Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

[IDB87]

Really, if you can't imagine a less-bad response to those protesters you have the critical thinking skills of a gibbon.

You seem to be arguing from an aesthetic point of view. Could you define what "less-bad" means to you, and what facet of police force it applies to?

Before we continue:

Do you agree that the protesters violated campus rules by erecting their tents on campus?

Do you believe the school was wrong/right for trying to enforce campus rules by asking the protesters to remove their tents?

Do you believe the police were wrong/right for asking protesters to remove their tents?

Do you believe the protesters were wrong/right for physically blocking the police from removing the tents?

 

[IDB87]

Well the first thing that pops into my mind is to let them sit there; some dudes sitting on a sidewalk

Why were they sitting on the sidewalk is the question. From what I've read, they were blocking police from taking down the encampments that were set up in violation of campus rules.

Is it safe to assume nearly all laws/rules are thrown out the window because a vocal majority is fighting for the greater good? What about the students who weren't part of the protest. Were their rights less important than the protesters?

Another is to just attack some of them, disrupting the chain so officers can nab the others.

Attack them with what?

 

[Neally]

Well the first thing that pops into my mind is to let them sit there; some dudes sitting on a sidewalk is less bad than blasting a bunch of people in the face, sending one to the hospital.

1. The protestors wanted to be arrested. That was one of their expressed goals. They didn't want to just sit there and be left alone.
2. The police were there to enforce the law and campus regulations. That was their job. Sorry, you don't get to solve the situation by saying that the police shouldn't enforce the law just because you don't like the means that they have to use to do it. The protesters could just as well not have resisted, which you continue to ignore.

Another is to just attack some of them, disrupting the chain so officers can nab the others.

Pointless if the rest remain chained. Every person has to release the chain to cuff and arrest everyone, thus everyone had to be sprayed or are you saying that it was okay to spay just a few?

Any other great ideas?

 

[Taarkin]

You seem to be arguing from an aesthetic point of view. Could you define what "less-bad" means to you, and what facet of police force it applies to?

In this context, I would define it as something that harms people.

Before we continue:
Do you agree that the protesters violated campus rules by erecting their tents on campus?
Do you believe the school was wrong/right for trying to enforce campus rules by asking the protesters to remove their tents?
Do you believe the police were wrong/right for asking protesters to remove their tents?
Do you believe the protesters were wrong/right for physically blocking the police from removing the tents?

1) Yes
2) That depends on what problems the tents were causing
3) Same
4) Same

Why were they sitting on the sidewalk is the question. From what I've read, they were blocking police from taking down the encampments that were set up in violation of campus rules.

One of the officers just stepped over the line. This isn't exactly the Berlin wall here.
(Heaven forbid someone violates a rule )

Is it safe to assume nearly all laws/rules are thrown out the window because a vocal majority is fighting for the greater good? What about the students who weren't part of the protest. Were their rights less important than the protesters?

Sometimes rights come into conflict. I think the activists' 'right' to not be violently assaulted takes precedent over whatever 'rights' they were squashing.

 

[Bosozoku]

Pointless if the rest remain chained. Every person has to release the chain to cuff and arrest everyone, thus everyone had to be sprayed or are you saying that it was okay to spay just a few?

Any other great ideas?

How about picking them up and arresting them one at a time? You know, kind of like they did after pepper spraying them?

Oh, two of the officers involved in this fiasco were placed on administrative leave. The article doesn't say which ones, but since they were placed on leave due to concerns about "proportional law enforcement" it's not hard to figure out.

 

[Taarkin]

1. The protestors wanted to be arrested. That was one of their expressed goals. They didn't want to just sit there and be left alone.

I wasn't aware that police officers were required to indulge the desires of everyone they meet.

2. The police were there to enforce the law and campus regulations. That was their job. Sorry, you don't get to solve the situation by saying that the police shouldn't enforce the law just because you don't like the means that they have to use to do it.

"I was just following orders" is a lousy excuse.

The protesters could just as well not have resisted, which you continue to ignore.

That's true. They also could have just dissolved the whole protest, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Pointless if the rest remain chained. Every person has to release the chain to cuff and arrest everyone, thus everyone had to be sprayed or are you saying that it was okay to spay just a few?

I don't think you "get" chains. At most, you would only have to break every other link.

 

[IDB87]

In this context, I would define it as something that harms people.

You didn't answer the question. Or maybe you did. Your answer was the protesters should be left alone, therefore any measure the police would have taken would have been too much.

2) That depends on what problems the tents were causing

That is not determined by anyone other than the campus authorities. You agreed it went against campus rules, and that's enough for the college to have them removed.

One of the officers just stepped over the line. This isn't exactly the Berlin wall here.

Regardless, the purpose of the sit-in was to prevent police from taking down the encampment.

(Heaven forbid someone violates a rule )

Rules these students agreed to abide by when they enrolled at the university. No one should be surprised that their actions have consequences.

I think the activists' 'right' to not be violently assaulted takes precedent over whatever 'rights' they were squashing.

What sort of logic is this? They were not 'assaulted' because they set up camps, but because they resisted police attempts at taking the tents down per the campus rules, which you agreed the protesters were in violation of. Other students rights were violated when 70+ protesters squatted in Mrak hall, and then moved on to the plaza to set up an encampment with Occupy Oakland.

I'm sorry that the group you sympathize with can walk all over the students who are not interested in your fight.

 

[Brainster]

Anybody remember the group that was marching from Zoo-Cotti to DC? Been awhile since they updated their blog, but they finally put up some recent events and it's genuine comedy gold:

An SUV pace vehicle joins us, driven by a local supporter. Relieved of our backpack weight, the nighttime pace quickens. Marcher Brandon befriends the driver, choosing to ride in the passenger seat instead of walking. He sometimes also rides on the vehicle’s exterior while wearing the Guy Fawkes mask he’d left Zuccotti Park with. Even after repeated scoldings from other marchers he continues the stunts. The full truck will not fit his heavy backpack, homemade with gunny sacks, so he throws it onto the People’s Taxi rather than carrying it on his lap.

That's Brandon "Bloody Face" Watts, the goofball who threw AAA batteries at cops and stole a policeman's hat at Zoo-Cotti a day or two after the park was cleared out. Brandon abandoned the march and got a ride back to New York just in time to get his head cracked open and his sorry butt thrown in jail.

It just wouldn't be a proper protest without the feminists griping about the males getting all the attention:

As we progress through Philly, Kelly proposes that the women of the group lead the march into downtown. She and Micheal organized this march and he has been painted by the media as its leader while the presence of women has be under-represented by reporters. She wants to show the public that this is not a man’s march, that women are strong too, and that we are capable of everything they are capable of.

Just after she proposes this, a woman stops her car and gets out. Kelly and Micheal are leading the group at that point. The woman goes straight to Micheal, takes his face in her hands, gives him a long hug and says, “Oh, the heroes! Thank you so much!” She then turns her back without acknowledging Kelly at all. Kelly looks at me and I can see her thoughts in her eyes.

The Occupy Philadelphia crowd greets them with open arms. And then steals their stuff:

A group of Occupy Philly campers rummage through the People’s Taxi, making much rustling noise but not speaking. Knowing the wagon only contains junk food, marchers are too tired to get up and stop this. All is lost upon our awakening, with only empty wrappers remaining from the hundreds of candy and pastry items that had been in the Taxi.

There's much, much more. Huge entertainment value.

 

[Taarkin]

You didn't answer the question. Or maybe you did. Your answer was the protesters should be left alone, therefore any measure the police would have taken would have been too much.

Not necessarily "too much". It nwould depend on what problems the protesters were causing.

That is not determined by anyone other than the campus authorities. You agreed it went against campus rules, and that's enough for the college to have them removed.

The chancellor is not Dear Leader. It is possible that she exercised poor judgment.
Sometimes it is not a good thing to always enforce all rules.

Rules these students agreed to abide by when they enrolled at the university. No one should be surprised that their actions have consequences.

Again, it is not necessarily a good thing to always enforce all rules.

What sort of logic is this? They were not 'assaulted' because they set up camps, but because they resisted police attempts at taking the tents down per the campus rules, which you agreed the protesters were in violation of. Other students rights were violated when 70+ protesters squatted in Mrak hall, and then moved on to the plaza to set up an encampment with Occupy Oakland.

I'm sorry that the group you sympathize with can walk all over the students who are not interested in your fight.

Is the notion of conflicting rights really a novel concept to you? Or the idea that sometimes right A takes precedence over right B?

 

[Neally]

How about picking them up and arresting them one at a time? You know, kind of like they did after pepper spraying them?

Already explained. You don't just "pick up" people that have their arms locked together. The discomfort from the spray is designed to weaken their grip.

Oh, two of the officers involved in this fiasco were placed on administrative leave. The article doesn't say which ones, but since they were placed on leave due to concerns about "proportional law enforcement" it's not hard to figure out.

Not unexpected, but not because they didn't act appropriately, administration had to make a show of concern to pacify the crybabies. Independent law enforcement experts have already reviewed the videos and stated that the actions were appropriate.

I wasn't aware that police officers were required to indulge the desires of everyone they meet.

And the officers complied with those desires. The stupid protests failed to understand what resisting arrest could lead to. When they found out after the fact, they threw a tantrum.

"I was just following orders" is a lousy excuse.

For what? They did their job in enforcing the law using the best established procedures to do it. Or maybe you'd prefer that police just sit and do nothing whenever they personally decide they don't like the law that they are required to uphold or the approved procedures to deal with the offenders?

That's true. They also could have just dissolved the whole protest, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

So resisting arrest and setting yourself up to get sprayed is a good idea?

I don't think you "get" chains. At most, you would only have to break every other link.

So you're cool with spraying every other person then?

 

[bookitty]

You didn't answer the question. Or maybe you did. Your answer was the protesters should be left alone, therefore any measure the police would have taken would have been too much.



That is not determined by anyone other than the campus authorities. You agreed it went against campus rules, and that's enough for the college to have them removed.



Regardless, the purpose of the sit-in was to prevent police from taking down the encampment.



Rules these students agreed to abide by when they enrolled at the university. No one should be surprised that their actions have consequences.



What sort of logic is this? They were not 'assaulted' because they set up camps, but because they resisted police attempts at taking the tents down per the campus rules, which you agreed the protesters were in violation of. Other students rights were violated when 70+ protesters squatted in Mrak hall, and then moved on to the plaza to set up an encampment with Occupy Oakland.

http://boingboing.net/2011/11/20/ucdeyetwitness.html

The tents had already come down. Three people had been arrested. The students felt that those three should not be singled out, that there should be more arrests. (btw, this is something I've heard discussed - if 100 people are arrested, the charges will be smaller and almost everyone will be let go. If just 3 or 4 people are arrested, they will be charged with as many violations as possible. I can't speak for the veracity of that opinion, I only know it is common.) The students who sat down thought that they were protecting their friends.

Chancellor Katehi had waved the camping code for the first night. Personally, I think this was a mistake on her part. You don't give a bunch of politically-impassioned college students a series of mixed messages. It just makes things messy. However, it did give her common ground with the occupiers. Had she used that wave to show that she was in a difficult position, the students may have responded. (The students had already initiated talks with the groundskeepers on moving the tents to make sure the lawn was watered.)

Instead she sent a series of increasingly heavy-handed and impersonal letters and then the police.

Had the cops been simply faceless enforcement in riot gear, intimidation tactics might have worked. Unfortunately, they had already been there for a few days chatting with the students while the tent went up.

I had a wonderful conversation with Lieutenant Pike that night. I dialogued with him for a while. He was cordial to me. He knew me by name. We offered him coffee and food.

The students may have been misguided enough to think these friendly neighborhood cops were willing to work with them. They knew they would be arrested but they expected no hard feelings. Some were probably relieved that "their cops" weren't like the Berkeley cops - quick with the baton.

There were three days of opportunities for compromise between three different groups of people (cops, students, Katehi) who had already established a cordial relationship.

 

[Taarkin]

And the officers complied with those desires.

Next time I come across an officer I'll ask him for a pony. What I'm getting at is the protesters' desire to be arrested is not necessarily a good reason to indulge them.

When they found out after the fact, they threw a tantrum.

I wouldn't describe watching the officers leave and standing silently as the chancellor leaves the building as "throwing a tantrum".

For what?

Violently assaulting peaceful protesters.

They did their job in enforcing the law
using the best established procedures to do it.

Again, Nuremberg defense.

Or maybe you'd prefer that police just sit and do nothing whenever they personally decide they don't like the law that they are required to uphold or the approved procedures to deal with the offenders?

If enforcing a rule requires committing injustice, then an officer who cares about justice should not enforce it.

So resisting arrest and setting yourself up to get sprayed is a good idea?

Sometimes.

So you're cool with spraying every other person then?

That would be preferable to spraying all of them. Do you agree?

 

[IDB87]

http://boingboing.net/2011/11/20/ucdeyetwitness.html

The tents had already come down.

Doesn't look like it.

Everything else W wrote seems to be negated by the video I linked to.

*ETA

Notice how they sit down towards the end there? Interesting, don't you agree?

 

[IDB87]

Not necessarily "too much". It nwould depend on what problems the protesters were causing.

You've determined that there was no problem, per say, therefore the level of force the police used would be too much.

Sometimes it is not a good thing to always enforce all rules.

Again, not your call.

Again, it is not necessarily a good thing to always enforce all rules.

Only when these rules stand in the way of the Greater Good.

Is the notion of conflicting rights really a novel concept to you? Or the idea that sometimes right A takes precedence over right B?

It would depend on the conflict. You are sympathetic with OWS, therefore the measures they take (and the rights they impact) is worth it in your opinion.

 

[Taarkin]

You've determined that there was no problem, per say, therefore the level of force the police used would be too much.

I never denied that they were causing problems. In fact the post you quoted included me saying that the protesters were causing problems!

Again, not your call.

Sometimes authority figures are not infallible, omnibenevolent god-kings. Do you feel otherwise?

Only when these rules stand in the way of the Greater Good.

I don't think that bad rules should always be enforced. I'm sure you do too.

It would depend on the conflict. You are sympathetic with OWS, therefore the measures they take (and the rights they impact) is worth it in your opinion.

Sometimes. Sometimes not. You are unsympathetic with OWS, therefore the measures they take (and the rights they impact) isn't worth it in your opinion.

 

[IDB87]

In fact the post you quoted included me saying that the protesters were causing problems!

No, it doesn't say that. You said the 'response' would depend on what problems the tents were causing but you've never actually said what problems the tents were causing. How am I, or anyone, to determine what response you would find appropriate if you can't even state your position outside of "cops bad"?

It's also the call of anyone who thinks that sometimes authority figures are not infallible, omnibenevolent god-kings. Do you feel otherwise?

Sure, I agree. It's also on your shoulders when you get brought back into reality. If I should question the audacity of speed limits on the highway by speeding, should I also complain that I get a ticket? Should I challenge that ticket?

Not all authority needs to be challenged. This 'tent rule' was not impeding the student's right to protest.

I don't think that bad rules should always be enforced. I'm sure you do too.

Would you care to list all the 'bad' rules you would like to not be enforced? Can I add that I think it's a bad rule that I can't be naked in public?

You are unsympathetic with OWS, therefore the measures they take (and the rights they impact) isn't worth it in your opinion.
I hope this isn't the 'your opinion is different from mine, therefore you are wrong' defense.

Sticking with Occupy Davis, I support the right of students to protest the tuition hike, like they did on Tuesday. I do not support them camping out in plazas for the purpose of defying direct police orders not to do so.

 

[bookitty]

Doesn't look like it.

Everything else W wrote seems to be negated by the video I linked to.

*ETA

Notice how they sit down towards the end there? Interesting, don't you agree?

She said there were 35 tents. In that video there were less than 10. But yes, the fault is mine, I should have said some of the tents had come down. Did you read anything beyond my first sentence?

 

[IDB87]

She said there were 35 tents. In that video there were less than 10.But yes, the fault is mine, I should have said some of the tents had come down.

Glad we agree.

Did you read anything beyond my first sentence?

Yes. It was a recalling of the article, mixed with your opinions on what was going on and what 'would've worked.' I chose not to address speculation.

 

[Bosozoku]

Already explained. You don't just "pick up" people that have their arms locked together. The discomfort from the spray is designed to weaken their grip.

Just to clarify, do you actually mean to suggest that it is impossible for, say, 5 or 6 police to lift an individual who has his arms linked together with two other individuals, break the chain, and arrest them?

I think what you fail to see is that this outcry isn't about the use of pepper spray to subdue and arrest people. That is a well established and accepted practice. The problem here is that the police indiscriminately pepper sprayed a row of protestors without first attempting to arrest them. There was no indication that the protestors presented any threat, and no indication (your speculation that the Mighty Hercules himself cannot break a human chain notwithstanding) that the police needed to pepper spray anyone to effectuate their arrest.

If they had attempted to arrest them first - and not just said to move or they would pepper spray them if they didn't disperse - people would think this is acceptable. But they didn't, and now the officers involved are on leave.

Not unexpected, but not because they didn't act appropriately, administration had to make a show of concern to pacify the crybabies. Independent law enforcement experts have already reviewed the videos and stated that the actions were appropriate.

Do you have any evidence that the administration did this to "pacify the crybabies"? Because the article I linked and other I have read said they did it out of concern of the proportionality of the police response. In advance, I'd like to note that speculation is not reliable evidence.

 

[bookitty]

Glad we agree.



Yes. It was a recalling of the article, mixed with your opinions on what was going on and what 'would've worked.' I chose not to address speculation.

Ah, the retreat of the skeptic - "The details surrounding this complex social issue aren't science-y enough for me."