StrangeSox

Here's a pretty good round-up of the excess police violence at various protests around the country http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archiv...rotests/248761/

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 21, 2011 -> 11:15 AM) This is what I am waiting for. You guys are a pretty unimaginative lot if the only way you can think of to get people to move is to beat them or spray them with pepper spray. But at least we're clear that you think it's a justified response to passive resistance.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 21, 2011 -> 11:12 AM) You have yet to answer the question of how to deal with these people that won't move, except to say "not with batons or pepper spray." Because there's a pretty common way to deal with that and I didn't think I actually needed to explain how people can be moved without beating or spraying them. Hint: the people that were sprayed mostly stayed put, meaning the police had to figure out another tactic! They erected tents on the quad, that wasn't going to be allowed.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 21, 2011 -> 11:03 AM) So if it's ok in some situations, and Newt is saying there's value in that, he's advocating for child sweat shop labor how? Look, I know you despise anyone with a conservative thought in their brain, but you're taking his statement to the extreme. Unfairly so. I don't recall saying he's advocating for child sweat shop labor outside of a joke pic response to mr. genius. Newt is saying that there's value in eliminating child labor laws and replacing union workers with children. This is dumb for numerous reasons and deserves to be called so.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 21, 2011 -> 11:05 AM) So what do they do with them exactly, and how do they do it when the people won't cooperate? The same way that passive resistance is handled thousands of times without unnecessary police violence. You don't need to spray or beat people in order to move them. I'd say that I'm still waiting for a justifying scenario, but you seem to be saying that passively resisting a police order is justification enough.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 21, 2011 -> 11:02 AM) So they are just supposed to let them be because they are just sitting there? Would you feel the same if it was your living room they were in? No, they don't have to let them just sit there. They also don't have to spray them in the face or beat them with batons either! I don't know why you're having such a difficult time with that.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 21, 2011 -> 10:57 AM) So how exactly does a cop enforce the law, when they can't touch an offender? "touching the offender" is a bit different from hitting them with batons or spraying them in the face with large amounts of pepper spray. The "illegal acts" that these hardened criminals were committing were on the same level as jaywalking and presented no harm to anyone.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 21, 2011 -> 10:49 AM) The target itself doesn't need to be the reason the violence happens. Also going to take major, major issue with this. Someone somewhere else doing something that actually justifies a violent response does not justify a violent response to me for sitting on the ground with my head down while the officer casually prepares to spray a group of us.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 21, 2011 -> 10:52 AM) I thought they were doing nothing wrong? I didn't say that. They were violating an order to remove themselves, but they were doing so peacefully. What I've said repeatedly is that they did nothing to justify the violent response by that officer. Not listening to a cop =! justification for any and all response.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 21, 2011 -> 10:49 AM) The target itself doesn't need to be the reason the violence happens. And yes, I have no reason to believe that police just happen to walk up to a random group of people and begin assaulting them for no reason at all. I have been at plenty of protests, very large, and very small, and have never seen the police react violently. Heck, even at times where people probably deserved a baton upside the head, they haven't gotten it. What possible justification could there be for the actions of that officer at UC Davis? I'm assuming you've watched the video; saw him casually step over the students; pull his canister from his belt and show it to the crowd, and then slowly walk up and down the line, spraying them all directly in the face. How on earth can you actually justify that sort of action? This also wasn't a random group of people but a group of protesters who were disobeying his orders. That doesn't sit well with authoritarian types who are authorized to use force.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 21, 2011 -> 10:37 AM) This gets attention. The old message wasn't working anymore. Hence the move to the illegal stuff for OWS. Note that this "illegal stuff" is violating park ordinances for the most part and does not in any way justify violent police retaliation.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 21, 2011 -> 10:36 AM) This doesn't happen for absolutely no reason. Yes, police brutality does happen for no reason (on the part of the victim) and much too frequently. I don't know why you'd have this bizarre assumption that anyone who is a target of police action must have done something to deserve it.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 21, 2011 -> 10:31 AM) I think they are, but beside that, they are holding up police brutality as their rally points, not the occupy original message. Well they are doing it intentionally insomuch as it is an unfortunately expected response to peaceful protests.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 21, 2011 -> 10:31 AM) I honestly doubt that is the whole story. Why? And, again, what possible actions could justify what that officer did to a group of people sitting on a sidewalk? Was he so threatened that, even after he casually stepped over them, he had to spray them? Repeatedly? I guess I should clarify that I'm not saying that practices of civil disobedience don't come with expectations of legal consequences; if you peacefully defy police orders to move, you should expect to be arrested. What you shouldn't expect is to be beaten or sprayed in the face. Why is it hard to recognize and criticize authoritarian anti-democratic abuses while still strongly and adamantly disagreeing with the message of a movement?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 21, 2011 -> 10:27 AM) Like in Oakland where cops were getting rocks and bottles thrown at them? That is a potential justification for one night in Oakland, though AFAIK the only source for those claims is the Oakland PD. I'm asking about the scenarios we've seen recently, where otherwise peaceful protesters suddenly start getting beaten or sprayed by officers for the simple act of not following the officers' orders. I'll also go back to the action that really started getting the movement attention, and that was the completely unprovoked pepper-spraying of a protester by an NYPD lieutenant back in September. You don't need big conspiracies by the victims of police brutality in order to explain the brutality.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 21, 2011 -> 10:24 AM) It will also kill any goodwill you have from the country. I do believe police privilege is a discussion to have, but don't ruin your occupy message taking that on. It's too muddled. Contrary to ss2k5, I don't think they are intentionally getting themselves beat and sprayed. They didn't highlight abusive authority--the police did by carrying out these actions.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 21, 2011 -> 10:23 AM) My argument has been all along that you are watching it. You say that they are deliberately "enticing" these brutal police responses that are ostensibly unprovoked and unwarranted. I'm asking for some sort of plausible mechanism for that to actually happen, not a plausible motivation for #ows.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 21, 2011 -> 10:16 AM) In a nutshell, this is why I don't buy the idea that police everywhere are just randomly deciding to beat the crap out of these people to try to kill the movement. I don't attribute that motivation to their actions. I attribute it to an authoritarian mindset that doesn't like when people don't follow their exact orders. This isn't unique to #ows protests or even protests in general, and the rationalizations in favor of it show that. To clarify further, the police brutality being witnessed is no an anti-#ows phenomenon or necessarily a reaction to their message or politics. It is independent from a left-vs-right framework. It would be equally abhorrent if applied to anti-abortion protesters barricading a clinic door. Give me a plausible scenario where there's a national organization that is successful in getting police to beat or spray peaceful protesters in order to garner sympathy. What are they doing to get the police to respond with disproportionate violence, and how are they being so effective at it?

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 21, 2011 -> 10:10 AM) They are f***ing all of this up. They need more centralization. They've made this about police vs. protestors now, which is not the fight they should be having. Just let winter kill it off. It can be related back to the same central theme of power vs. powerless and the use of the state to protect privilege. But it does obscure the central wealth and income inequality message. I'll crib this from another board:

Depressing.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 21, 2011 -> 09:01 AM) And just for reference's sake, it has been a long time since I bought the whole "disorganized" thing. The purple shirts down their organizing traffic and protesters like they did during the May Day rally in 06 kinda killed that idea. http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...t&p=2496189 There is loose organization at the local level and some national discussion, but there is no overarching structure to this thing.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 21, 2011 -> 08:17 AM) Well, either you are wrong about the law, or myself and a whole bunch of my generational and neighborhood cohorts were working illegally at those ages. Which do you think is the case? The DoL's guide seems to indicate that work for anyone under 14 is heavily restricted. There's always a family business exemption, and paper-route type exemptions. http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/childlbr.htm

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 21, 2011 -> 09:12 AM) What's this generally about? Are you advocating forced child labor? There are exceptions, notably in agriculture. The "generally" was wiggle-room for the myriad of federal and state labor laws. Here's a summary of, for example, Texas' law that forbids employment of anyone under 14 unless specifically exempted. Newt calls this "tragically stupid."

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 21, 2011 -> 08:17 AM) Well, either you are wrong about the law, or myself and a whole bunch of my generational and neighborhood cohorts were working illegally at those ages. Which do you think is the case? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labor_l...e_United_States But Gingrich did say laws preventing are "tragically stupid" or something along those lines. and the idea that cutting decent-paying jobs for low-skill workers and replacing them with children is some kind of fix for poverty really is tragically stupid.