Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

[Neally]

The occupiers chanted "you can go" to the police. They stood in dead silence as the chancellor left the conference. Is petty bratitude a good way of describing this?

Cherry picking much? Petty bratitude is a good way of describing how they denied the free speech rights of this press conference: http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/ktxl-uc-davis-students-interrupt-chancellor-press-conference-20111119,0,3363397.story

 

[GeeMack]

Maybe you'd like to post your real name, home address and phone number too?

Sure, if someone posts photos of me intentionally inflicting pain on a group of people who aren't presenting a danger to other people, I'll be glad to put my name and address on them. Unless that happens, it's not even rational to draw a comparison.

Or maybe you just like to hide behind your anonimity and post other people's personal information. Surely that's not creepy.

Maybe John Pike should have looked around to see if anyone had a camera if he was concerned about his anonymity.

 

[bikerdruid]

Maybe you'd like to post your real name, home address and phone number too?

Or maybe you just like to hide behind your anonimity and post other people's personal information. Surely that's not creepy.

dude, all that info is likely in the phonebook, easily searchable online.
this is not 'secret information'.

 

[Pardalis]

What an Orwelian nightmare would we live in if everyone would report on eachother, exposed personal information on other people because we don't agree with them.

Is that the world you want to live in Gee Mack? You feel proud about yourself doing that?

Maybe the supporters of the occupiers are more fascist than they'd like to admit.

 

[Taarkin]

That is not entirely accurate. One can be charged with battery for acts which do not involve physical force. "Offensive touching" without injury -- running your finger up someone's leg without permission, for example -- could constitute a battery. Just because something is a battery, however, does not automatically make it "violent."

California defines battery as "any willful and unlawful use of force or violence
upon the person of another". If using pepper spray (or poison, or tazers) isn't physical force and isn't violent, what would I be charged with?
(I can find only one exception; apparently a prisoner farting on a gaurd is guilty of aggrivated battery.)

Why do I suspect if the police had misted some but not all of the protesters they would claim discriminatory treatment for being singled out for the spray?

What do you base this suspicion on? Do you really think that there would be MORE complaints if they only sprayed half the students? Do you think this really went through the officer's head?

 

[bikerdruid]

What an Orwelian nightmare would we live in if everyone would report on eachother, exposed personal information on other people because we don't agree with them.

Is that the world you want to live in Gee Mack? You feel proud about yourself doing that?

Maybe the supporters of the occupiers are more fascist than they'd like to admit.

have you actually seen the video of what this pig and his piggy partner did to those kids?http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6AdDLhPwpp4

 

[GeeMack]

What an Orwelian nightmare [...]

Orwellian? Wikipedia puts it this way...

"Orwellian" describes the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free society.​

Destructive to the welfare of a free society? Maybe you missed this photo. It's been in all the papers...

Edited by Locknar: 

Moderated content removed.

 

[Pardalis]

have you actually seen the video of what this pig and hie piggy partner did to those kids?http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6AdDLhPwpp4

Yes, those police officers did their job.

 

[Pardalis]

Orwellian? Wikipedia puts it this way...

You need Wikipedia to tell you what Orwellian means? How old are you?

It's been in all the papers...

What papers? No respectable and legitimate news outlet would publicize a police officer's personal information.

 

[bikerdruid]

Yes, those police officers did their job.

wow.

 

[Pardalis]

wow.

Reality's a bitch ain't it?

 

[bikerdruid]

Reality's a bitch ain't it?

i am thankful we live in alternate realities.

 

[Pardalis]

i am thankful we live in alternate realities.

We can agree on that. I wouldn't want to live in your world.

 

[Brainster]

Here are two of the sprayees, recounting their excellent adventure horrific nightmare:



As you can see, they can barely hold back the smirks tears. This clearly will rank as the greatest most awful moment of their lives.

 

[shuize]

California defines battery as "any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another". If using pepper spray (or poison, or tazers) isn't physical force and isn't violent, what would I be charged with?

The answer seems to be contained within your quote of California Penal Code Section 242. Unless you have been given the power of arrest to justify your lawful use of force* or cannot claim "consent" by your alleged victim, self-defense, etc. then you may very well be charged with battery. I'm assuming, of course, that you are not a police officer engaged in making a lawful arrest of a group of protesters that was given ample opportunity to comply but instead basically consented to the spray as part of their political theatrics.

I don't recall saying use of eye irritant was not "force." I believe I stated that it's use in the video did not constitute "violence." The Merriam-Webster definition I cited above defined "violent" as "marked by extreme force." While I'm willing to say that the use of the aerosol amounted to force (just as officers wading in and pulling the protesters apart would also constitute "force"), I do not think either approach would constitute "extreme" force.


* Note the distinction between "force" and "violence" in the statute. Further evidence that not all "force" is "violence."

 

[bookitty]

Understood. I observed the same thing. They posed no danger to the police or themselves but they were still resisting. My question to you is: with the exception of the police just letting them be(which I would guess is what you would propose), if they were to enforce their removal, what would be the best approach for all parties involved? Breaking up the human chain with man handling poses risks as well as does the pepper spraying. If they were going to do said task, how would you suggest they did it more appropriately?

I would suggest that the chancellor follow up on her initial support of Occupy Davis with a face-to-face dialog about keeping the campus open for everyone instead of sending two memos followed by cops in riot gear.

 

[applecorped]

Syrian protesters dream of getting sprayed. Much better than a bullet to the head.

 

[leftysergeant]

Syrian protesters dream of getting sprayed. Much better than a bullet to the head.

Or getting hit in the head with a shotgun-launched grenade, or having a flashbang go off inches from your ears.

The pigs were deliberately torturing people.

Pike deserves to live in fear now.

 

[JihadJane]

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

What do you not understand about the 99%/1% meme?

Do your confused "lot of people" think it refers to combine harvester production in the Soviet Union in the 1970s?


Perhaps this will help:

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?

Irrelevant. "Special Forces" training includes being given repeated electric shocks. This doesn't magically make torturing people with electricity non-violent.

Others have described the incident using terms such as "blasted with pepper-spray." I view it as being "misted with eye irritant."

Speaking charitably, your misperception that may be explained by ignorance.

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.

You're wrong. It is inaccurate. Several protestors was hospitalized by the attacks. They did not end up there due to eye irritation.

Perhaps you'd also describe waterboarding torture as "pouring water on someone's face".

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

No mention of extreme force, which you dishonestly added to it.

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

and nowhere any mention of violence being "normally applied to situations involving extreme physical force"

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

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

Adding "normally applied to situations involving extreme physical force" to the definition of violence was dishonest (see link).

However, notwithstanding this possibly unconscious deceit, attacking someone in a way that can put them in hospital, cause them permanent injury or death certainly falls under the umbrella of "extreme physical force".

 

[NoahFence]

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

BD - Let me ask you a question:

Are you under the impression that everybody who thinks OWS is a monumental waste of time, and that they hurt themselves more often than not, is "extreme right wing"?