• 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!

Occupy Oakland Attacked By Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets, and Flash Grenades

It's nice to skim over the facts that multiple laws were broken, including obstruction which is not a minor crime. So it's okay to piss and **** in the streets as long as you call it "expression"? These "people" are completely in the wrong and I have no sympathy for them. These are not peaceful protests especially when you consider a good bit of the rhetoric coming out and the laws that are being broken.

Blah blah blah...I hate protest I don't agree with! How dare those jerks occupy public land to air their grievances! Why there was poop in the street I tellz you!
 
It really doesn't sway me but I will explain why....
(Direct quotation clipped for brevity)
Thank you for your reply. Of course I happen to disagree, and I will explain in a minute. While fully understanding that this video does not sway your interpretations of the situation I am curious why there isn't a "fourth "possibility" that of a person just shooting such video and just trying to document what is going on. I just think this explanation sounds like a rationalization to ignore the obvious (no offense..... seriously this is NOT a personal attack)

1. The view of the police behind the barricade is fairly consistent throughout the shooting, I don't ever see any of them get prepared for any kind of assault, i.e. brace for impact, raise shields, billy clubs, or even hurl/toss tear gas or shoot people with "bean bags" during the time when people are rushing. Actually, in my opinion the look relatively calm during the period where protesters are moving towards the wounded individual. This leads me to believe they did not feel directly threatened and/or frightened.
2. In fact the only action I see the police take in this entire video is that of the one officer lobbing the flash bang into the crowd of protesters after the lot of them were kneeling and focusing on the wounded individual at what appears to be a good 10 feet or so away from the barricade. At this point in time I dont understand how anyone can make the argument the officer's felt threatened in any way.
3. The wounded man was fairly close to the fence, having some experience with guns (I served in the infantry in the Marine Corps) its fairly hard to 'accidentally' hit someone/something that is about 10 feet or so away from you. I will admit to the possibility that the wounded man ran into the "line of fire". But if this is the case it still brings into question the legitimacy of the police using such methods that could result in a situation such as this.
4. What kind of police officer lobs a concussion grenade near a wounded citizen for ANY reason anyway?

Unfortunately after watching this I can only come to the conclusion that a single Law Enforcement officer acted extremely inappropriately, in fact I would say maliciously. (several if you include that none of the LE officers lifted a finger to help a wounded citizen).

I really don't understand how anyone can come to a different conclusion. Although I understand opinions do and shall continue to differ.
 
(Direct quotation clipped for brevity)
Thank you for your reply. Of course I happen to disagree, and I will explain in a minute. While fully understanding that this video does not sway your interpretations of the situation I am curious why there isn't a "fourth "possibility" that of a person just shooting such video and just trying to document what is going on. I just think this explanation sounds like a rationalization to ignore the obvious (no offense..... seriously this is NOT a personal attack)

1. The view of the police behind the barricade is fairly consistent throughout the shooting, I don't ever see any of them get prepared for any kind of assault, i.e. brace for impact, raise shields, billy clubs, or even hurl/toss tear gas or shoot people with "bean bags" during the time when people are rushing. Actually, in my opinion the look relatively calm during the period where protesters are moving towards the wounded individual. This leads me to believe they did not feel directly threatened and/or frightened.
2. In fact the only action I see the police take in this entire video is that of the one officer lobbing the flash bang into the crowd of protesters after the lot of them were kneeling and focusing on the wounded individual at what appears to be a good 10 feet or so away from the barricade. At this point in time I dont understand how anyone can make the argument the officer's felt threatened in any way.
3. The wounded man was fairly close to the fence, having some experience with guns (I served in the infantry in the Marine Corps) its fairly hard to 'accidentally' hit someone/something that is about 10 feet or so away from you. I will admit to the possibility that the wounded man ran into the "line of fire". But if this is the case it still brings into question the legitimacy of the police using such methods that could result in a situation such as this.
4. What kind of police officer lobs a concussion grenade near a wounded citizen for ANY reason anyway?

Unfortunately after watching this I can only come to the conclusion that a single Law Enforcement officer acted extremely inappropriately, in fact I would say maliciously. (several if you include that none of the LE officers lifted a finger to help a wounded citizen).

I really don't understand how anyone can come to a different conclusion. Although I understand opinions do and shall continue to differ.
First, don't worry I don't see any of that as a personal attack. I am always wary of video, even when I use it as evidence but that is my training kicking in so I don't find any problems with you using it either. The fourth possibility is also possible, I didn't think of it but your logic is sound so I will accept it as a possibility. I think that there are factors we just don't know so I won't necessarily affirm anything one way or the other. I give the benefit of the doubt to the police simply based on their duty to maintain order and enforce law, there really isn't much more to my view on it.
 
Blah blah blah...I hate protest I don't agree with! How dare those jerks occupy public land to air their grievances! Why there was poop in the street I tellz you!
Some of the protesters are annoying but I don't hate them or the protests. In fact a good bit of the more uninformed in the crowd are quite amusing. What I don't like is breaking actual well formed and reasoned law and calling it peaceable assembly.
 
Yes our clamoring that the troops should NOT be in harms way in Iraq and Afghanistan to provide Halliburton, et. al. with profits is somehow analogous to "we hate the military"

EDIT:

My bad I intended this to be in response to:


My apologies TIGGER
ANd yet dems were A-OK with Bill Clinton going to war against the Serbs and granting an IDIQ to a sole source company to rebuild...now...what was the name of that company that Bill Clinton initially put under the IDIQ...what was it...OH YEAH...Haliburton...

Geeeezus...hypocricy at its finest...
 
but what if it's not peaceful because government made it not peaceful?

In general, illegal actions by government towards citizens is addressed in court.
 
Some of the protesters are annoying but I don't hate them or the protests. In fact a good bit of the more uninformed in the crowd are quite amusing. What I don't like is breaking actual well formed and reasoned law and calling it peaceable assembly.

While the laws are understandable under nominal conditions, such as having "closed" time on public property; I feel that assembly and protest are too important to hedge and infringe against. While there can also be abuse of ideals of that nature, I'd rather err on the side of freedom than that of State authority.
 
Occupy Oakland Attacked By Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets, and Flash Grenades



I'm trying to care, but it just isn't working.
 
While the laws are understandable under nominal conditions, such as having "closed" time on public property; I feel that assembly and protest are too important to hedge and infringe against.
They really aren't, human waste is diseased whether you protest or not, stopping others from work or hindering them doesn't change because you have a gripe, the damage that tent cities cause to areas when unkept does not change because you want to speak.
While there can also be abuse of ideals of that nature, I'd rather err on the side of freedom than that of State authority.
If the proper laws are followed you can have both.
 
Without reasonable restrictions to public park access.... this is what we will have...

The government wont be able to keep campers off their property..... the rest of the public wont be able to USE the facilities the way they were intended....... the government wont be able to keep up with the maintenance on said property...... the Parks and Recreation Departments wont be able to maintain their budget....... the Public Parks will have to be sold to private entities.... we will no longer have public parks........and our freedom expressers will have WHERE to go at that point to freeload and camp out?

How do you like my slippery slope?
 
Hey! First Oakland and now San Diego...who knew Californians were such dickhead Nazi's???
 
Without reasonable restrictions to public park access.... this is what we will have...

The government wont be able to keep campers off their property..... the rest of the public wont be able to USE the facilities the way they were intended....... the government wont be able to keep up with the maintenance on said property...... the Parks and Recreation Departments wont be able to maintain their budget....... the Public Parks will have to be sold to private entities.... we will no longer have public parks........and our freedom expressers will have WHERE to go at that point to freeload and camp out?

How do you like my slippery slope?


I agree with all you said Caine...but I believe the Oakland Police were excessive in this instance...
 
I'm trying to care, but it just isn't working.

a napalm run might have gained some concern

but only a few seconds !!
 
C. Contrary to what I was told.... None of those people who began running up to the injured guy looked like Medics to me..... HMM?
Agree with the majority of your post Cain but someone with your experience as a Police Officer should know better than to say something like this. You've never arrived on the scene and an out of uniform Medic has already administered assistance to someone? Since when do Medics only attend to injured person (s) if they have their uniform on?

I've helped people whilst off duty. It's automatic. If you come across someone injured you don't ignore it because you are out of uniform.
 
Agree with the majority of your post Cain but someone with your experience as a Police Officer should know better than to say something like this. You've never arrived on the scene and an out of uniform Medic has already administered assistance to someone? Since when do Medics only attend to injured person (s) if they have their uniform on?

I've helped people whilst off duty. It's automatic. If you come across someone injured you don't ignore it because you are out of uniform.
Interesting how the uniformed cops in this video don't act this way.
 
Throwing flashbangs at people trying to assist an injured person is absolutely disgusting. There is no excuse for that.
Yet there are people on posting on this very thread saying that police were justified in doing so somehow... I don't get it.
 
Without reasonable restrictions to public park access.... this is what we will have...

The government wont be able to keep campers off their property..... the rest of the public wont be able to USE the facilities the way they were intended....... the government wont be able to keep up with the maintenance on said property...... the Parks and Recreation Departments wont be able to maintain their budget....... the Public Parks will have to be sold to private entities.... we will no longer have public parks........and our freedom expressers will have WHERE to go at that point to freeload and camp out?

How do you like my slippery slope?
What slippery slope... all I see are
A false premise (that camping would somehow become a de facto Constitutional Right as a result of allowing occupiers to protest there)
A false analogy - How on earth do you try to compare an enumerated Constitutionally protected Right to camping.
A couple of extremely narrowly constructed logical leaps that assume once a problem has arisen there can be no solution but failure, and a whole lot more "the sky is falling" illogical assumptions as opposed to progressions.

and to quote you, who appears to be a staunch supporter not allowing this type of behavior:
...and our freedom expressers will have WHERE to go at that point to freeload and camp out?
According to your parallel universe of absolutes and polar thinking..... Exactly where you want to be. with people NOT having the ability do engage in this type of behavior..... So how does this help your case? Sounds to me like you just came up with the solution.... and according to your own logic..... it appears to be to let them continue do it.
 
Excessive force and police brutality = BAD!!

The right to protest = Good and a RIGHT!!
 
Yet there are people on posting on this very thread saying that police were justified in doing so somehow... I don't get it.

It is cause some of the folks in this thread are down with the police.
 
Yet there are people on posting on this very thread saying that police were justified in doing so somehow... I don't get it.

It is easy enough to understand. Some of the people who express the most hostility towards demonstrators and the most support for the police action are motivated by their own ideological and political bias. Some, from time to time, pretend that they actually care about such vague concepts as LIBERTY and FREEDOM but they only trot out those tired cliches when it is to the advantage of their side. In reality, they are warriors of the right wing and are only happy to attempt to crush anyone on the left that is viewed through their extreme ideological perspective as the enemy.
 
Yet there are people on posting on this very thread saying that police were justified in doing so somehow... I don't get it.

well, I don't feel it to be justified myself... but then again, that's just a personal opinion and not a legal one.

police brutality has been a problem since the very first cop started walking a beat.

the police are the pointy spear of government force....they are not brutal in 90% of their interactions with the public, but they are sanctioned to use force, by law, in cases where citizens do not comply with lawful orders.... that's just the basic facts.


it's not the force by the police that I worry about people not getting... it worries me that a lot of people think it's justified to break the law when it's politically convenient to do so.
none of our rights extend into the realm of lawlessness... and that's something I see OWS supporters being a bit confused by.

for instance, i'm exercising my rights by carrying a handgun... but i can't say that my right to bear keep and bear arms is a justification for unlawfully using that weapon.
if I start waving my gun around at a school, and the police tell me to stop.. and I refuse.. i can't really be whining about the cops beating my ass or shooting me... my right did not extent that far and the cops would be justified ( by their very mission) in utilizing force.

protesting is surely a right... a very important right.... but there are reasonable limits to that right pertaining to time/place/and manner.
it's ok to believe that time place and manner do not count... but one would be wise to understand that their beliefs are not accurate.... and the police will show them just how inaccurate their beliefs are.

when you engage in civil disobedience ( which is nothing more or less than non-violent lawbreaking) expect the people who are in charge of enforcing laws to actually enforce the laws... do not be surprised by them doing so.... and if you refuse to comply with them, don't be surprised when they resort to physical force.


so yeah, if the police were enforcing actual laws, and these protestors were not complying with lawful orders... the cops are justified in using force...those are just basic legal facts.

it's understandable for folks to think that their pet movements should be given special treatment .. it's even understandable when they think they should be allowed to break the law.. and it's understandable to believe the laws they are breaking are stupid or whathaveyou.... but being understandable doesn't change the nature of reality.
 
They were breaking the law, making a huge mess, and provoked the police.
The protestors should feel lucky. If the ROKMC were the police there, the Occupy-something movement would have ended the next hour
 
Back
Top Bottom