Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

[JihadJane]

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but teh interwebz are used by a great many people, some of which are certifiably insane (See the 9/11 Conspiracy Forum).

A woman about 500 miles away from Florida had a passing resemblance to Casey Anthony and was almost murdered for it. This guy actually did something stupid. So maybe I should ask you - how likely is it that some nut hasn't thought of using that information to find him?

Thanks for giving some attention to, though not answering, my first question.

Perhaps you could now give your attention to my second question:

"How likely do you think it is that John Pike will get fired?"


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

'Ten Things You Should Know About Friday’s UC Davis Police Violence'

The article expands on the following assertions:

"1. The protest at which UC Davis police officers used pepper spray and batons against unresisting demonstrators was an entirely nonviolent one.

2. The unauthorized tent encampment was dismantled before the pepper spraying began.

3. Students did not restrict the movement of police at any time during the demonstration.

4. Lt. Pike was not in fear for his safety when he sprayed the students.

5. University of California Police are not authorized to use pepper spray except in circumstances in which it is necessary to prevent physical injury to themselves or others.

6. UC police are not authorized to use physical force except to control violent offenders or keep suspects from escaping.

7. The UC Davis Police made no effort to remove the student demonstrators from the walkway peacefully before using pepper spray against them.

8. Use of pepper spray and other physical force continued after the students’ minimal obstruction of the area around the police ended.

9. Even after police began using unprovoked and unlawful violence against the students, they remained peaceful.

10. The students’ commitment to nonviolence extended to their use of language."





Follow-up post, addressing the criticism that, in forming a ring around police and their fellow activists, they were violating the principles of nonviolent resistance:

'Nonviolence, Resisting Arrest, and the Student Movements of the Sixties and Today

 

[AlBell]

So what is OWS trying to accomplish?

Get as many utube clips as possible demonstrating police brutality?

 

[bikerdruid]

, some people prefer to take the law in their own hands.

as mr. pike did by attacking peaceful student protesters with capsicum?
he was not following orders.

 

[NoahFence]

Thanks for giving some attention to, though not answering, my first question.

Perhaps you could now give your attention to my second question:

"How likely do you think it is that John Pike will get fired?"


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

'Ten Things You Should Know About Friday’s UC Davis Police Violence'

The article expands on the following assertions:

"1. The protest at which UC Davis police officers used pepper spray and batons against unresisting demonstrators was an entirely nonviolent one.

2. The unauthorized tent encampment was dismantled before the pepper spraying began.

3. Students did not restrict the movement of police at any time during the demonstration.

4. Lt. Pike was not in fear for his safety when he sprayed the students.

5. University of California Police are not authorized to use pepper spray except in circumstances in which it is necessary to prevent physical injury to themselves or others.

6. UC police are not authorized to use physical force except to control violent offenders or keep suspects from escaping.

7. The UC Davis Police made no effort to remove the student demonstrators from the walkway peacefully before using pepper spray against them.

8. Use of pepper spray and other physical force continued after the students’ minimal obstruction of the area around the police ended.

9. Even after police began using unprovoked and unlawful violence against the students, they remained peaceful.

10. The students’ commitment to nonviolence extended to their use of language."





Follow-up post, addressing the criticism that, in forming a ring around police and their fellow activists, they were violating the principles of nonviolent resistance:

'Nonviolence, Resisting Arrest, and the Student Movements of the Sixties and Today

How likely will he be fired? I can't say - I'm not privvy to the discussions with his superiors. If I were his boss, he'd be out on his ass.

HOWEVER

The man's # should not be public knowledge, posted only to incite a lynch mob.

FYI - I did answer your first question.

 

[Neally]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

'Ten Things You Should Know About Friday’s UC Davis Police Violence'

The article expands on the following assertions:


5. University of California Police are not authorized to use pepper spray except in circumstances in which it is necessary to prevent physical injury to themselves or others.

Which is why it was used. You don't yank apart chained people without risking physical injury.

7. The UC Davis Police made no effort to remove the student demonstrators from the walkway peacefully before using pepper spray against them.

False. They were told to get out.

8. Use of pepper spray and other physical force continued after the students’ minimal obstruction of the area around the police ended.

So? They were still chained together.

9. Even after police began using unprovoked and unlawful violence against the students, they remained peaceful.

The use of pepper spray is lawful against people resisting arrest.

 

[bikerdruid]

'Ten Things You Should Know About Friday’s UC Davis Police Violence'

The article expands on the following assertions:

"1. The protest at which UC Davis police officers used pepper spray and batons against unresisting demonstrators was an entirely nonviolent one.

2. The unauthorized tent encampment was dismantled before the pepper spraying began.

3. Students did not restrict the movement of police at any time during the demonstration.

4. Lt. Pike was not in fear for his safety when he sprayed the students.

5. University of California Police are not authorized to use pepper spray except in circumstances in which it is necessary to prevent physical injury to themselves or others.

6. UC police are not authorized to use physical force except to control violent offenders or keep suspects from escaping.

7. The UC Davis Police made no effort to remove the student demonstrators from the walkway peacefully before using pepper spray against them.

8. Use of pepper spray and other physical force continued after the students’ minimal obstruction of the area around the police ended.

9. Even after police began using unprovoked and unlawful violence against the students, they remained peaceful.

10. The students’ commitment to nonviolence extended to their use of language."





Follow-up post, addressing the criticism that, in forming a ring around police and their fellow activists, they were violating the principles of nonviolent resistance:

'Nonviolence, Resisting Arrest, and the Student Movements of the Sixties and Today

facts, facts, facts......many of the fine folks at the extreme right end of the political spectrum don't need no stinking facts!!

 

[AlBell]

Or they watch tv, read newspapers, the web, etc to get facts.

 

[bikerdruid]

Or they watch tv, read newspapers, the web, etc to get facts.

ah yes, like faux news and world news daily.

 

[shuize]

Irrelevant. Pepper spraying anybody in the face for any reason is an act of violence.

Is it "violence" when police are sprayed with pepper-spray as part of their training?

As I stated above, I view the incident at U.C. Davis as political theater. Much like police trainees, the protesters essentially asked to be sprayed. The fact that they're complaining about it afterwards is disingenuous.

Moreover, the term "violence" is normally applied to situations involving extreme physical force meant to injure or abuse. I don't believe this really applies to protesters consentiing to being misted with eye-irritant.

 

[applecorped]

Is it "violence" when police are sprayed with pepper-spray as part of their training?

As I stated above, I view the incident at U.C. Davis as political theater. Much like police trainees, the protesters essentially asked to be sprayed. The fact that they're complaining about it afterwards is disingenuous.

Moreover, the term "violence" is normally applied to situations involving extreme physical force meant to injure or abuse. I don't believe this really applies to protesters consentiing to being misted with eye-irritant.

Don't mist me with eye irritant Bro'!



Doesn't sound as good. They should switch to tasers.

 

[bikerdruid]

being misted with eye-irritant.

wow....
are you a lawyer, or perhaps a politician?
if not...give up your day job.
you have a secure future!

 

[bookitty]

Don't mist me with eye irritant Bro'!



Doesn't sound as good. They should switch to tasers.

Everything you need to know about pepper spray:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/11/21/about-pepper-spray/

as pointed out in the 2004 paper, Health Hazards of Pepper Spray, written by health researchers at the University of North Carolina and Duke University, the sprays contain other risky materials:

Depending on brand, an OC spray may contain water, alcohols, or organic solvents as liquid carriers; and nitrogen, carbon dioxide, or halogenated hydrocarbons (such as Freon, tetrachloroethylene, and methylene chloride) as propellants to discharge the canister contents.(3) Inhalation of high doses of some of these chemicals can produce adverse cardiac, respiratory, and neurologic effects, including arrhythmias and sudden death.

 

[JihadJane]

How likely will he be fired? I can't say - I'm not privvy to the discussions with his superiors. If I were his boss, he'd be out on his ass.

In an earlier post you did say. You said he was "most likely getting fired". What makes you now doubt your original, confident prediction?

Why would you fire him if you were his boss?

HOWEVER

The man's # should not be public knowledge, posted only to incite a lynch mob.

What makes you think that his number was "posted only to incite a lynch mob"?

Speaking realistically, rather than rhetorically, how likely do you think it is that posting his number will lead to him being lynched by a mob?

FYI - I did answer your first question.

Your response didn't indicate how likely do you think it is that someone will try to kill John Pike (my question). It was, instead, a vague story about someone else, with supporting evidence from the 911 Conspiracy Forum.

Despite this, however, I will answer your deflecting question, namely:

"How likely is it that some nut hasn't thought of using that information to find him?"

Unlikely, though said "nut" could simply google for Pike's address or seek a more glamorous target to obsess about. It's highly likely that the thought would lead to no action.

The release of his details, on youtube, allegedly by the group Anonymous, accompanies a warning to police officers not to violently attack non-violent protestors. It seems aimed to create a feeling of vulnerability (matching the information gathering capacities of the police against protestors and echoing the protestors' vulnerability to attack, in their own homes, by the police) rather that aiming to get the police physically lynched.

The group apparently succeeded, recently, in getting a member released by the Mexican Zetas drug cartel. She "carried with her a message from the cartel threatening to kill 10 people for every person named":

"""A plan by the international hacker movement Anonymous to expose collaborators of Mexico's notorious Zetas drugs cartel has come to an abrupt end. A US activist backed away from publishing the names after an alleged counter-threat of mass retaliatory killings.

"This moves the operation from being a risk to knowing that I would be murdering people," Anonymous participant Barrett Brown told the Guardian on Friday."""

(source)

 

[JihadJane]

Is it "violence" when police are sprayed with pepper-spray as part of their training?

Yes, same as it would be "violence" if they were punched in the face as part of their training, or kicked between the legs with a diver's boot.

As I stated above, I view the incident at U.C. Davis as political theater. Much like police trainees, the protesters essentially asked to be sprayed. The fact that they're complaining about it afterwards is disingenuous.

Or perhaps the protestors naively assumed that the UC police would obey the UC law.

Moreover, ...

Your use, here, of the word "moreover" is a non-sequitur because your previous statement is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a pepper spray attack is non-violent.

...the term "violence" is normally applied to situations involving extreme physical force meant to injure or abuse. I don't believe this really applies to protesters consentiing to being misted with eye-irritant.

Firstly, of course, referring to being pepper-sprayed as consenting to "being misted with eye irritant" is a cowardly distortion of reality.

Your addition of "normally applied to situations involving extreme physical force" to your definition of violence is similarly corrupt, dishonest and self-serving.

e.g.: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence

Rather than constructing further labyrinthine rationalizations wouldn't it be simpler just to concede that you were wrong to claim that attacking someone with pepper spray, a potentially lethal act, is not an act of violence?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Pregnant woman miscarries after being [non-violently (she was asking for it] hit in the stomach by Seattle police sprayed with pepper spray.

"""""I was standing in the middle of the crowd when the police started moving in," she says. "I was screaming, 'I am pregnant, I am pregnant. Let me through. I am trying to get out.' "

At that point, a Seattle police officer lifted his foot and it hit her in the stomach, and another officer pushed his bicycle into the crowd, again hitting Fox in the stomach. "Right before I turned, both cops lifted their pepper spray and sprayed me. My eyes puffed up and my eyes swelled shut," she says."""

 

[stilicho]

Which is the problem in protesting in the first place. What is their objective? What is their reasoning for disrupting campus peace?

I don't know what their objective is. They're supposed to be telling us. That's the problem. I'm a pretty reasonable individual who might even like what they have to say if it made any sense. So far it's all Guy Fawkes masks, hackey-sack, and designer "home-made" clothing.

 

[jhunter1163]

I don't know what their objective is. They're supposed to be telling us. That's the problem. I'm a pretty reasonable individual who might even like what they have to say if it made any sense. So far it's all Guy Fawkes masks, hackey-sack, and designer "home-made" clothing.

I think a lot of people would at least be willing to listen, if there was any coherent message to listen to.

 

[stilicho]

Is it "violence" when police are sprayed with pepper-spray as part of their training?

As I stated above, I view the incident at U.C. Davis as political theater. Much like police trainees, the protesters essentially asked to be sprayed. The fact that they're complaining about it afterwards is disingenuous.

Moreover, the term "violence" is normally applied to situations involving extreme physical force meant to injure or abuse. I don't believe this really applies to protesters consentiing to being misted with eye-irritant.

Yes, it is political theatre and that is an important part of effective protest. They know they're not going to get gunned down as they would had they tried the same thing in Damascus or Tehran. So they are play-acting at being repressed.

Then comes the inevitable: an attempt to disperse them in a non-lethal fashion. This is what is expected. The police know that and the protestors know that. So when the protestors complain about what everyone on earth foresaw--what they in fact planned among themselves--it comes across not only as disingenuous but as actively self-defeating.

Did Gandhi run wailing to the media when he was imprisoned? Did Mohammed Ali cry about his sentence? Did Martin Luther whine endlessly about his excommunication?

No: they all expected the reaction, dealt with it, and triumphed after keeping to their message and their conscience. Unless their message is opposition to standard non-lethal crowd control then they've lost their potential audience by acting like brats instead of ascending above the pettiness.

 

[Brainster]

Pregnant woman miscarries after being [non-violently (she was asking for it] hit in the stomach by Seattle police sprayed with pepper spray.

"""""I was standing in the middle of the crowd when the police started moving in," she says. "I was screaming, 'I am pregnant, I am pregnant. Let me through. I am trying to get out.' "

At that point, a Seattle police officer lifted his foot and it hit her in the stomach, and another officer pushed his bicycle into the crowd, again hitting Fox in the stomach. "Right before I turned, both cops lifted their pepper spray and sprayed me. My eyes puffed up and my eyes swelled shut," she says."""

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc? As one of the commenters on the original post at the Stranger pointed out, if it were this easy to cause a miscarriage, there would be no need for abortionists. I also found this phrasing rather curious:

On the 20th, Jeniffer Fox received news that she has miscarried, and alleges the miscarriage is due to the injuries she received during the police action on the 15th.

She "received news"? And I found this a little difficult to believe as well:

"I was standing in the middle of the crowd when the police started moving in," she says. "I was screaming, 'I am pregnant, I am pregnant. Let me through. I am trying to get out.'" At that point, Fox continues, a Seattle police officer lifted his foot and it hit her in the stomach, and another officer pushed his bicycle into the crowd, again hitting Fox in the stomach. "Right before I turned, both cops lifted their pepper spray and sprayed me. My eyes puffed up and my eyes swelled shut," she says.

"Lifted his foot and it hit her in the stomach"? If she means he kicked her, why doesn't she say so? And unless she was lying on her back, I'm having a hard time visualizing it any other way. Ditto with the bike hitting her in the stomach; according to the photos, she was not a petite woman. I smell BS all over this story.

 

[shuize]

Yes, same as it would be "violence" if they were punched in the face as part of their training, or kicked between the legs with a diver's boot.

Why do I doubt police are regularly punched in the face and kicked in the groin with a diver's boot as part of their training?

Firstly, of course, referring to being pepper-sprayed as consenting to "being misted with eye irritant" is a cowardly distortion of reality.

Others have described the incident using terms such as "blasted with pepper-spray." I view it as being "misted with eye irritant." Given the amount of time the protesters had to avoid the confrontation, their ability to prepare for the misting by covering their faces, and the calm manner in which police administered the irritant, I think my description is more accurate.

Your addition of "normally applied to situations involving extreme physical force" to your definition of violence is similarly corrupt, dishonest and self-serving.

Following your own link, Merriam-Webster online offers the following definition of violence:

1a: exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house)

b: an instance of violent treatment or procedure

Following the embedded link, "violent" in turn is defined as:

1: marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity <a violent attack>

There was nothing dishonest about my definition. But thanks for the link to prove it.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence

 

[applecorped]

Everything you need to know about pepper spray:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/11/21/about-pepper-spray/

Whew! What a relief! I was beginning to think that maybe it isn't effective. I'm glad to hear that it is. Thanks.