Scuzz
1582
Such “kinetic impact munitions” are meant to cause pain but not serious injury. They are expected to produce contusions, abrasions, and [COLOR=#0645ad]hematomas[/COLOR].[COLOR=#0645ad][6][/COLOR] However, they may also cause bone fractures, injuries to internal organs, or death. In a study of 90 patients in Northern Ireland, one died, 17 suffered permanent disabilities or deformities and 41 required hospital treatment after being fired upon with rubber bullets.[COLOR=#0645ad][7][/COLOR]
It sounds like they work better than the cops think they work.
I don’t have a problem with the protests. I don’t see them as being especially on-point, but that’s their problem, not mine. The subtext of my earlier point was that, in spite of the cost to the public purse, I think they ought to be allowed to make noise.
I agree that it is an open question whether police forces require the degree of militarization that has been encouraged since the WTO protests of 1999.
What I can’t stand behind, however, is the idea that this police officer in the UC Davis case is somehow the more evil for lacking a cutthroat grin or a gleam in his eye. It is also clear that the students want and relish exactly the opportunity to throw themselves in harm’s way. They stayed when they were told repeatedly to be elsewhere. Nobody was surprised by the appearance of a cop with pepper spray.
These protests are all about self-actualization. About people who want to believe that they are doing something especially important. From my point of view, it’s hard to feel poorly when they court police action.
Jason makes a point: there were other ways to handle this situation. But were these reasonable alternatives actually superior? Part of the role of pepper spray and similar technologies is to serve as force multipliers so that a smaller number of officers can stand down a relatively larger disturbance. Making a policy decision to phase out those tools in favor of a bigger police force doesn’t seem like a good use of the taxpayer dollar.
…
…
…
…you…you DO know what a “sit in” is correct? I mean…I’m not drawing a direct correlation but I’m vaguely sure Rosa Parks was told multiple times to get to the back of the bus…
Yeah, nobody was surprised because the police have trained us for decades to expect an inappropriate response
So no one is saying it’s a surprise. We’re saying it’s not right.
And I doubt, you fucker, that we found the world’s only group of protesters who get off on being pointlessly beaten despite your expert analysis.
Skorin
1586
Wait, Desert Journeyman isn’t an L_K parachute account? Mind. Blown.
Torture has the nice benefit of terrorizing the populace. Examine one of the most successful terrorizers in modern history, Augusto Pinochet, and his use of torture to cow the population.
Torture is used because torture can, and often does, work.
The purpose of the ruling class is control and domination of everything they can possibly subject.
You seem to be missing the entire context of the oppression of the Occupy movements.
Consider how many crimes the police are missing or mishandling due to their focus on intimidating through massing a presence at the occupy camps. If a cop is at one location he can’t be somewhere else.
Crimes are crimes, regardless of whether they exist in the context of the occupy movement.
The purpose of the oppression of the occupy movement however, is to stop the movement.
Imagine for a moment if you had a cop following you around 24/7 and would always throw the book at you. So you get arrested for littering, jaywalking, and other minor infractions you normally get away with due to police not noticing/having more important things to do.
Your real “crime”, in this scenario, is not littering or jaywalking, but whatever you are being oppressed for.
Likewise, noone is suggesting that the Occupy movement should be given special treatment under the law. What I am saying is that the Occupy movement is receiving oppressive treatment under the law, part of a long-term strategy on the part of the rulers and their enablers (the police themselves) to break the movement.
I agree with dawn here.
Unless protesters are actually violent, this is the correct approach. In fact, I’ve had ‘non-violent-direct-action’ training. The aim, of a demonstrator is to simply make it inconvenient for the police to remove you, requiring up to four of them to carry you away, thus meaning the protest can continue until a very large number of polcie are present*
At the point when four cops show up and grab your arms and legs, both sides know that it’s game over, and you will be removed, possibly arrested. That’s fair enough.
Nobody has to get hurt.
*i’ve never met a protester who actually thinks they can win in a confrontation with the police. Ultimately, you can never do that. You can draw attention, and make a point, and in some cases, enlarge the cost of whatever it is you are protesting about, but you cannot win by force.
That’s because, regardless of your prejudices, Tea Party rallies were overwhelmingly properly permitted, completely peaceable, and utterly lacking in the sort of civil disobedience that, for better or for worse, tends to lead to the police taking action (disproportionate or not). You really can’t compare the two.
WHAT YOU DON’T LIKE TALKING TO YOURSELF IN PUBLIC PLACES IT IS VERY COMFORTING SOMETIMES.
WHERE IS MY SHOE.
I don’t agree, but if we go with that approach, then so is the “societal cost” of freedom of assembly and the right to protest being exercised, absent violence. Either way, it’s not a relevant criticism of OWS on the micro or macro level, and my point is that it goes double for a movement that is protesting grand theft finance and its related consequences.
You might as well argue against a labor strike because “ironically” it’s costing those workers their daily wages.
Yeah, it actually sounds like a pretty clear violation of the First Amendment.
They have guns in Mexico City, silly.
The Tea Party were protesting in favour of the interests of the ruling class. OWS protest against the interests of the ruling class. This is enough to explain the disparity in the media treatment, the legal and offical responses, &c &c.
Andrew
1595
I’m no fan of the Tea Party, but Fishbreath is right. Tea Party protests didn’t involve camping in parks so of course the police didn’t violently remove them from parks. There’s no need for any kind of follow-the-money conspiracies here.
Now, if you want to discuss differences in media coverage, that’s another matter.
The Tea Party protests were able to get gobstopping amounts of media coverage without lifting a finger. The OWS protesters are not so fortunate.
I find it amusing that both the Tea Party and the OWS people are screaming “media bias!”.
Thus proving that “the reality must be somewhere in the middle”, right?
Alstein
1599
It’s a lot easier to not get the police on you when you’re protesting for the status quo.
I don’t think it’s a useful comparison in that sense, as there is a great deal of evidence that the Tea Party, while certainly reflecting some genuine concerns on the part of ordinary Americans, was orchestrated from top down at the very beginning with a messaging strategy built around modern lobbying in populist drag. It doesn’t have much in common with OWS or any other bottom-up, genuinely populist movement, and they tend to have much messier collisions with the powers that be because unlike the Tea Party they are not just another manifestation of elite interests.
