Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

[IDB87]

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?

No one is saying that. In fact, it was tried. Please refer to the 2:10 minute mark.



Would you advise the police to pull harder next time?

The problem here is that the police indiscriminately pepper sprayed a row of protestors without first attempting to arrest then

That was the point of the pepper spray.

There was no indication that the protestors presented any threat,

They had broken campus rules that Friday and were ordered to disperse, which they refused.

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.

Would you suggest tug of war on people's limbs?

 

[leftysergeant]

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.

Got a link?

 

[Taarkin]

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.

Because I am unsure of the problems the tents were causing!

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?

If the harm caused by your violation of the speed limit(greater chance/severity of accident) is reduced(no traffic, wide open road, good weather) below the harm of wasted time due to the speed limit, then sure.

Not all authority needs to be challenged.

I agree (for a certain definition of "challenged").

This 'tent rule' was not impeding the student's right to protest.

I was impeding their right to protest in a particular manner. (Whether that manner is acceptable or not is another matter)

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?

Here's a couple: women must wear burkas, blacks must sit in the back, Native Americans must live in reservations, don't escape from slavery, stone the adultress, burn the heretics, kill the families of French resistance fighters, do not question Dear Leader's proclamations...

unrelated edit: Did those officers actually proceed to the tents after they cleared the sidewalk? It looks like they just slinked away.

 

[IDB87]

Because I am unsure of the problems the tents were causing!

But you just said that you knew the protesters were causing problems,

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

But now you're not sure?

I was impeding their right to protest in a particular manner. (Whether that manner is acceptable or not is another matter)

Their right to protest at the school, within the school's rules which they agreed to upon enrollment, were not impeded. Setting up the camps on campus was a direct challenge to authority for its own sake, not for any advancement of the OWS cause.

It was cop-baiting.

 

[IDB87]

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

Anytime you feel like talking about your opinions, feel free to skype me.

 

[Neally]

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

Selecting a separate incident to try to prove your point isn't fooling anyone. The video of the actual spaying event and the ensuing media afterwards demonstrates tantrum throwing.

Violently assaulting peaceful protesters.

Controlling people resisting arrest.

Again, Nuremberg defense.

Yet no crimes were committed by the police. The policies used are widely accepted as appropriate. You and a few others with this "violent assault" claim and lack of effective alternatives aren't convincing.

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

Yet no "injustice" was committed here.

That would be preferable to spraying all of them.

What, you approve of such injustice? Violence against a few is okay but violence against many is bad?

Do you agree?

I think the most effective way to handle it was just as they did. Hose down the lot of them. You try to pick and choose who to spray, you run the chance of being targeted as discriminatory if you pick the wrong race or gender.

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?

Impossible, no, but as explained before, you get into a tugging match in that situation, someone can easily get hurt much worse that stinging eyes from pepper spray, which is why the correct police procedure is to spray 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.

They were not "indiscriminately" sprayed. They were told they would be sprayed if they didn't quit resisting. Locking their arms together was resisting. The police don't "try" to tug them apart to see if they will cooperate. They knew exactly what would happen if they didn't cooperate, and they got what they had coming to them.

Do you have any evidence that the administration did this to "pacify the crybabies"?

That's my take on it. I totally expected it to play out that way.

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.

Of course they described it that way. If the investigation comes back and says "the correct procedure to deal with this situation is X but the officers did Y which is a direct and clear violation of procedure and their training", I'll accept that, even though other departments said what they did was correct.

More than likely the report will in fact state that "the officers acted correctly according to their training, but that we are re-evaluating the procedures that should be used...", again to pacify the crybabies.

Got a link?

Already given earlier in the thread. I'm surprised that you would doubt it though, you always profess to be an expert in everything from firefighting, to military strategy, to small arms handling. I'd think that with your vast knowledge of such things it would include basic police procedures for crowd control.

 

[Taarkin]

But you just said that you knew the protesters were causing problems,
But now you're not sure?

"That depends on what problems the tents were causing ". Of course they are causing some problems! The grass underneath might die off and they may have crushed an endangered lawn moth. But that's not why they were torn down.

Their right to protest at the school, within the school's rules which they agreed to upon enrollment, were not impeded.

I'd have to look it up, but I'm confident that those same rules would protect the protesters from disproportionate violent assaults.

Setting up the camps on campus was a direct challenge to authority for its own sake, not for any advancement of the OWS cause.

Is this actually true?

 

[IDB87]

"That depends on what problems the tents were causing ". Of course they are causing some problems! The grass underneath might die off and they may have crushed an endangered lawn moth. But that's not why they were torn down.

You'd have to think more abstractly.

I'd have to look it up, but I'm confident that those same rules would protect the protesters from disproportionate violent assaults.

Allow me,

Freedom of Expression, Peaceful Protest, and Civil Disobedience on Campus:
Rights and Responsibilities

State Laws:
Students or others who violate the law may be subject to police or citizen's arrest and criminal prosecution;

*Assembling for purpose of disturbing the peace or committing unlawful
act, failing to disperse after directed to do so by a public officer. PC 416.

Is this actually true?

I'm just going by what pro-UC Davis blogs are saying.

For example, from that blog,

as part of the UC-Wide General Strike. In Berkeley, UC students were joined by thousands from the Occupy Oakland encampment and agreed to occupy a campus plaza with tents, in defiance of police orders.

So while the squatting at Mrak hall can be considered part of the protest against tuition hikes, the encampments at the plaza could be considered direct defiance of a police order, separate from the tuition issue.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

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.

A poor analogy; a better one would be to place yourself in a position where the officer's only choice is to give you a pony. It doesn't matter if the protesters wanted to be arrested or not, and I think Neally was only pointing that out to explain the behavior of the protesters, the reality is the protesters violated the law and were going to be arrested no matter what they desired. Think about it for a moment then ask yourself if you seriously believe the only reason the protesters were being arrested is because they wanted to be arrested.

Violently assaulting peaceful protesters.

What we have here are not peaceful protestors. What we've got are a large number of variables, variables that have to be accounted for. Peaceful protesters turn violent all the time and people get seriously injured or killed when that happens.

Again, Nuremberg defense.

One thing that I truly hate about the Nuremberg trials is that from now to the day I die I'm going to have to listen to people incorrectly use that term. There is a bit of irony here, the people put on trial in Nuremberg were key policy-makers and the administrative heads of the economy, civilian government, and military of Nazi Germany. The people we're discussing here are police-officers, not the ones who created these set of procedures in the first place. They aren't going to be arrested/placed on trial for the same reason the allies declined to prosecute the whole German army.

There is actually an established precedent for this used in both military law (superior orders) and civilian law (respondeat superior) wherein the perpetrator of a crime has his/her liability reduced or even received an acquittal based on the fact that they were ordered by a superior. The police here are covered by the fact that they followed procedure. A procedure which the courts aren't going to rule is excessive. You want to change things? Target the people who came up with the procedure then.

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

"Police officers should be allowed to pick and choose which laws they'd like to enforce."

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

You'll have to explain the logic of incapacitating an eighth of a crowd that could potentially turn violate as opposed to incapacitating all of them.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

No one is saying that. In fact, it was tried. Please refer to the 2:10 minute mark.

Your video doesn't work.

 

[Taarkin]

Selecting a separate incident to try to prove your point isn't fooling anyone. The video of the actual spaying event and the ensuing media afterwards demonstrates tantrum throwing.

tan·trum
   /ˈtæntrəm/ Show Spelled[tan-truhm] Show IPA
noun
a violent demonstration of rage or frustration; a sudden burst of ill temper.
ex: The protesters did not throw a tantrum.

Controlling people resisting arrest.

I'm not sure whether the police actually attempted to arrest them before blasting them.

Yet no crimes were committed by the police.

I'm talking morally, not legally.

The policies used are widely accepted as appropriate.

Good thing policies are never bad! Boy imagine how awful it would be if some policies were sometimes bad

You and a few others with this "violent assault" claim and lack of effective alternatives aren't convincing.

Why the scare quotes? Why the handwaving of other viable alternatives?

What, you approve of such injustice? Violence against a few is okay but violence against many is bad?

It would be preferable to what happened. Would you rather be punched in the shoulder or stabbed in the chest? OMG you WANT to punched in the shoulder???!!

I think the most effective way to handle it was just as they did. Hose down the lot of them. You try to pick and choose who to spray, you run the chance of being targeted as discriminatory if you pick the wrong race or gender.

Do you ACTUALLY think that's why they sprayed everyone? That's a trick question, I know you really don't.

 

[IDB87]

Your video doesn't work.

Thanks for the heads up. Should be working now.

 

[NoahFence]

Occupy is an abject failure.

I've been on their MyFace page (or was it FaceSpace?)

Asking why don't they get a candidate they can all get with and vote him or her in office to facilitate the change they want so much?

They're replying that they can't get behind ANY candidate and that no politician will EVER get the support of the "Occupy" movement.

Well, there you have it.

What do you want?

CHANGE!!

How are you going to get it?

HAVE SOMEONE ELSE DO IT!

When do you want it?

NOW!

 

[bikerdruid]

Occupy is an abject failure.

the fact that we are still discussing it proves you dead wrong.
millions of people are discussing it, and will continue to.
thinking and discussion is a strong start to revolution.

 

[leftysergeant]

The first step in solving a problem is to convince people that the problem needs to be solved.

Bringing up a list of things that suck about predatory capitalism is part of that process.

 

[Taarkin]

A poor analogy; a better one would be to place yourself in a position where the officer's only choice is to give you a pony. It doesn't matter if the protesters wanted to be arrested or not, and I think Neally was only pointing that out to explain the behavior of the protesters, the reality is the protesters violated the law and were going to be arrested no matter what they desired.

I agree that the protesters' desire to be arrested isn't very relevant.
The bolded part just isn't true.

Think about it for a moment then ask yourself if you seriously believe the only reason the protesters were being arrested is because they wanted to be arrested.

I never believed that.

What we have here are not peaceful protestors.

On the contrary: that's exactly what we have.

What we've got are a large number of variables, variables that have to be accounted for. Peaceful protesters turn violent all the time and people get seriously injured or killed when that happens.

Hrrm yes the all-to-common occurrence of college kids flying into a berserk rage and attacking armwed and armored police officers while chanting "We use words, you use weapons". I'm curious why the officers weren't equipped with lighting rods to protect themselves from a similarly probable threat.
Note that the spraying INCREASED the protesters' agitation! If you're afraid of being bumrushed, why would you do something that makes the mob more angry?

The police here are covered by the fact that they followed procedure. A procedure which the courts aren't going to rule is excessive. You want to change things? Target the people who came up with the procedure then.

I didn't know that badges emitted some kind of hypno-ray into the officers brains that forces them to do what they're told. I'm learning a lot today.

"Police officers should be allowed to pick and choose which laws they'd like to enforce."

"The police should not unleash attack dogs and water cannons against nonviolent civil rights activists, even if some of them are breaking The Law".

You'll have to explain the logic of incapacitating an eighth of a crowd that could potentially turn violate as opposed to incapacitating all of them.

What reason did they have to believe that the sitting down, arms linked protesters would spring up and attack? Keep in mind that there were a ton of people around who DIDN'T turn violent (who were in a much better position to do so) despite their lack of incapacitation.You'll have to explain the logic of incapacitating the twentieth of a crowd that is in the LEAST LIKELY position to harm you.

 

[Neally]

I'm not sure whether the police actually attempted to arrest them before blasting them.

You can't cuff and arrest people that are chained together.

I'm talking morally, not legally.

And I'm talking figure of speech when I say they threw a tantrum. Regardless, if there was a moral issue to pepper spraying protesters to gain compliance, it wouldn't be standard procedure. The fact that you claim it is doesn't matter.

Good thing policies are never bad! Boy imagine how awful it would be if some policies were sometimes bad

Yet you still fail to come up with a viable alternative, other than, just ignore the laws and the police duties.

Why the scare quotes? Why the handwaving of other viable alternatives?

I explained in detail why your alternatives, aren't even alternatives to accomplish what needed to be done. Ignoring the problem is not a viable alternative.

It would be preferable to what happened. Would you rather be punched in the shoulder or stabbed in the chest? OMG you WANT to punched in the shoulder???!!

And what would have been even more preferable is that the protesters would not have resisted, but what's "preferable" isn't the question. The question is how to get them to comply. You have presented no other viable alternatives other than just spray some of them.

Do you ACTUALLY think that's why they sprayed everyone? That's a trick question, I know you really don't.

They sprayd all of them because that was the best way to get them all to comply. Your "spray half of them" likely would not have worked, in my opinion, and is hardly the moral high ground that you seek.

 

[shuize]

Keep ignoring my response and question, maybe people will magically forget your question dodging.

What question? Whether I was serious?

Yes, I don't think what I viewed on that video amounted to "violence" by the police.

It was political theater by the protesters. The police were just doing their jobs.

"Violence" is cracking skulls, not spraying eye-irritant on people who essentially asked to be sprayed by ignoring lawful orders to comply.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

I agree that the protesters' desire to be arrested isn't very relevant.
The bolded part just isn't true.

Oh it is, unless they officers decided they didn't feel like enforcing the law on that particular day.

I never believed that.

I know that, you were constructing a strawman to knock down.

On the contrary: that's exactly what we have.

Then you should apply for the million dollar prize with your ability to psychically sense the intentions of others.

Hrrm yes the all-to-common occurrence of college kids flying into a berserk rage and attacking armwed and armored police officers while chanting "We use words, you use weapons". I'm curious why the officers weren't equipped with lighting rods to protect themselves from a similarly probable threat.

If only we could disseminate this ability of yours to the police, then they wouldn't have even had to show up geared for riot control.

Note that the spraying INCREASED the protesters' agitation! If you're afraid of being bumrushed, why would you do something that makes the mob more angry?

While pacifying them, imagine that.

I didn't know that badges emitted some kind of hypno-ray into the officers brains that forces them to do what they're told. I'm learning a lot today.

Precisely, because obviously the police aren't trained and have absolutely no idea what their own procedures say to do in situations like this.

"The police should not unleash attack dogs and water cannons against nonviolent civil rights activists, even if some of them are breaking The Law".

These aren't civil rights activists and there were no attack dogs or water cannons.

What reason did they have to believe that the sitting down, arms linked protesters would spring up and attack?

The fact that they could. Of course that's not the scenario I'm suggesting. See below.

Keep in mind that there were a ton of people around who DIDN'T turn violent (who were in a much better position to do so) despite their lack of incapacitation.You'll have to explain the logic of incapacitating the twentieth of a crowd that is in the LEAST LIKELY position to harm you.

What exactly makes them the least likely? They were the ones who were actively refusing to comply, compare with the rest of the crowd who was complying. You'll note that I made no suggestion that the protesters were going to "spring up and attack". However, attempting to force this group onto their feet could get violent quickly. Incapacitating them before attempting to move them by force was simply the best possible solution.

 

[Taarkin]

You can't cuff and arrest people that are chained together.

Did they even try? The only thing I heard the officer say is 'get up or we'll spray you'. They didn't get much mike time though.

Regardless, if there was a moral issue to pepper spraying protesters to gain compliance, it wouldn't be standard procedure. The fact that you claim it is doesn't matter.

Sometimes standard procedure is bad! Do you agree?

I explained in detail why your alternatives, aren't even alternatives to accomplish what needed to be done.

Most of your arguments have been 'all actions that enforce the rules are axiomatically justified' or lazy handwaves. Calling the task of clearing the sidewalk so the tents could be removed "what needed to be done" is presumptuous.

Ignoring the problem is not a viable alternative.

Sometimes it is. If a cop sees someone drop a fast food wrapper and the only way to get at him is to drive a combine thresher through a crowded playground, then ignoring the problem is a viable alternative. Sometimes enforcing the rules is not the Best Possible Thing.

And what would have been even more preferable is that the protesters would not have resisted, but what's "preferable" isn't the question. The question is how to get them to comply.

One of the questions is "Is it really worth it to assault a bunch of nonviolent protesters because they are sitting in the way of some tents we were told to tear down?"

They sprayd all of them because that was the best way to get them all to comply. Your "spray half of them" likely would not have worked, in my opinion, and is hardly the moral high ground that you seek.

Handwaving. Why do you think that targeting every other one wouldn't have worked?