• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Oakland police arresting about 100 protesters

I would love to be one of those cops. I have received riot training before and it is a great time. Playing whack-a-hippy and tear gassing a bunch of 21st Century flower children would be awesome. Or, the best part, shooting one with a bean bag round from a shotgun. Man those things hurt.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
And the Anarchists brought shields and weapons because they are just innocent people right?
Click to expand...

What weapons? I saw no weapons. All I saw were those shields that were being used to protect themselves and others from rubber bullets.

You are dodging my point though. What do you think about the police kettling protesters, ordering them to disperse, and then not allowing them to leave?

I would love to be one of those cops. I have received riot training before and it is a great time. Playing whack-a-hippy and tear gassing a bunch of 21st Century flower children would be awesome. Or, the best part, shooting one with a bean bag round from a shotgun. Man those things hurt.
Click to expand...

LOL I wish those cops were as honest as you were. What a great way to contribute to our media publicity campaign. Just like the NYPD did.
 
Last edited:
MarineTpartier said:
I would love to be one of those cops. I have received riot training before and it is a great time. Playing whack-a-hippy and tear gassing a bunch of 21st Century flower children would be awesome. Or, the best part, shooting one with a bean bag round from a shotgun. Man those things hurt.
Click to expand...

Reminded me of this:

 
FinnMacCool said:
What weapons? I saw no weapons. All I saw were those shields that were being used to protect themselves and others from rubber bullets.

You are dodging my point though. What do you think about the police kettling protesters, ordering them to disperse, and then not allowing them to leave?
Click to expand...

Kettling (also known as containment or corralling) is a police tactic for controlling large crowds during demonstrations or protests. It involves the formation of large cordons of police officers who then move to contain a crowd within a limited area. Protesters are left only one choice of exit, determined by the police. In some cases protesters are reported to have been denied access to food, water and toilet facilities for long periods.
So, what's the issue? If they don't want a confrontation, they can turn around and leave. I've seen tape of this particular incident. The Occupiers could simply turn around and walk away. They chose not to. I have received training in riot control. I know the term you use intimately. The purpose of kettling is to A) Keep the crowd from splintering into small groups resulting in police having to seperate and risk bodily harm B) Wear down protestors so they lose the will to fight C) Ensure protesters are removed from the source of their anger in order to divert their attention and attempt a peaceful dispersion. None of the tools the police use are lethal. CS (tear) gas? Marines are required to re-qualify in the CS chamber every year. Bean bag rounds? They hurt, but don't kill you. Ask Johnny Knoxville lol. Batons? When used properly (to hit limbs and immobilize) they are not either. Its an easy choice for occupiers. Pain or disperse. They chose pain. I enjoyed watching it inflicted on them. I think more of them need it.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Kettling (also known as containment or corralling) is a police tactic for controlling large crowds during demonstrations or protests. It involves the formation of large cordons of police officers who then move to contain a crowd within a limited area. Protesters are left only one choice of exit, determined by the police. In some cases protesters are reported to have been denied access to food, water and toilet facilities for long periods.
So, what's the issue? If they don't want a confrontation, they can turn around and leave. I've seen tape of this particular incident. The Occupiers could simply turn around and walk away. They chose not to. I have received training in riot control. I know the term you use intimately. The purpose of kettling is to A) Keep the crowd from splintering into small groups resulting in police having to seperate and risk bodily harm B) Wear down protestors so they lose the will to fight C) Ensure protesters are removed from the source of their anger in order to divert their attention and attempt a peaceful dispersion. None of the tools the police use are lethal. CS (tear) gas? Marines are required to re-qualify in the CS chamber every year. Bean bag rounds? They hurt, but don't kill you. Ask Johnny Knoxville lol. Batons? When used properly (to hit limbs and immobilize) they are not either. Its an easy choice for occupiers. Pain or disperse. They chose pain. I enjoyed watching it inflicted on them. I think more of them need it.
Click to expand...

Turn around and walk away where? There was nowhere to go. The police had blocked all exits. They had to literally create an exit to escape from them. Meanwhile the police were firing tear gas and charging the crowd.

Don't get me wrong. I have criticized this action for being poorly organized and stupid, however I don't think it's a good idea for the police to add fuel to the fire.

And btw, a tear gas canister can be lethal if it hits you in the face. Scott Olsen, a marine vet, was critically injured during a protest in Oakland a few months back.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Reminded me of this:


HILARIOUS! Here's a good one. Not people shooting each other, but a good prank regardless. I know moderators, this isn't a video thread. We're stopping now.
Click to expand...
 
FinnMacCool said:
Turn around and walk away where? There was nowhere to go. The police had blocked all exits. They had to literally create an exit to escape from them. Meanwhile the police were firing tear gas and charging the crowd.

Don't get me wrong. I have criticized this action for being poorly organized and stupid, however I don't think it's a good idea for the police to add fuel to the fire.

And btw, a tear gas canister can be lethal if it hits you in the face. Scott Olsen, a marine vet, was critically injured during a protest in Oakland a few months back.
Click to expand...
Where you at the protests? If not, I doubt you know whether there was an exit or not. If police don't deal with these idiots forcefully, it will turn into a battle of wills where each side stares at each other and police deflect rocks and whatever else they throw for a few hours. Then, police are viewed as weak, protestors don't leave, which equals anarchy. BTW, is Scott Olsen dead? No, which means non-lethal.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Where you at the protests? If not, I doubt you know whether there was an exit or not. If police don't deal with these idiots forcefully, it will turn into a battle of wills where each side stares at each other and police deflect rocks and whatever else they throw for a few hours. Then, police are viewed as weak, protestors don't leave, which equals anarchy. BTW, is Scott Olsen dead? No, which means non-lethal.
Click to expand...

I was not there, and neither were you.

How would you suggest they protest if they are just going to be dealt with like this every single time?

And it's a good thing Scott Olsen isn't dead, but that doesn't make it non lethal.
 
FinnMacCool said:
Turn around and walk away where? There was nowhere to go. The police had blocked all exits. They had to literally create an exit to escape from them. Meanwhile the police were firing tear gas and charging the crowd.

Don't get me wrong. I have criticized this action for being poorly organized and stupid, however I don't think it's a good idea for the police to add fuel to the fire.

And btw, a tear gas canister can be lethal if it hits you in the face. Scott Olsen, a marine vet, was critically injured during a protest in Oakland a few months back.
Click to expand...

From what I have read, Olsen may not even have been injured by a rubber bullet or bean bag round, but it may have been a rock or bottle thrown by his fellow protesters.

I absolutely detest idiots who **** with the cops and then whine about police brutality. The cops don't want to spend the day babysitting and roughing up protesters anymore than the protesters like to be shot and tear gassed. They just want to do their job and get home to their families at the end of the day, hopefully without having hurt anyone.
 
Last edited:
FinnMacCool said:
I was not there, and neither were you.

How would you suggest they protest if they are just going to be dealt with like this every single time?

And it's a good thing Scott Olsen isn't dead, but that doesn't make it non lethal.
Click to expand...


Okay, we established neither of us were there. I'm glad we got that down. Anyway, standard riot control tactics are exactly what I described. Standard riot control tactics were used in Oakland. You can see evidence of that by watching tape. The cops are in textbook formation, using the same weapons I described from my experience doing it, and you still saw occupiers throwing things at them and using shields. They have been allowed to protest for MONTHS!!! They haven't asked for anything, yet they remain. I would ask them not to break into gov't buildings and burn state property. Namely, our National Colors. Is that too much to ask? That's what caused this whole thing.
Oh, and since we're not clear on verbage, here you go.
le·thal   adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or causing death; deadly; fatal: a lethal weapon; a lethal dose.
So, in order to be lethal, something kills. By placing a "non" in front of it, we're saying it does the opposite of this definition. Now, where's my apple for teaching you something.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Okay, we established neither of us were there. I'm glad we got that down. Anyway, standard riot control tactics are exactly what I described. Standard riot control tactics were used in Oakland. You can see evidence of that by watching tape. The cops are in textbook formation, using the same weapons I described from my experience doing it, and you still saw occupiers throwing things at them and using shields. They have been allowed to protest for MONTHS!!! They haven't asked for anything, yet they remain. I would ask them not to break into gov't buildings and burn state property. Namely, our National Colors. Is that too much to ask? That's what caused this whole thing.
Oh, and since we're not clear on verbage, here you go.
le·thal   adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or causing death; deadly; fatal: a lethal weapon; a lethal dose.
So, in order to be lethal, something kills. By placing a "non" in front of it, we're saying it does the opposite of this definition. Now, where's my apple for teaching you something.
Click to expand...

I know what non-lethal means. However, a tear gas canister CAN be lethal if it hits you directly in the head. Scott Olsen didn't die, but he could have. That was my point.

I agree that burning the American flag was wrong. However, as I explained earlier in this thread, I consider it to be a rather petty matter considering how people use the flag as a means to justify killing innocent civillians. I find that to be quite hypocritical.

Also, I think you've got the chronology of the events mixed up. The flag burning happened towards the very end of the protest. The time when the protesters threw plastic bottles at police happened AFTER the police threw a smoke bomb. When the protest reconvened later that day, before the flag burning, they were kettled and escaped and then kettled again and 400 were arrested.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not neccesarily trying to justify the protesters actions. On the contrary, I find any kind of violent reaction to be very very very stupid, reactionary, and backwards. However, at the sametime, I feel like the police were out of line, as usual, and that in a way they threw gasoline on the fire.

From what I have read, Olsen may not even have been injured by a rubber bullet or bean bag round, but it may have been a rock or bottle thrown by his fellow protesters.
Click to expand...

Show me the evidence.
 
FinnMacCool said:
I know what non-lethal means. However, a tear gas canister CAN be lethal if it hits you directly in the head. Scott Olsen didn't die, but he could have. That was my point.

I agree that burning the American flag was wrong. However, as I explained earlier in this thread, I consider it to be a rather petty matter considering how people use the flag as a means to justify killing innocent civillians. I find that to be quite hypocritical.

Also, I think you've got the chronology of the events mixed up. The flag burning happened towards the very end of the protest. The time when the protesters threw plastic bottles at police happened AFTER the police threw a smoke bomb. When the protest reconvened later that day, before the flag burning, they were kettled and escaped and then kettled again and 400 were arrested.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not neccesarily trying to justify the protesters actions. On the contrary, I find any kind of violent reaction to be very very very stupid, reactionary, and backwards. However, at the sametime, I feel like the police were out of line, as usual, and that in a way they threw gasoline on the fire.



Show me the evidence.
Click to expand...

From wikipedia:

Occupy Oakland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A video by protesters shows the explosion of what appears to be a flash-bang device thrown by one officer near protesters attempting to aid Olsen.[98] The Associated Press later reported that it was not known exactly what kind of object had struck Olsen or who had thrown or fired it, but that protesters had been throwing rocks and bottles.[99] The Guardian reported that a projectile found near where Olsen fell was a so-called "bean bag round".[98] Olsen was rushed to the hospital by other protesters, who were fired upon with unknown police projectiles while attempting to aid him.[41][100] Doctors said that he was in critical condition. At least two other protesters were injured.[1] The American Civil Liberties Union and National Lawyers Guild are calling for an investigation into the use of excessive force by Oakland police.[42] However, the investigation by the Citizens Police Review Board is expected to last several months.[101]
Click to expand...

So the best answer to whether or not Olsen was actually injured by a bean bag projectile is probably "we don't really know."
 
MarineTpartier said:
I would love to be one of those cops. I have received riot training before and it is a great time. Playing whack-a-hippy and tear gassing a bunch of 21st Century flower children would be awesome. Or, the best part, shooting one with a bean bag round from a shotgun. Man those things hurt.
Click to expand...

Yeah man, or if you could have been a cop playing whack a protester back during the Boston Tea Party when those hippies all dressed up in their costumes were breaking and entering and destroying private property, bet you would have had a blast beating them back. Good times!
 
Last edited:
FinnMacCool said:
What weapons? I saw no weapons. All I saw were those shields that were being used to protect themselves and others from rubber bullets.
Click to expand...
Watch the video, they are clearly throwing stuff at the police.

You are dodging my point though. What do you think about the police kettling protesters, ordering them to disperse, and then not allowing them to leave?
Click to expand...

Well I think that people who show up somewhere with shields and build fires are not intending on leaving even if the police tell them too. Besides the fact that they were not protesting they were attempting to illegally take over a building to use as their headquarters. The Anarchist's were going on a rampage before the police showed up. They built fires in the road they broke windows and were dressed for battle, so any sane person would assume the worst. The police showed up to contain a riot that was in process.

Dont pretend that the Anarchist's were innocent by standers just holding up signs, cause nothing could be farther from the truth.

Peaceful people do not storm a police line with shields while throwing objects at the police. It is that simple.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Watch the video, they are clearly throwing stuff at the police.



Well I think that people who show up somewhere with shields and build fires are not intending on leaving even if the police tell them too. Besides the fact that they were not protesting they were attempting to illegally take over a building to use as their headquarters. The Anarchist's were going on a rampage before the police showed up. They built fires in the road they broke windows and were dressed for battle, so any sane person would assume the worst. The police showed up to contain a riot that was in process.

Dont pretend that the Anarchist's were innocent by standers just holding up signs, cause nothing could be farther from the truth.

Peaceful people do not storm a police line with shields while throwing objects at the police. It is that simple.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with the fact that some of the protesters were being violent. However, the incident I'm reffering to took place later that evening.

I'm not trying to argue that the protesters were justified in behaving the way they did, but I think the idea of defending a police department that has regularily sought to crush these protesters with extreme prejudice, and which has a history of assassinations and police brutality, is absurd.
 
VanceMack said:
Heres a tip...stop voting for the recipients of those corporate bribes...
Click to expand...

You mean stop voting for anybody who runs for anything? I for one wish anybody trying that good luck. Special interests have two finger's squarely inserted in America's vagina.
 
Catawba said:
Yeah man, or if you could have been a cop playing whack a protester back during the Boston Tea Party when those hippies all dressed up in their costumes were breaking and entering and destroying private property, bet you would have had a blast beating them back. Good times!
Click to expand...
Nah, I like the Tea Partiers, obviously. I don't like Occupy. So, I would like to hit them, really hard, repeatedly.
 
FinnMacCool said:
I agree that burning the American flag was wrong. However, as I explained earlier in this thread, I consider it to be a rather petty matter considering how people use the flag as a means to justify killing innocent civillians. I find that to be quite hypocritical.
Click to expand...

Q: Where did they get that flag ??

A: From inside City Hall after they broke into it, destroying public property.
 
Hatuey said:
You mean stop voting for anybody who runs for anything? I for one wish anybody trying that good luck. Special interests have two finger's squarely inserted in America's vagina.
Click to expand...
Its a tough call then huh? Claim to hate corporate/banker/broker influence...vote for the politicians that actively lobby for and receive the bulk of those donations. What to do...what to do...

We arent talking about people FORCING their cash into those politicians pockets...we are talking about politicians that schedule fundraisers to RAISE that cash. Now...why would they have this symbiotic relationship?
 
FinnMacCool said:
I don't disagree with the fact that some of the protesters were being violent. However, the incident I'm reffering to took place later that evening.

I'm not trying to argue that the protesters were justified in behaving the way they did, but I think the idea of defending a police department that has regularily sought to crush these protesters with extreme prejudice, and which has a history of assassinations and police brutality, is absurd.
Click to expand...
Shouldnt you use your own rational with the Oakland police department? You say that not all of the Anarchists were violent. Yet you are assuming that all of the cops are violent?

Plus since it is known that OPD has had rulings against the department it is obvious why these Anarchists are pushing the limits of the law specifically in Oakland. Occupy Oakland is purposely trying to provoke the OPD knowing that OPD has been required by courts to perform in a given way. So any police abuse that these Anarchists get was by their own choosing. They obviously want to be attacked as an strategy, to appear justified in their propaganda campaign. They are seeking photo ops not justice.

Both you and Khayembii Communique are using the OPD as an straw man argument. It is obvious that to protect the Anarchist's you assert that anyone against the Oakland Occupiers are assigned as siding with the OPD. I am against Anarchy in general and will fight against the anarchists that try to manipulate any police department for political gain. There is no integrity in what the Oakland occupiers are doing. They have made it clear that they hate America and want to take over our country. What they call democracy is actually a dictatorship of the majority.

The occupy movement is a direct attack on the core of America. These Anarchist's that are using liberals and Socialists will stop at nothing to get their way. Remember this conversation in a year or two when they have escalated their violent revolution to a point where it will be undeniably corrupt. If one digs deep into the occupy movement one can obviously notice that non-violence is only a first stage. Occupiers accept that violence has its place, but they admit that they do not have the numbers yet for violence to be successful.

Everything that the occupy movement does is designed to gain numbers. The going strategy is to appear non-violent to gain legitimacy. The other part of the strategy is to appear leaderless to make it impossible to cut off the head. Next they need to look like they are fighting a oppressive regime. There is no plan to succeed with any of the protests. All over the occupy movement it is know that what they are doing is just lying the ground work for future efforts. At a future date these photos will be used to manipulate young people into believing that America is a hidden dictatorship. There is no plan to create a political party out of the Occupy movement. The occupy movement instead asserts that American government is too corrupted to save. They intend on replacing our government with theirs.

BTW how many dead protesters are there nation wide?
 
MarineTpartier said:
Nah, I like the Tea Partiers, obviously. I don't like Occupy. So, I would like to hit them, really hard, repeatedly.
Click to expand...

Now there is a surprise! LOL!
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Everything that the occupy movement does is designed to gain numbers. The going strategy is to appear non-violent to gain legitimacy. The other part of the strategy is to appear leaderless to make it impossible to cut off the head. Next they need to look like they are fighting a oppressive regime. There is no plan to succeed with any of the protests. All over the occupy movement it is know that what they are doing is just lying the ground work for future efforts. At a future date these photos will be used to manipulate young people into believing that America is a hidden dictatorship. There is no plan to create a political party out of the Occupy movement. The occupy movement instead asserts that American government is too corrupted to save. They intend on replacing our government with theirs.
Click to expand...

be-afraid-be-very-afraid.jpg
 
VanceMack said:
Its a tough call then huh? Claim to hate corporate/banker/broker influence...vote for the politicians that actively lobby for and receive the bulk of those donations. What to do...what to do...
Click to expand...

Ban corporate donations? Reduce corporate donations to a $500,000 max.

We arent talking about people FORCING their cash into those politicians pockets...we are talking about politicians that schedule fundraisers to RAISE that cash. Now...why would they have this symbiotic relationship?
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand but our political establishment is comfortably in bed with corporations regardless of whether they're Paulestinian, Republican or Democrat.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
What they call democracy is actually a dictatorship of the majority.
Click to expand...

Oh my god not a dictatorship of the majority! Quick call the police to protect the dictatorship of the minority! This violence has got to stop!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom