Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

[Bosozoku]

No, you're wrong. There were far more than a dozen seated protestors; in fact they formed a large ring. There were only a dozen who got sprayed. You can get a feel for the size of the ring in the second photograph here. You can also see that there is a fairly large contingent of cops encircled by the ring.

From the photograph it seems as though the police were only arresting the dozen or so students who were blocking the walkway. I don't see what the presence of other protestors has to do with the amount of force that was required, unless you are suggesting that the other protestors presented some danger to the police.

No, I don't feel it was excessive. The police had a mandate to clear the quad. The protestors were actively interfering with that mandate. The only thing I think was a mistake on the part of the police was backing down afterwards.

I don't see how the mandate of the police to clear the quad of a dozen or so protestors necessarily means that the police had to blast them with pepper spray at point blank range. The picture you linked shows the police in full riot gear, apparently outnumbering the protestors blocking the quad. Why was the pepper spray at all necessary to arrest the protestors?

That's easy. My side wouldn't resist arrest.

I agree that conservative protests in the past few years have been peaceful and have not led to confrontations with police. Let's say for the sake of argument that your side was resisting, though. Let's further assume that they were peacefully resisting arrest, completely unarmed and presenting no threat. Do you sincerely mean to say that you would find absolutely no problem with the tactics the police used here if they were employed on you, your family, or other people you think are "right"?

 

[Pardalis]

What would you have liked the police to have done?

How do you peacefully remove people that don't want to be removed from their location?

 

[Bosozoku]

What would you have liked the police to have done?

How do you peacefully remove people that don't want to be removed from their location?

If you watch the video, after the protestors were pepper sprayed the police in riot gear swooped in, picked up the protestors, handcuffed them and led them away. How about trying that first, rather than spraying them? What was the urgency here? They were prone, unarmed, outnumbered and from all appearances harmless. It was unnecessary and plainly excessive, and if it happened at a Tea Party protest I suspect all the people cheering the police on would agree.

 

[bikerdruid]

The Art of War here

my friend who lives with my ex-wife on the other side of the farm, also refers to the art of war regularly.
he was one of those 100,000 or so canadians who fought in vietnam.
he was a marine.

 

[Pardalis]

If you watch the video, after the protestors were pepper sprayed the police in riot gear swooped in, picked up the protestors, handcuffed them and led them away.How about trying that first, rather than spraying them?

They were more compliant once they were pepper sprayed. Very effective. If they hadn't been pepper sprayed, they would have offered more resistance, and injuries would have occured.

 

[Neally]

If you watch the video, after the protestors were pepper sprayed the police in riot gear swooped in, picked up the protestors, handcuffed them and led them away. How about trying that first, rather than spraying them?

You don't just pick up a dozen protesters that are locked to each other. Why do you ignore this fact? They could have made their political statement without resisting, thus cause the force to be escalated.

What was the urgency here?

They were warned repeatedly that they would be sprayed if they didn't move. The were given plenty of opportunity to avoid being sprayed. If they thought the police were bluffing, they found out the hard way that they were wrong. At that point, they deserved it.

 

[Bosozoku]

You don't just pick up a dozen protesters that are locked to each other. Why do you ignore this fact? They could have made their political statement without resisting, thus cause the force to be escalated.

I am not ignoring anything. If you watch the video, the police pick up the individual protestors, handcuff them, and arrest them. Are you suggesting that this would have been impossible had they not pepper sprayed them at point blank range?

They were warned repeatedly that they would be sprayed if they didn't move. The were given plenty of opportunity to avoid being sprayed. If they thought the police were bluffing, they found out the hard way that they were wrong. At that point, they deserved it.

Whether they issued a warning has nothing to do with whether the force used was excessive. What if they warned the protestors that they were going to shoot them if they didn't move? Would you think that was not excessive force?

 

[theprestige]

Well no, that's exactly what I'm saying however I'm not the one who brought up the "leaving a mess" issue. It's so important to point out that trash was left behind when "liberals" protest according to Fox News fans.

I don't know about "liberals", and I don't know about "Fox News fans", but one of the really notable things about the OWS movement so far is that it leaves trash behind. This characteristic of the OWS is especially notable when compared to other recent protest movements--the Tea Party, for example.

If you'd like to balance the narrative by noting other, positive things about OWS, be my guest. But keep in mind that the main point of this thread is that OWS is really struggling with a lot of negative publicity, stemming from a lot of bad behavior from its participants.

There's really only so much you can do about it: You can agree that it's bad publicity, and join those who argue, in the words of the thread title, "Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity". This is probably the most reasonable, given the facts, but it raises difficult questions about who has responsibility for representing OWS.

You can argue, as RandFan did so valiantly for so many pages of this thread, that OWS doesn't have an identity, so there's nothing to defend. Of course, that leads many of us to question the merits and good faith of a movement that conveniently has no leaders, no message, no goals, and no plans, any time any of those things generates some bad publicity.

You can argue that the bad behavior and resulting bad publicity isn't happening, but that may be hard to do when there's so much video record of it.

You can argue that the Tea Party behaved just as badly, but that may also be hard to do, because there isn't any video record of it.

 

[applecorped]

I am not ignoring anything. If you watch the video, the police pick up the individual protestors, handcuff them, and arrest them. Are you suggesting that this would have been impossible had they not pepper sprayed them at point blank range?





Whether they issued a warning has nothing to do with whether the force used was excessive. What if they warned the protestors that they were going to shoot them if they didn't move? Would you think that was not excessive force?

What should the police have done?

 

[Pardalis]

I am not ignoring anything.

You ignored my post for one thing.

The discomfort caused by the pepper makes them easier to subdue, which avoids injuries.

 

[Neally]

I am not ignoring anything. If you watch the video, the police pick up the individual protestors, handcuff them, and arrest them. Are you suggesting that this would have been impossible had they not pepper sprayed them at point blank range?

Pretty much, like I said before, prying people apart when they are linked like that is a bitch, and quite likely would have caused other injuries. There is no reason they had to do that to make their point.

Whether they issued a warning has nothing to do with whether the force used was excessive. What if they warned the protestors that they were going to shoot them if they didn't move? Would you think that was not excessive force?

The force was not excessive given the situation and that force could have been completely avoided if the students had complied. They brought it on themselves with that stupid stunt. When the police tell you their going to do something if you don't comply with their orders, you only have yourself to blame when you don't comply.

 

[theprestige]

I am not ignoring anything. If you watch the video, the police pick up the individual protestors, handcuff them, and arrest them. Are you suggesting that this would have been impossible had they not pepper sprayed them at point blank range?



Whether they issued a warning has nothing to do with whether the force used was excessive. What if they warned the protestors that they were going to shoot them if they didn't move? Would you think that was not excessive force?

You misunderstand. These weren't "protestors". These were confrontation junkies. They occupy public spaces the way some people stand in line for the roller coaster at the amusement park.

If the police hadn't used a bit of pepper spray, they wouldn't have felt like they were getting their money's worth, and would have demanded a refund on their ticket.

 

[bikerdruid]

The discomfort caused by the pepper makes them easier to subdue, which avoids injuries.

i'm sure that the 84 year old woman that they pepper sprayed was subdued by it. she was doubtless a serious threat to new york's finest.

 

[Pardalis]

i'm sure that the 84 year old woman that they pepper sprayed was subdued by it. she was doubtless a serious threat to new york's finest.

It was night time, and the police are not required to evaluate each individual protester's age they are facing.

 

[bikerdruid]

It was night time, and the police are not required to evaluate each individual protester's age they are facing.

ah, so that excuses indiscriminate use of non lethal weapons and brutal force...got it.

 

[applecorped]

ah, so that excuses indiscriminate use of non lethal weapons and brutal force...got it.

What's to excuse?

 

[rustypouch]

They were more compliant once they were pepper sprayed. Very effective. If they hadn't been pepper sprayed, they would have offered more resistance, and injuries would have occured.

So being hospitalized for coughing up blood, after having your mouth forced open so it can be sprayed doesn't count as being injured?

 

[Pardalis]

ah, so that excuses indiscriminate use of non lethal weapons and brutal force...got it.

Pepper spray is not brutal force.

This is not Syria.

So being hospitalized for coughing up blood, after having your mouth forced open so it can be sprayed doesn't count as being injured?

What are you talking about?

 

[theprestige]

So being hospitalized for coughing up blood, after having your mouth forced open so it can be sprayed doesn't count as being injured?

To be clear: I think that counts as being injured.

I also think that if you expect this claim to be taken seriously, you should be prompt and accurate with a citation that supports this claim, ideally as your very next post after reading mine.

I also think that injuries would probably have been a lot worse if pepper spray hadn't been used.

I also think that pepper spray is not particularly harmful, and that it should be the responsibility of the protestor to consider whether they have any health issues that might expose them to elevated risk of injury if they should receive a generous dose of pepper spray. It's not the job of the police to pre-screen lawbreakers for health issues, before taking them into custody.

There's no counter-protest technique that is 100% guaranteed safe. Protests aren't pre-school. At a certain point, peaceful cooperation on the part of the protestors is the only reasonable hedge against cracked skulls. For my money, that point lies somewhere between being warned by the police that pepper spray is imminent, and being pepper-sprayed by the police.

If the police tell you to leave or they'll use pepper spray, and you don't leave, and they use pepper spray, and you end up coughing blood? Congratulations: You're the 1%. You being the 1% is not a compelling argument that the police should stay their hand. It is, however, a compelling argument that in the future you take personal responsibility for your actions, and not blame the police for your injuries, when they give you fair warning that pepper spray is imminent.

But of course it's not about taking personal responsibility, is it? It's about inciting violence so that you can condemn the other side when the violence escalates. Think about that the next time you're making excuses for people who end up being victims of their own incitements to violence.

 

[rustypouch]

Pepper spray is not brutal force.

This is not Syria.



What are you talking about?

The treatment of the protesters at UC Davis which you are defending.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/252675/20111119/uc-davis-pepper-spray-video-criticisms-pour.htm

UC Davis Assistant Professor Nathan Brown claimed that “when students covered their eyes with their clothing, police forced open their mouths and pepper-sprayed down their throats.”

I still don't understand how sitting passively can justify this kind of treatment.