Thats alot of pepper spray.

[Bill Mattocks]

Of course, our nation was founded on dissent as a base principle.

And I can recall a time-well, I can't quite recall it, though I was apparently there for some of it-a time when nonviolent protesters were sprayed with firehoses, attacked with dogs, beaten and jailed.

I'm sure many watching at the time were just as certain that they deserved it as the rest of you.

I'm a little ashamed to know some of you right now, frankly-just really, really disappointed.

You're proving to me that we deserve everything that's coming.

You are more aware than most that political protest is primarily political. That means it relies upon attracting the attention of the media and gaining the sympathy of the media and the public. Is it possible that these protesters did not expect to be arrested? Is this outcome not the best they could have possibly expected from this particular situation? No one got hurt; people have been outraged. I have read online that the officers involved have all been suspended. This will be tried in the court of public opinion AS THE PROTESTERS INTENDED. Their arguments are based on emotion; so is their public appeal for sympathy.

I am not saying they are right or wrong; you know my opinion on that subject. What I am saying is that they are maturing as a movement; they are learning how to manipulate the media to their advantage. And that is what this is; manipulation. The right does it, the the left does it. There is nothing new here. No outrage, no horrible intentions. Everyone has played their part, all are tools, including the public. The only victims are the police officers who will now lose their jobs for doing what they were told to do.

You are far smarter than most; you know how to recognize an appeal to the heart. I'm surprised that you don't :rofl: this.

 

[billc]

Yes, this is just like protests from the old days...

http://www.dailycal.org/2011/11/18/man-throws-aluminum-water-bottle-at-uc-berkeley-students-face/

A man threw an aluminum water bottle at a UC Berkeley student Thursday evening on campus, causing minor injuries to the victim’s face.
At about 5:09 p.m., the female student was approached by a man at “the northeast exterior of the Haas Pavilion,” according to a UCPD crime alert. The man asked the student if she was going to the protest on Sproul Plaza, and when the victim answered “no,” the suspect yelled at her.
“People like you are the reason that California is in debt,” he said, according to the crime alert.
The suspect then threw a full aluminum water bottle at the victim’s face. The victim then called UCPD and refused medical treatment for the bruise on her cheek. UCPD officers responded to the scene and checked the area, but could not locate the suspect.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Everything old is new again.

http://books.google.com/books?id=LE...q=mace protesters&pg=PA36#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Sukerkin]

Elder made the post I would have done - well said good sir.

For it does indeed boil down to the fact that you are not being even the tiniest bit outraged that the law enforcement agencies of your country will be used to suppress dissent, no matter how peaceful.

They blocked the pavement - ooh how evil and anarchistic of them. They didn't move when the police officers ordered them to - well that is kind of the point of civil disobedient protest.

I can't really say it is the officers fault, they were doing what they were asked and, as yet, what was being asked of them was not going to end up with herding people onto cattle trucks. But there does come a point, well defined by a certain set of famous trials, that following orders is not a sufficient excuse. Now that point is so far over the horizon yet that it is almost comical to have to make it but creeping erosion of attitudes is what leads to such ends if you are not vigilant as individuals.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Elder made the post I would have done - well said good sir.

For it does indeed boil down to the fact that you are not being even the tiniest bit outraged that the law enforcement agencies of your country will be used to suppress dissent, no matter how peaceful.

They blocked the pavement - ooh how evil and anarchistic of them. They didn't move when the police officers ordered them to - well that is kind of the point of civil disobedient protest.

I can't really say it is the officers fault, they were doing what they were asked and, as yet, what was being asked of them was not going to end up with herding people onto cattle trucks. But there does come a point, well defined by a certain set of famous trials, that following orders is not a sufficient excuse. Now that point is so far over the horizon yet that it is almost comical to have to make it but creeping erosion of attitudes is what leads to such ends if you are not vigilant as individuals.

If the police had simply ignored them, they'd have found something more objectionable to do. The point was to get arrested, and hopefully assaulted in the process. I have difficulty understanding why people do not follow the logical sequence of events here. Protesters do not get media coverage if they sit quietly on the lawn, not blocking anything, and don't get hassled by The Man.

 

[granfire]

If you look, many of them had already pulled hoods tight. They were prepared for the spray. To put it bluntly, they wanted to be sprayed.
Why? So that people would look at them sitting there 'peaceful', and the 'evil cop' viciously spraying them and do exactly what people are doing.
Going off on msg boards crying out 'see the evil cop spraying the peaceful protesters, how wrong!'.

The facts that they were resisting arrest, had refused -lawful- orders to move, and so forth, are ignored by otherwise logical minds, who are making emotional conclusions based on incomplete data.

It's November and they were camping, so they wore hoodies.

Only a fool would take pepperspray and not try to shield as much a possible. (or LEOs in training...)

I must be one of the few hippies here.

No I don't blame the police.

But as Suke suggested, 'following orders' only protects you to a certain extent.
We have reached a point in society were playing by the rules will not get you heard. The jingle of money is drowning out the voice of the little man.

We have had that in the past. Around here in the 1960s, in Europe the 80s were an interlude of massive protests.
You either listen or you encounter bigger problems.

I don't feel sorry for the protesters.
It's part of the path they have chosen.
They could have done like us and stayed home, behind our keyboards.

it is a powerful image people huddling on the ground being sprayed with a powerful chemical by the arm of authorities.
I am suspecting we will look back at this very photo down the roads and wonder where it all went wrong.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[Sukerkin]

I follow the SoE, Bill. I agree with you, protest that inconveniences or embarrasses no-one and makes no noise beyond it's immediate vicinity is purposeless. But that is not the point that those not lining up to shake the hand of the Man are making.

I know you see it because I know you are both intelligent and well-read.

If these protesters were smashing windows, stealing anything not nailed down and setting fire to the University buildings then I'm with you ... roll up the APC's and open fire (I tend to go for extreme solutions when people shred the social contract ).

But they weren't. It doesn't even matter if they set out to provoke just such an incident - it was mind-bogglingly stupid of the authorities to react so.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

...it was mind-bogglingly stupid of the authorities to react so.

It is poor tactics to respond to the plan of the enemy, I agree. But it's hardly the break-down of all authority, end-of-civilization moan and gasp that I'm reading around the 'net at the moment. It's no watershed moment. It's not EDIT: KENT State. It's boring and mundane. Protesters work the media and the police to their advantage. Outrage and film at 11. Sorry, not buying it. The outraged can go be outraged somewhere else, I'm not interested.

 

[Sukerkin]

:nods: I do agree that the media can be used to make a simple 'incident' seem worse by far than it is - but perceptions do matter, often much more than the reality. Which is why it is worryingly symptomatic that many of my friends here at MT don't see that this pebble on the snowy slope can lead to much worse things, especially those who served in a law enforcement capacity and so have relevant experience.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

:nods: I do agree that the media can be used to make a simple 'incident' seem worse by far than it is - but perceptions do matter, often much more than the reality. Which is why it is worryingly symptomatic that many of my friends here at MT don't see that this pebble on the snowy slope can lead to much worse things, especially those who served in a law enforcement capacity and so have relevant experience.

Yes, law enforcement should read Sun Tzu. Until a few weeks ago, most of the protesters were brain-dead zombies practicing public stupidity and exhibiting their lack of hygiene.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/20/1038367/-Sun_Tzu:-The-Art-of-Occupy

SIDE NOTE: I had a long phone conversation with a dear friend today who is one of the bridge-and-tunnel workers in Manhattan and has to pass them on foot every day going and coming from work. He confirms to me what others are saying; the protesters do not ALL smell, which makes the ones who stink to high heaven particularly objectionable, since they apparently can bathe and choose not to. He also noted with irony the man in dressed as Batman with huge 'gauge' piercings through various parts of his face and a facial tattoo complaining that he can't find a job. Well, Sparky, there might be a reason for that. People don't like to hire circus freaks unless they work for the circus, grok? END OF SIDE NOTE.

Now some of the protesters are apparently exhibiting some new-found media savvy. We shall see how things go from here.

But the police are trying to coordinate. A fact not lost on the protesters and their pals.

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2011/11/18/cop-group-coordinating-occupy-crackdowns

I don't want to go down this rabbit hole of getting wrapped around the axle about OWS again; so I'll stop here. Suffice to say that as much as my life could be better, it could also be considerably worse. I see public insurrection as a threat to my way of life, and if my way of life is threatened, I will do what I feel is appropriate to defend it. I will not lose sleep over some protesters being pepper sprayed. This is not Tienanmen Square, not by a long shot. I want this nonsense quashed, and I'm not squeamish about how it's done. Last time I said that, I lost friends. So mote it be; I have cast out no friends, but I've been cast out over this. But I am the intolerant one, eh?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

So.

They were ordered to move.

They refused.

They were ordered to clear the sidewalk.

They refused.

They were ordered to stop -trespassing- and remove their tents.

They refused.

What is the appropriate law enforcement response when someone refuses to obey ---lawful--- orders?

You are outraged. You are upset. Fine.

Present an alternate solution.

"Not this" is NOT an acceptable answer. You must have an actual answer.
"ask again" is also not an acceptable answer.
"ignore them" is also not an acceptable answer.

 

[granfire]

So.

They were ordered to move.

They refused.

They were ordered to clear the sidewalk.

They refused.

They were ordered to stop -trespassing- and remove their tents.

They refused.

What is the appropriate law enforcement response when someone refuses to obey ---lawful--- orders?

You are outraged. You are upset. Fine.

Present an alternate solution.

"Not this" is NOT an acceptable answer. You must have an actual answer.
"ask again" is also not an acceptable answer.
"ignore them" is also not an acceptable answer.

You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

Because: if we do what we have always done and expect the outcome to be different...that's insanity.

People ignore homeless people all the time, to the point they step over them when they get in the way.

We are great in ignoring people.
and it's not like you can't walk across the grass to avoid them....

 

[Sukerkin]

Bob, just one question. If these people were protesting about something you actually cared about and agreed with, would you still think the same?

If you can honestly answer "Yes, it is okay to use the law enforcement arm of the government to quash politically motivated, (mostly) non-violent discontent", then I don't know that that is in-line with the 'American Way'; isn't it supposed to be part of your cultural history that protest and dissent is something of a right?

Of course, I'm not American, don't live there and never want to live there, so it is hard for me to be on sure and certain ground when it comes to the nuts-and-bolts of what it means to be 'American'.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Suk.... I would feel the same regardless.

Let me put it this way. You know my position on same-sex marriage. I support that right. But the law at the Federal level doesn't recognize it. I see it as not the Federal's business outside of a Constitutional amendment. So, despite my support for the cause, I can't see it being a federal issue until they change the core law of the land.

I had to go back and look up why they were protesting. The -reason- was never a consideration in my comments and position.

Let me contrast this with the recent protest by Occupy Buffalo of a local foreclosure lawyer.
No arrests. No problems with police. No one was beaten. No one was pepper sprayed.
They didn't make it an issue. They peacefully protested, made their point, then went back to camping in the middle of down town Buffalo.

I don't agree with the OB folks. I think they're wasting their time.
But I can't complain about their behavior. As far as I can tell, they are keeping to the 'peaceful protest' that is guaranteed in the US.
The groups getting maced, aren't.

 

[jks9199]

The right of free and peaceful assembly isn't absolute. It can be restricted by place or time, by requiring permits, and, within certain bounds, even by topic or group. It most certainly doesn't extend to occupying private property without the consent of the property owner; recall that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution is almost exclusively about the relationship of the People and the Government. You can freely assemble, with appropriate permits, in front of my house, in the public street. Step on my lawn, and your trespassing -- and I can stop you. I can cause you to be arrested. Even if my sole reason is that I disagree with you.

The students here, whatever they had been told previously, were told by the police on behalf of the dean to leave. They not only didn't do so -- but took steps to make it harder to remove them. They can't do that. And when they did -- the police used reasonable force to make them comply.

Folks -- here's a tip. You generally get asked to do something once by a cop. Then you get told. Finally, if you haven't done it -- you are made to do it. EVERYONE is happier if it never reaches that last step.

 

[jks9199]

Of course, our nation was founded on dissent as a base principle.

And I can recall a time-well, I can't quite recall it, though I was apparently there for some of it-a time when nonviolent protesters were sprayed with firehoses, attacked with dogs, beaten and jailed.

I'm sure many watching at the time were just as certain that they deserved it as the rest of you.

I'm a little ashamed to know some of you right now, frankly-just really, really disappointed.

You're proving to me that we deserve everything that's coming.

Sorry... You're comparing apples and oranges. The situation here was simple. People refused a lawful order. Reasonable force was employed to make them comply.

They absolutely have every right to protest. But they have to obey the law. If they don't, they have to accept the consequences. In the 60s, those protesting realized and accepted that they might be arrested. That those arrests may not be gentle. They felt their cause justified the risk.

Elder, I'll be first on the line to protect someone demonstrating -- if they don't break the law. I'm tired. It's been a really long several days for me -- and I haven't had to deal with protesters. Just the ordinary idiocy. The Occupy groups around here did a protest on Friday; they marched to the Key Bridge, one of the major transportation links into DC from Virginia. They didn't block the road. They made their point. I'll absolutely defend their right to do this -- this way. Had they instead blocked the bridge, snarling traffic throughout the DC/MD/VA area even worse then it ordinarily is -- they'd get arrested. Their right to protest doesn't trump someone else's right to go home after working all day.

Let me share a dirty not-so-secret about protest arrests today. Many of them are staged. They decide who's going to be arrested, when, and where, and the press shows up. The arrestees get their perp walk, and often are released quickly afterwards.

By the way -- I haven't said that OC was the only way, or even the best way, to deal with this group. Merely that it was a reasonable use of force. I don't know enough about the situation. Did they need to be hustled out -- or would waiting have been better? Don't know, I wasn't there, and the press accounts are incomplete. But the students WERE in the wrong; they were refusing to move when told by lawful authority.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Folks -- here's a tip. You generally get asked to do something once by a cop. Then you get told. Finally, if you haven't done it -- you are made to do it. EVERYONE is happier if it never reaches that last step.

We used to call it "Ask 'em, tell 'em, take 'em." I guess nothing has changed. Nor should it.

 

[granfire]

Nah, guys, you can't hide behind lawful order.
Sadly history is rife with example how 'lawful order' was turned on it's head.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Nah, guys, you can't hide behind lawful order.
Sadly history is rife with example how 'lawful order' was turned on it's head.

I don't know how to say it more clearly. I'm not 'hiding' behind anything. I have no problem with this. I've said from the beginning, turn on the fire hoses, mace the crap out of 'em. I do NOT care. They wanted this result and they got it. Pure media manipulation and the gullible sympathetic public are all too eager to play 'bad cop' songs. Well, the cops are not the bad guys, the protesters are. They should be glad they did not get tased or their heads busted with nightsticks; end of story. I apologize for nothing; they got what they wanted and had coming to them. Too bad, so sad.

 

[granfire]

not saying you should pity them.

As I said, it's the path they chose.

However 'they did not follow lawful order', well, we had that happen in the past.

There is lawful
ethical
and moral

and non of the three do necessarily intersect.

This is not the 'bad cop' song.

this is more about abusing the muscle cops symbolize to avoid dealing with the issue.

The University bigwig was withing his/her right to call the cops
the cops did nothing illegal

But:
is it really morally justified to spray people crouching on the ground?

Were will this lead to?

After all, the 'movement' has grown from the people's need to be heard. And frankly It is about time.
Now, by taking forceful measures to deal with peaceful protest, where will this lead to?

The past has taught us that nothing good will come from it.
And as images from the past are teaching us now, nothing has really changed.

So, by lawfully spraying and arresting peaceful protestors, what events yet to be seen have been set into motion.

this is not a 'they are right and they are wrong' deal.

this is a case of 'where will that lead us?'

and you have to admit: it is really impressive to find that many people who will forego civil comforts to make a point. It has not happened in this scale in this country in 40 or 50 years!

We are talking about a generation where you can't 5 people within 11 millions to complete a dungeon....(nerd reference)
the occupy movement is pretty impressive.