Police critically man at Occupy Oakland-update;police ask youtube to remove videos

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

There's a difference between being stupid and being reckless.

Absolutely.

However, in some situations being reckless is extremely stupid.

From the perspective of the cop, I can see why he might have thought it was a good idea at the time (people rushing forward, maybe he didn't see the person on the ground or realize they were seriously injured), but that doesn't mean the end result wasn't reckless.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Absolutely.

However, in some situations being reckless is extremely stupid.

From the perspective of the cop, I can see why he might have thought it was a good idea at the time (people rushing forward, maybe he didn't see the person on the ground or realize they were seriously injured), but that doesn't mean the end result wasn't reckless.

I think you're bending over backwards to be objective.

[woob]

Article at Wired this morning on the subject. Despite Iraq Vet’s Cracked Skull, DoJ Sees No Evil in Occupy Crackdown

I really like the top comment from one of the readers:

This is exactly the type of corruption the founding fathers tried to avoid happening. Thats why they created the country for the people to have the ultimate power & gave us the means of protecting it (freedom of speech, right to bare arms, right to protest, etc).

And look, no one wants a fight in the streets (I loathe violence actually), but the authorities here aren't exactly playing by the rules now are they & seem like they're egging that very scenario on. All the while our government & politicians do nothing about it. Hell, the officers that do this don't even get an investigation & are being promoted even!

This Marine survived two tours in Iraq, supposedly to protect our freedom, only to be done in by the very government that sent him there while peacefully protesting (which is his right). It's a big "##### you" to our military & people in general. Seems we're OK with protecting "freedom" in other countries but not our own. And as soon as people raise a stink about it, the media is so quick to call them worthless hippies.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln

So I guess Lincoln & the rest of them were hippies too?? And like I said, I'm in no way advocating that & no one wants a fight (my God, that would suck). But there has to be a resolution to all of this, because things do need to change.

[kirant]

Bit of an apples and oranges case to this. I'm not 100% sure what caused the crackdown in Oakland, but I know some #occupy movements are being moved off because of unsafe living conditions and these peaceful requests by police to adhere to the law and leave are ignored. Other countries brought out the whip on each and every movement, while the US seems to be bearing down on those in risk with the law more than the ones working with the law.

And damn, are they making such a big deal out of the fact that he was a Marine. It has absolutely nothing to do with the subject except to make it bigger news. But that's the inherent flaw in private news though, right? Sensation is favoured over flat news sharing.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by kirant

Bit of an apples and oranges case to this. I'm not 100% sure what caused the crackdown in Oakland, but I know some #occupy movements are being moved off because of unsafe living conditions and these peaceful requests by police to adhere to the law and leave are ignored. Other countries brought out the whip on each and every movement, while the US seems to be bearing down on those in risk with the law more than the ones working with the law.

And damn, are they making such a big deal out of the fact that he was a Marine. It has absolutely nothing to do with the subject except to make it bigger news. But that's the inherent flaw in private news though, right? Sensation is favoured over flat news sharing.

There is a legitimate element that makes it worse that someone who survived through two tours in a foreign war zone to instill 'democracy' nearly lost his life for exercising his right to freedom of assembly in his own country.

[Canuck-Hater]

Originally Posted by Shasta Beast

Why were they being cleared out? Were the illegally protesting? It doesn't say. F* the cops, bloody sick when they toss a flashbang into the crowd going to his aid.

There is no such thing as an illegal protest. Free speech and expression is protected under the 1st amendment to the constitution.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

There is no such thing as an illegal protest. Free speech and expression is protected under the 1st amendment to the constitution.

Umm, what?

It appears you misunderstand the Constitution and how it applies

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

There is no such thing as an illegal protest. Free speech and expression is protected under the 1st amendment to the constitution.

While there may be no such thing as an illegal protest there really is...

People can break the law while protesting be it on the roads, disrupting the peace etc.

[Canuck-Hater]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Really? You make it sound like this is a common occurrence. What do you base this on exactly?

He just cited 2 examples in this thread. Go back a few posts.

[Canuck-Hater]

Originally Posted by Realtor 1

While there may be no such thing as an illegal protest there really is...

People can break the law while protesting be it on the roads, disrupting the peace etc.

Yes there can be illegal activity at a protest, so to clarify peaceful protests arent illegal.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

There is a legitimate element that makes it worse that someone who survived through two tours in a foreign war zone to instill 'democracy' nearly lost his life for exercising his right to freedom of assembly in his own country.

It's not proper to say in polite company, but Occupy Wall St. was very fortunate it was an Iraq Vet who got beaned in the head by the police.

They were riding those public relations coat tails for days and weren't hesitant to exploit it in statements and press conferences.

This photo below from Kent State in 1970 was ugly but also, again, very productive for the anti-Vietnam war side, one of those seminal, turning point moments. The people in the photo, of course, are now in their early 60's, except the dead guy.



For the City of Calgary and other municipal authorities, the goal is to avoid photographs or video like this. There's no shortage of history to demonstrate you shouldn't give gifts like that.

And, in Time Magazine, "God 1, Occupy London 0" http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/201...inst-st-pauls/

Cowperson

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Really? You make it sound like this is a common occurrence. What do you base this on exactly?

It's pretty much widely accepted that this was used in both Montreal and Toronto. There are also several well-documented cases around the world. I'm not saying that mikey's assumptions regarding motivation are correct, but they're definitely hard to dispell. Etiher way it's a pretty underhanded and dirty tactic to use by law enforcement.

I also tend to agree with the people that are saying things are going to start getting uglier in the States if improvements aren't made soon. The #occupy movement is being portrayed as collection of fringe individuals, but it's becoming more and more mainstream. People are genuinely fed up and slowly realizing that traditional channels of change have been corrupted to the point where they can't be relied upon anymore. False consciousness only lasts so long.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

Yes there can be illegal activity at a protest, so to clarify peaceful protests arent illegal.

Actually they aren't. They certainly can be legal, but just because they're peaceful doesn't mean they're also legal. The First Amendment doesn't grant you the right to do whatever you want.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's pretty much widely accepted that this was used in both Montreal and Toronto. There are also several well-documented cases around the world. I'm not saying that mikey's assumptions regarding motivation are correct, but they're definitely hard to dispell. Etiher way it's a pretty underhanded and dirty tactic to use by law enforcement.

I also tend to agree with the people that are saying things are going to start getting uglier in the States if improvements aren't made soon. The #occupy movement is being portrayed as collection of fringe individuals, but it's becoming more and more mainstream. People are genuinely fed up and slowly realizing that traditional channels of change have been corrupted to the point where they can't be relied upon anymore. False consciousness only lasts so long.

The traditional channels work fine, they just rely on the voters turning up to vote and having a reasonable grasp of the issues at hand, it isn't democracies fault the average american citizan is too stupid and lazy to bother to make an educated vote.

I have no love for lobbyists but the only reason they exist is becaue the citizenry in the US abdicated its role to be involved and informed in the late 60's.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by valo403

Actually they aren't. They certainly can be legal, but just because they're peaceful doesn't mean they're also legal. The First Amendment doesn't grant you the right to do whatever you want.

Also, and i'm not an american lawyer or an expert on the american constitution but I assume that the first amendment applies to the government not impeding your free speech. Seems to me like a private citizen can do what they want.

So if a bunch of people show up to protest a radio station, on private property, that would in fact be an illegal protest (trespass).

Valo, please correct me if i'm wrong.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The traditional channels work fine, they just rely on the voters turning up to vote and having a reasonable grasp of the issues at hand, it isn't democracies fault the average american citizan is too stupid and lazy to bother to make an educated vote.

Not really. It's not like just anybody can run for President, Governor, or even the Senate. Which is how it should be to an extent, but who gets to run shouldn't be contingent on having a large bank account.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Also, and i'm not an american lawyer or an expert on the american constitution but I assume that the first amendment applies to the government not impeding your free speech. Seems to me like a private citizen can do what they want.

So if a bunch of people show up to protest a radio station, on private property, that would in fact be an illegal protest (trespass).

Valo, please correct me if i'm wrong.

Pretty much, the Constitution is about preventing the State from interfering with your rights. There's nuances to it, but one of the major tests in any constitutional claim is the presence of state action, absent that you aren't likely going to be able to call on the Constitution as a basis for your claim.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Not really. It's not like just anybody can run for President, Governor, or even the Senate. Which is how it should be to an extent, but who gets to run shouldn't be contingent on having a large bank account.

It isn't contingent on a large bank account if you have a citizenry that reads a broad sheet newspaper and isn't convinced to vote based on simplistic repetative TV catch phrases like 999 or going rogue, I don't just blame the yanks for this but they have led the pack, TV ads have become the way to win elections because we, the voters, have become stupid and uninvolved, TV costs vast amounts of money and is the way to win thew election, if 'we' didn't vote based on TV ads it would cut the feet out from lobbyists in an heartbeat.

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

He just cited 2 examples in this thread. Go back a few posts.

Actually what he did is cite circumstantial, unsubstantiated, wikipedia articles (footnoted to newspapers that clarify the flimsy accusations).

So I wouldn't call those "examples" because if that's all one has, its pretty weak at best.

I would suggest, most major police forces do send undercover operators into demonstrations, peaceful protest or even riots. There are several reasons for this, but I would think what you suggest isn't even or is rarely on the list.

Come on people, you question the government and police at every turn but you take information from protestors, twitter, clips of videos as gospel...

[Yasa]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

And, in Time Magazine, "God 1, Occupy London 0" http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/201...inst-st-pauls/

Cowperson

You've got that headline backwards, Mr. Person.

"London Protestors 1 God 0: Anti-Capitalism Camp Scores PR Victory Against St Paul's"