• 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

Police work is not now and never has been an exact science. The reality is that the vast majority of them do a tremendous job under sometimes terrible conditions and in situations that most people would flee from. I do not make it a normal practice to second guess the actions of a good police officer doing their job.

I do question how police are assigned and what purpose it serves to place them in the middle of a situation like this which has potential to be volatile and dangerous for all concerned.
 
Police work is not now and never has been an exact science. The reality is that the vast majority of them do a tremendous job under sometimes terrible conditions and in situations that most people would flee from. I do not make it a normal practice to second guess the actions of a good police officer doing their job.

I do question how police are assigned and what purpose it serves to place them in the middle of a situation like this which has potential to be volatile and dangerous for all concerned.

In this situation I do not question the GENERAL use of riot control used by the police.

I DO (and believe everyone should) question why nobody on that line (from the video I saw it was obvious) broke free from the line to assist the guy who was injured when the protesters (from the video) had clearly moved a good distance away from the injured man (I doubt this was planned by them) for long enough for the Officers on the line to move in to assist the fallen man.

THIS is what disgusts me about the incident.

Does their failure to run forward to assist this man mean that the entire operation was wrong? No. It does mean that someone somewhere screwed up in regards to their duty to uphold public safety.
 
I do not live in California but in Michigan a long long way away. I am not privy to the details of just why these police were engaged in that particular spot that night. Can anyone supply that information?
 
I do not live in California but in Michigan a long long way away. I am not privy to the details of just why these police were engaged in that particular spot that night. Can anyone supply that information?

Oakland Gives 'Occupy Oakland' an Eviction Notice - Pulse of the Bay - The Bay Citizen

Then

Police Dismantle Occupy Oakland - The Bay Citizen

Then

Police Use Tear Gas on Occupy Oakland - Pulse of the Bay - The Bay Citizen

Of which the last link is the act that resulted in the injury to the guy.
 

If you actually bother to READ the full length of the articles, you can see a myriad of reasons why police needed to step in to deal with Occupy Oakland.......

The Mayor should have not told the city fire and police officials to give Occupy Oakland their space in the first place......when considering all the crimes that were being reported but the police hands were tied.
 
Urrr.. *Grunt* Protest GOOD

Urrr.. *Grunt* Camping BAAAAD

I am so shocked you defend police brutality in this thread. Not... :roll:
 
I am so shocked you defend police brutality in this thread. Not... :roll:

What makes it "brutal" in your view?

and where is the line between protest and riot?
 
Last edited:
If you actually bother to READ the full length of the articles, you can see a myriad of reasons why police needed to step in to deal with Occupy Oakland....... [...]
I read your three links. I saw perhaps one reason, substantiated by no evidence, and I saw no reasons at all that did not emanate from the police. In fact, I saw nothing at all except unsubstantiated claims by the authorities... however, if one is a fan of totalitarianism, or indoctrinated by it, then I suppose demands by the police are all that is needed.
 
I read your three links. I saw perhaps one reason, substantiated by no evidence, and I saw no reasons at all that did not emanate from the police. In fact, I saw nothing at all except unsubstantiated claims by the authorities... however, if one is a fan of totalitarianism, or indoctrinated by it, then I suppose demands by the police are all that is needed.

The notice to vacate, issued by the Oakland city administrator's office, said, "While demonstrators have a right to peaceful expression, the city has a responsibility to ensure a public health and safety plan during such events," and "after 10 days, the city can no longer uphold public health and safety."

City officials said in recent days, camp conditions and occupant behavior have significantly deteriorated, citing fire hazards, increasing violence and threats, the denial of emergency personnel access to treat injured people and public urination and defecation, among other problems.

The news release stated that within a week of when the Occupy Oakland camp materialized, the city began receiving reports of fire hazards, sanitation problems, noise and unsafe structures being set up in the plaza.

By the second week, firefighters, police and paramedics were denied access to the camp and the city received a report that someone had been severely beaten, according to city officials.

"Sanitation conditions worsened, with frequent instances of public urination and defecation, as well as improper food storage," the news release stated.

An existing rat problem in the plaza grew worse, and reports of public intoxication, fighting and sexual offenses increased, according to the city.

The city sent an eviction notice to protesters at Frank Ogawa Plaza last week, but most stayed put.


When police receive reports... then that means the report didn't originate from them...

And the bolded/emphasized portion above should have been enough reason alone to move in..........The only reason police didn't demand access to investigate is because the Mayor had originally told them not to, basically the Mayor told them to ignore acts of resisting an officer's investigation in the name of their right to assembly... The mayor finally decided not to do so as evidenced in the 2nd article.

Basically, this is what happens when you give people their space and create a "lawless" zone for these protesters...
 
Thank you for those articles Caine. I read them. I cannot help but notice that the City officials fall back on the reason of "public safety" and throw out the image of people taking care of their bathroom needs in public as a reason to go in and break up this encampment. They talk about public safety but I saw little or no actual documentation of any serious lack of public safety.

America has a history of this type of citizen action from the Hoovervilles that dotted the American map in the early Thirties, the Bonus Army of over 40,000 military veterans and their families that came to Washington DC to ask for their war bonus under Hoover in the Spring and Summer of 1932, the Poor Peoples Resurrection City tent city during the later part of the Civil rights years in 1968, and others. Public safety and improper bathroom use seems to be the ever present excuse.

The fact is that these things are going on in cities all over America and where has public safety been the real significant issue? Sure, one can make the case that its messy and maybe even ugly and its not something the city fthers want to include in a tourism video to entice middle class people with their dollars to come and spend on their next vacation, but its democracy and rights in action. We have to balance that.

Once these camps get established, I would think the city administration would carefully weigh the actions they may take taking into consideration that things like Oakland may very well happen and that sort of thing is a whole lot worse than the actual encampment. What is worse..... somebody peeing on a bush or the type of violence that we saw in Oakland?
 
Last edited:
Thank you for those articles Caine. I read them. I cannot help but notice that the City officials fall back on the reason of "public safety" and throw out the image of people taking care of their bathroom needs in public as a reason to go in and break up this encampment. They talk about public safety but I saw little or no actual documentation of any serious lack of public safety.
Police receiving reports of sexual assaults, fights.... none of those words you MUST have read (if you read it all right?) including the little part I put in HUGE letters 2 posts ago means anything to you? A "law free zone" in the name of "peaceful assembly" is okay with you?


America has a history of this type of citizen action from the Hoovervilles that dotted the American map in the early Thirties, the Bonus Army of over 40,000 military veterans and their families that came to Washington DC to ask for their war bonus under Hoover in the Spring and Summer of 1932, the Poor Peoples Resurrection City tent city during the later part of the Civil rights years in 1968, and others. Public safety and improper bathroom use seems to be the ever present excuse.
So when people decide to have these "assemblies" and someone gets raped and tries to report it to the local police, what should be the police response? "Too bad, you entered the lawless zone, nothing we can do for you." These jack asses refused to allow police access to the encampment, as well as paramedics and firefighters.... That in itself is enough reason to tear down the ****ing tent city.



The fact is that these things are going on in cities all over America and where has public safety been the real significant issue? Sure, one can make the case that its messy and maybe even ugly and its not something the city fthers want to include in a tourism video to entice middle class people with their dollars to come and spend on their next vacation, but its democracy and rights in action. We have to balance that.
Sure.. tell you what. We'll create this lawless zone, and refuse to investigate and/or prosecute any crimes that occur within if they refuse to accept that camping is not allowed. No city services will be wasted on them either.... trash collection, no. Sanitation, no. Get a fire? Put it out yourself. Someone gets sick from camping out in the snowy cold, too ****ing bad suck it up.....

How does that sound?


Once these camps get established, I would think the city administration would carefully weigh the actions they may take taking into consideration that things like Oakland may very well happen and that sort of thing is a whole lot worse than the actual encampment. What is worse..... somebody peeing on a bush or the type of violence that we saw in Oakland?
The type of **** that comes with a lawless zone like that idiot Mayor in Oakland allowed to be created when she told her Fire and Police personnel to stand clear of the protesters....... she allowed things to spiral downhill until she HAD to do something about it.
 
Oh I read it all right. I just saw no evidence that there were actual real problems aside from vague reports which may or may not be true, my or may not be exaggerated, may or may not be isolated incidents.

You hang your hat on these "lawless zones" but where is the definitive evidence of such "lawlessness" existing in reality?
 
Last edited:
Oh I read it all right. I just saw no evidence that there were actual real problems aside from vague reports which may or may not be true, my or may not be exaggerated, may or may not be isolated incidents.

Then you aren't using all evidence available and drawing a objective conclusion.

You are taking up a side, and then looking to find a reason not to believe anything that contradicts your view you already took.

I knew I wasted my time bothering with trying to find you information you and others just cast off as "no evidence".

Do you think that media outlets are going to bother getting direct links to copies of all the public copies of incidents reported to police that are documented and investigated just to convince you that these reports are real? No.


But okay, next time I read an article that accuses police of doing something "as told by one protester" I'll cast it aside as "no evidence".
 
Where is this list of crimes being committed that were a serious endangerment to public safety that warranted such a response?

Where is this evidence beyond mere vague undocumented "reports"?

Before I would support such strong police actions being taken against Americans exercising their rights, I would have to see something very tangible and much more than these vague "reports" of crimes without named victims or named perpetrators or anything that is real and can be documented as an actual public safety crisis.
 
Last edited:
Where is this list of crimes being committed that were a serious endangerment to public safety that warranted such a response?

Where is this evidence beyond mere vague undocumented "reports"?

Before I would support such strong police actions being taken against Americans exercising their rights, I would have to see something very tangible and much more than these vague "reports" of crimes without named victims or named perpetrators or anything that is real and can be documented as an actual public safety crisis.

The next time I take a rape report, I'll be sure to let the victim know to go **** herself because all I have is this vague undocumented "report"....

:roll:

Rape victims, or all victims really, have the right to keep their names off of the public record of the report for privacy reasons.



Your just grasping for reasons to support the protesters and ignore the public safety hazard that the occupation presented.
 
When police receive reports... then that means the report didn't originate from them... [...]
When police allegedly receive reports. Where are these alleged reports? And who filed these alleged reports?

The claim of reports did indeed originate from the police.

Basically, this is what happens when you give people their space and create a "lawless" zone for these protesters...
Basically, when you resist authority and the entrenched political establishment, even at a minor civil disobedience level, you get your head cracked.

image_08.jpg
 
The next time I take a rape report, I'll be sure to let the victim know to go **** herself because all I have is this vague undocumented "report".... :roll: Rape victims, or all victims really, have the right to keep their names off of the public record of the report for privacy reasons. Your just grasping for reasons to support the protesters and ignore the public safety hazard that the occupation presented.
Fine. Redact the name, show us the report. Date, time, and location happened. Description of attacker. Prove that the report even exists. And then assure us that the alleged victim is a member of the protest group, or an innocent bystander -- rather than a police informant or agent provocateur. Otherwise you're grasping.

You've shown zero evidence of any "public safety hazard", with the possible exception of public defecation which, if true, may well be the result of the authorities refusing to allow portable sanitation facilities to be located. I will note, however, that going by the standards shown in your post we need to immediately close all state and national parks -- obviously overnight camping is a public safety hazard :mrgreen:
 
[...] where is the line between protest and riot?
1. When only the citizens need medical attention, it's a protest.

2. When the police need medical attention, it's a riot... which could also be evidenced by widespread destruction of property (sans any police involvement).

I'd welcome any proof of the second item above (again, police statements -- such as some cop falling off his motorcycle -- are not proof. Nor is the odd broken window or tagged police car sufficient proof).

That's the real world definition (mine). Anything else you need cleared up? :cool:

riot: a disturbance of the peace created by an assemblage of usually three or more people acting with a common purpose and in a violent and tumultuous manner to the terror of the public.

riot. Dictionary.com. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Merriam-Webster, Inc. Riot | Define Riot at Dictionary.com (accessed: October 30, 2011).
 
There will always be blurred lines between rights of protesters and the rest of us. This is nothing new. What if protesters decided to erect a tent city on my front lawn? Should that be allowed? What if protesters decided to erect tent cities in forest preserves (public parks in Illinois)? Do we let them? Or do we enforce closing times? Do we exhaust public resources trying to protect them? What if protesters decided to erect tent cities in WalMart parking lots? What if?? Where's the line?

Protesters should never be allowed to erect tent cities on any publicly-owned property unless camping is allowed. Protesters should never be allowed to erect tent cities on private property without the written consent of the owner.

"Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins."
 
The next time I take a rape report, I'll be sure to let the victim know to go **** herself because all I have is this vague undocumented "report"....

:roll:

Rape victims, or all victims really, have the right to keep their names off of the public record of the report for privacy reasons.



Your just grasping for reasons to support the protesters and ignore the public safety hazard that the occupation presented.

That is not true. You- as a police officer - have an identified victim and you have specific evidence of a crime. That is more than what you have in your Oakland stories.

And do you clear out an entire community of people because of a crime report? Do you empty a 500 room hotel because somebody did something suspected to be illegal in a room or two? Do you empty a subdivision of people because somebody had a wild party or a runner peed in somebody's back yard? I understand that you will see a difference in a persons right to be in a hotel room or a subdivision as opposed to being in a park - and I do too - however, before we begin to go down the road involving violence with hundreds of citizens and police officers, there needs to be a serious and actual reason for it.

If you can demonstrate a serious danger to the safety of the public, I am more than willing to entertain a need for action upon that danger.

from Maggie

There will always be blurred lines between rights of protesters and the rest of us.
That is very true. And since those lines are admittedly blurry, we better be darn sure before we go using force upon people.



This is nothing new. What if protesters decided to erect a tent city on my front lawn? Should that be allowed?

Nope. However, I do see a difference in the private residential property of a citizen like yourself and a city park.


What if protesters decided to erect tent cities in forest preserves (public parks in Illinois)? Do we let them? Or do we enforce closing times? Do we exhaust public resources trying to protect them? What if protesters decided to erect tent cities in WalMart parking lots? What if?? Where's the line?

We would have to look at it when the situation arose and make a proper evaluation of the entire situation and weigh the possible negative effects of taking confrontational and possibly violent action.
 
Last edited:
There will always be blurred lines between rights of protesters and the rest of us. This is nothing new. What if protesters decided to erect a tent city on my front lawn? Should that be allowed?
No.

What if protesters decided to erect tent cities in forest preserves (public parks in Illinois)? Do we let them?
Or do we enforce closing times?
Depends.

Do we exhaust public resources trying to protect them?
Using public resources to pay police overtime to brutalize them does not qualify as "protecting them".

What if protesters decided to erect tent cities in WalMart parking lots? What if??
What if a frog had wings? He wouldn't bump his ass when he jumps. Please -- argument, not hypotheticals.

Protesters should never be allowed to erect tent cities on private property without the written consent of the owner.
If you provide evidence of that happening, we can discuss it. Again -- please -- argument, not hypotheticals.

"Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins."
Source your quote. At lease one fact per post would be nice...
 
Fine. Redact the name, show us the report. Date, time, and location happened. Description of attacker. Prove that the report even exists. And then assure us that the alleged victim is a member of the protest group, or an innocent bystander -- rather than a police informant or agent provocateur. Otherwise you're grasping.

You've shown zero evidence of any "public safety hazard", with the possible exception of public defecation which, if true, may well be the result of the authorities refusing to allow portable sanitation facilities to be located. I will note, however, that going by the standards shown in your post we need to immediately close all state and national parks -- obviously overnight camping is a public safety hazard :mrgreen:
You mean the media showed no evidence of these reports? Its not the police department's job to FORCE copies of this reports on the journalist who didn't want or ask for it when they wrote their article on the issue. Police don't force reports on journalists, the journalist requests it... its on the JOURNALIST to get a copy of the report to support their article if they think it is necessary. Chances are, they didn't go that far with it because..... you wouldn't be convinced even with that.

You have no evidence of any "agent" conspiracy theory you have come up with.
 
Back
Top Bottom