tea Party rallies, even the very large ones. The question I am forced to ask is... why?
Erm, the guy at NBC got fired, countless retractions and firings have occured due to falsely reporting news at legitimate sites. Bloggers are not held to the same standards as legitimate journalists. Note that I said legitimate, not Fox news or any of the other opinion shows that get sold as news.
Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't. In either case, news organizations have fought for and won the right to lie and call themselves news. Open lies are also separate from editorial decisions not to cover certain stories as well.
One should rightly be skeptical of blogs, as they have no quality control but their track record. On the other hand, many blogs are primary sources and in that sense are not filtered in the same way a mainstream media outlet might be.
However, that caution aside, just because major media did not pick something up does not mean it did not occur, or that the reports that do exist are untrue. There are a lot of editorial decisions that get made that can distort the truth not through falsehood, but through omission. Take the Zimmerman case above. Any competent journalist could have found out that Zimmerman had decried the Sanford PD for corruption and racism. Back when the news was a public service and not ratings driven, it probably would have been mentioned. The papers would have interviewed some people, and then reached a critical judgement about what is actually true by way of fact checking what people think, and then informing the public. They dont do that anymore. This permits them to distort the truth without ever having to lie. By selecting which quotes to include, from whom, how many of each side, they can construct a narrative that has very little to do with reality, but that is created from 100% non-falsified information.
And that is if they decide to cover the story at all.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/ Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Well, you know, you get a group as large as Occupy and someone is going to commit some sort of crime at some point.
Police tackle person X, in the flail of limbs that happens during a tackle a police officer gets elbowed in the face, police officer then uses it to justify the original tackle claiming that the unlawful arrest was resisted...
If they commit a crime then it isn't an unlawful arrest and how is the officer that gets struck by the elbow suppose to tell that it was not intentional unless the officer is dishonest about what took place. Also, if a police officer actually articulated in his report that the elbow was justification for the original tackle then that officer is a massive idiot and a civil lawsuit would be very easy.
"I knew that person X would eventually land a painful elbow to my right ear so I tackled him. The tackle did not work because person X still struck me with his elbow."
To keep homeless people from becoming an eyesore, many cities have ordinances against public camping (which, given that these same cities defund homeless shelters, means that homeless people get exposed to the elements). Many cities also have ordinances that restrict civil protest. In other cases, rules just get made up/trickery is engaged in, and used to justify arrests. For example, on the Brooklyn Bridge, the protesters were supposed to use the walkway. Fine. However, police know crowd dynamics. With that many people, getting them to use relatively narrow walkways is fairly difficult. In fact, trying to get them to do it is dangerous unless it is done properly(press of bodies, narrow space etc). So what do the police do? Escort them onto the bridge proper. No barricades. No gradual funnel leading them through to the walkways so it goes down in an orderly fashion. No. Lead them onto the bridge and then arrest them by the hundreds. In a crowd that large, people follow those in front of them and cannot necessarily see where they are going. Then there is the camping ban in the nation's capitol. It was legal for people to camp in McPherson Square. They had been camping in it for months. That is of course until they were prohibited from doing so.
And of course, groups that large get unruly sometimes and crimes do get committed. However, even when that is the case, the police response is often... disproportionate and not what we might call target specific...
And even when crimes are not committed, the police often get nasty.
The Brooklyn Bridge incident wasn't trickery but it was poorly handled due to the lack of signs and barricades. A warning was given but people at the back couldn't hear it and those people at the back were not arrested. However, the people at the front could and still followed and they were arrested. In the end I do think Brooklyn PD needed to do a better job of informing people of what they needed to do and where they could go but I disagree that it was some sort of trickery so they could process 700 arrests which took roughly four hours. That's a lot of writing.
The homeless situation and camping oridinances are far more complicated then what you just described. Maybe you should take a tour of these camp sites. Sure, some of them keep them clean but others litter the entire area with garbage and human waste.
Also, SLC allowed Occupy to stay at Pioneer Park for several months. Then someone died in the park due to the conditions so the chief declared no more 24 hour presence in the park. Occupy refused to leave at the deadline and SLCPD came in and arrested those that failed to leave. The camping area that Occupy used at Pioneer Park was covered in human feces, garbage, etc. So, it's complicated. Can many cities and law enforcement agencies handle this better. Absolutely. However, I have yet to see evidence that Occupy is being treated maliciously.
It isn't target specific because there's so many people that the actor of the crime can just blend in at any time of day if a 24 hour presence is allowed. In SLC the death was the last straw. Prior to that there was a massive increase in illegal drug use, sexual assaults, fights, thefts, etc in the area of Pioneer Park. The drug use I can ignore but not the other crimes.
I never thought you were. As I made mention, I know and respect you well enough to be sure you did not think that way. Some other people in this thread I can mention... I am not so sure. We may not agree on some things with regard to police conduct due to different experiences and biases, but I consider you an intelligent and virtuous person.
I appreciate that.
Well, sort of. It is more complicated. Say we separate out the "incidents with police" that are caused by crime. We just ignore them. There are still a good number of acts of violence perpetrated by police against Occupy that are not associated with any form of criminal activity that would warrant violence--such as the incident at UC Berkeley. There are also plenty of incidents where the police did not specifically target those individuals who engaged in such criminal activity, and instead indiscriminately beat up or even maimed innocent people--such as in Oakland. There are also incidents where police conduct raids on the homes of OWS organizers as a pretext to intimidate them or gain intelligence.
This does not happen at Tea Party rallies, even the very large ones. The question I am forced to ask is... why?
I agree it is complicated. Even UC Berkeley is more complicated then just police used excessive force. That was a total failure all the way from the top.
However, based on what I've seen if the Tea Party had been in the place of the protesters at UC Berkeley then they would have complied when the police ordered them to move and thus no pepper spray would have been used. That's back to my original point. You see this difference because Tea Party activists comply with police instructions. Occupy does not.
Though if you have some evidence that Tea Party activists have been refusing police orders but not arrested or no force used then I would like to see that evidence.
Just so I'm clear KS, your point is that the Tea Partiers tend to do what law enforcement tell them regardless of whether or not what they are doing or being told to do by police is strictly legal, while the OWS protesters have a tendency to ignore law enforcement directions if what they are doing is legal or the directions given to them by police are illegal? (Ignoring those protesters that are actually breaking the law) Thus the Tea Party seem to avoid the, shall we say over reactions, like Berkley or Oakland?
Alkaloid wrote:Just so I'm clear KS, your point is that the Tea Partiers tend to do what law enforcement tell them regardless of whether or not what they are doing or being told to do by police is strictly legal, while the OWS protesters have a tendency to ignore law enforcement directions if what they are doing is legal or the directions given to them by police are illegal? (Ignoring those protesters that are actually breaking the law) Thus the Tea Party seem to avoid the, shall we say over reactions, like Berkley or Oakland?
That's correct.
Keep in mind that I haven't launched an exhaustive internet search effort. I just don't have the time.
If an example does exist of police treating Occupy differently than TP then I hope it gets posted here. Keep in mind that you're not going to find a nationwide consesus on how law enforcement treats each respective group. For example - the way Salt Lake City handled their Occupy group is different from Oakland.
On a personal note that would piss me off because I tend to side with OWS and consider the Tea Party to be scum.
Losonti Tokash wrote:Bloggers have the same accountability that "real" journalists do, which is to say zero (unless they piss off the advertisers). I never said sexual assault by police was specific to Occupy. Ever. I've also never been sexually assaulted by police myself nor did I claim I had. I did not claim all police everywhere are secret rapists.
No they do not, "real" journalists work for a news agency, they have editors, they have to connect their work to their income, they are professionally accountable for what they do, a blogger just represents his own opinion with little or no consequence as to it's basis in fact. Even Fox News has an editor.
You never stated sexual assault was specific to Occupy, but you sure inferred it, because when i originally posted an objection to the OP in which Dominus said
there probably isn't anyone who's surprised by this kind of conduct by police, especially against Occupy protesters,
You replied:
No one but you has said anything about putting them on a pedestal as martyrs, though it took probably all of two days of protests before police started spraying fire extinguishers and pepper spray point blank into the faces of protesters laying/sitting on the ground, shooting them in the face with tear gas canisters, not responding to 911 calls from occupy encampments, targeting street medics for harrassment, etc.
You DO know that "though" short for "Although" means "however, but" right? You understand that you DID in fact claim there was evidence for putting them on pedestals as martyrs by making that statement.
Losonti Tokash wrote: Try a little less hyperbole and image macros next time.
I'm sorry I am THOUGHTFUL enough to express derision in multimedia format, for all i know you're a visual learner... you're welcome.
"Since when is "the west" a nation?"-Styphon "ACORN= Cobra obviously." AMT
This topic is... oh Village Idiot. Carry on then.--Havok