Increased Police Violence in OWS protests

Terwonick

L6: Sharp Member
Aug 25, 2010
278
190
look, this is the type of debate where NOBODY is right, and NOBODY is wrong!

We all agree that the police were over the line. But we also all agree that not every occupy protester is a little angel. It goes both ways, there will always be bad apples on both sides, that's how life works.

Like English Mobster said, all it takes is one person to do something bad to ruin everybody's day! Except the rest is not as good... Death isn't fun, no matter what side you're on.
 

English Mobster

L6: Sharp Member
Jul 10, 2011
355
299
I never said death. The police officers aren't trying to KILL people. Just... deter them. Take out their struggles on those who can't defend themselves.
It's a psychological thing going on in their head, where they use the protesters as sort of punching bags. It's a sick way of thinking, but if you read that study I linked, it makes sense.
You have to remember these people willingly chose to be a police officer. They chose it, knowingly or not, because they like power, because they want people to listen to them, because they have delusions of chasing down bad guys, tazing drug dealers, and arresting vagrants.
When they find they can't do this, it becomes repressed and builds up inside. The moment they're allowed to do what they joined the police force to do (knowingly or not), this repression comes out sevenfold, leading to the kinds of unprovoked violence you see on Youtube.

It is wrong for them to attack people, although they may not be able to control it.
It is wrong for a mayor to violate the First Amendment for any circumstances other than widespread health and safety concerns (which is what they got the New York OWS people on, and what they're trying to get the LA OWS people on, justified or not).
It is wrong to send in officers to break up a protest which has not harmed anyone before that point, and has no intentions of revolution or violence.

I don't get where you say nobody is wrong. It's obvious that one side is wrong the moment they try to remove First Amendment rights for a problem that I have seen very little evidence of (none outside of the homeless camps).

The crime you hear about is not from those in OWS. OWS does not smash windows, we do not attack police, and we do NOT murder people.
The stuff you hear about are from anarchists who mistakenly believe somehow it will further the message or right-wingers trying to paint the movement in a bad light. The murder happened in Oakland, several blocks away from the protest site, and involved no OWS protesters in a city famous for a very high violent crime rate.
People who buy into that stuff need to stop watching so much Fox news and look up the facts themselves. Anyone who is a part of OWS has no intentions of violent crime. It's anarchist splinter groups who see the movement as a springboard for their own revolution (revolution being their word, not mine) that cause the broken windows, no one attacks police, and the very few murders are either of questionable or no connection to OWS.
Simply because our movement is an anarchistic commune doesn't mean the majority of us want to impart that onto America as a whole. The anarchists within the ranks (and yes, there are quite a few, with their own tents in the encampment, pushing extreme ideas most protesters won't agree with but allow to stay anyway) may want to do that with violence and revolution, but the movement without its impurities has no intentions of such.

There is a distinction between an OWS protester and the protesters seeking to use the movement for the gain of their own ideas (Communists, Marxists, and Anarchists all have their little areas of the camp; for the most part the only one people tend to lean toward is just a general European-style Socialist area). The media doesn't like to make that distinction. Those who wish to cause violence are not Occupy protesters; it's a good idea to remember that.
 
Last edited:

grazr

Old Man Mutant Ninja Turtle
aa
Mar 4, 2008
5,441
3,814
Stuff about cops having alterior motives.

Well, this certainly doesn't account for all people who join the force. But then maybe i'm just comparing the British police to American police which doesn't translate 100%. British police don't have any gadgets. They don't have trunchans, they don't have guns and they don't have tazers; at best they have a cylinder of mace the size of a packet of fruit pastels. Not the size of a fire extinguisher.

Out of the 8 people i know who wanted to become police officers only 1 was in it for the glory/gadgets/authority and when he realised the amount you actually hold is actually not that great, a half arsed martial arts course at your own expense, he didn't go through with it.

My younger brother wanted to be a police officer to protect people, which may or may not have been because our family has had things stolen or destroyed in the past, he went through the training and the exams and in the end his BMI was too low, they said he wouldn't be any use in the streets until he gained some weight.

As you said, most police don't want there to be violence, it's dangerous for them too, so at the same time you can't say they wanna use their weapons. But for police to be 100% effective at quelling dissonance they have to respond with 100% of their effort.

Of course that doesn't mean smacking people in the head or ribs with trunchans or using pepper sprey on old women or using flash bangs on medic protestors. That's the distinction here.
 
Last edited:

Fruity Snacks

Creator of blackholes & memes. Destroyer of forums
aa
Sep 5, 2010
6,394
5,571
In today's USA Today, there was an interesting article about who the Occupy movement is, as in, what type of people are they.

In their survey they found:
-About half of the occupiers are 34 years old or younger.
-A third are over 45 (And as they point out, this is NOT just a 'kids' protest)
-90% of the occupiers have attended college (national average is 43% - as in, 43% of americans have attended college)
-More than 1/5th have a Graduate degree, Although a quarter are enrolled in schooled, only one in 10 is a full time student, suggesting that many work to pay school bills
-46% work full time, 20% part-time, 12.5% unemployed.
-despite the relatively high educational level, 7 in 10 occupiers make less than $50,000 a year (Thats, ~32k British pounds and ~37.5k Euro's)

As someone was quoted "They're not a bunch of drop-outs, it beings to explain why these people are doing what they're doing"
 

fubarFX

The "raw" in "nodraw"
aa
Jun 1, 2009
1,720
1,978
the whole middle class is part of occupy wallstreet. You see, right now the poor are still going to be poor and the rich will remain rich. now surely the middle class can't become rich but they sure as hell don't want to become poor either. and that's what it's all about, preserving the middle class. so of course it's not just students and hobos.
 

Sergis

L666: ])oo]v[
aa
Jul 22, 2009
1,874
1,257
Sergis, that still gives the cops no right to pepper spray innocent protesters.

well wtf do you want them to do?

cops told protesters to move - no effect.
cops tried to pull them off - no effect.
if pepper spray is excessive, what is it that the cops should have done next?
 

Sel

Banned
Feb 18, 2009
1,239
2,570
well wtf do you want them to do?

cops told protesters to move - no effect.
cops tried to pull them off - no effect.
if pepper spray is excessive, what is it that the cops should have done next?

how about respected their constitutional right to protest and fucked right off