• We will be taking the forum down for maintenance at [5:15 am CDT] - in 15 minutes. We should be down less than 1 hour.
  • 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

haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't work for the Oakland Police Department, nor the local news outlet. Its not my job to force the police to force an unrequested document onto the media to convince the unconvinceable people like yourself. Its not the police departments job to release all the reports they receive in order to try to convince the unconvineable people like yourself.

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.
Click to expand...
There were MANY reasons for it. Your acting like a defense attorney who attacks each point of evidence as something independent and not taking the whole picture into account. There were multiple reports, in addition to fire hazards, public health hazards..... and the REFUSAL TO ALLOW POLICE, FIRE, AND MEDICAL PERSONNEL TO ENTER TO DO THEIR JOB. Funny nobody has been bothering to address that part.

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.
Click to expand...
Nothing anyone suggests will be enough to convince you, that much is obvious.





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.
Click to expand...
Maybe these "peaceful" "non-violent" protesters should think about obeying the law.
 
Proud South Korean said:
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
Click to expand...
(emphasis added by me)
That not necessarily true. Only the courts can determine whether to uphold reasonable, time, place and manner restrictions. NOT local government officials, NOT local law enforcement, Not private citizens. There would have been no confrontation should the police taken no action against the occupiers, to ignore this simple cause and effect relationship is mind-boggling.
 
Josie said:
I'm curious - to those who think what the police did was wrong from the get-go....what should the police have done with a large crowd of people throwing things at them?
Click to expand...
People were not throwing things at the police until they were evicted from the park and later regrouped near the area. Youn are putting the cart before the horse by claiming that people were throwing things at the police before ANY police action occurred.
 
Josie said:
1. They refused to leave.
2. They started throwing things at the police.
Click to expand...
This is not accurate....

1. they were forcably removed by police
2. they regrouped after the eviction
3. police ordered them to disperse
3. they started throwing things at the police

if 1. never occurred it is likely none of the actions subsequent to 1. would have occurred.
 
Josie said:
Another possible sexual assault in Zuccotti Park...

‘We Handle it Internally’: Another Possible Sexual Assault at Occupy Wall Street | TheBlaze.com
Click to expand...
Possible. From what the story would lead one to believe is an outside perpetrator, or at the very least one rousted out and banished by the group. Would you care to advance an argument as to how this is an indictment of the protests?

Or, in your view, is it a preponderance of 'possible' things that allow for general condemnation?
 
Swit said:
(emphasis added by me)
That not necessarily true. Only the courts can determine whether to uphold reasonable, time, place and manner restrictions. NOT local government officials, NOT local law enforcement, Not private citizens. There would have been no confrontation should the police taken no action against the occupiers, to ignore this simple cause and effect relationship is mind-boggling.
Click to expand...

Laws against Camping have nothing to do with time place and manner restrictions.

They are laws against camping........

To consistently ignore this, is mind boggling.
 
Caine said:
Yes but the contention that I was battling was a suggestion from another poster that medical personnel who were on scene (staged) to treat injured were prevented from helping. In order to be prevented from helping you have to be trying.

A. All those people who went up to him eventually did get back up to him and pick him up and walk him away from there... as evidenced in another video.
B. In that video... the group of people carrying him are screaming MEDIC! MEDIC! which they wouldnt be doing if they were in fact medics..
Click to expand...
While I don't think you have any evidence to support any claim you just made... How about answering 2 questions for me:

1. Why did the police not help the injured individual in question?
2. Is it acceptable to set off a concussion grenade near an injured citizen?
 
Swit said:
This is not accurate....

1. they were forcably removed by police
2. they regrouped after the eviction
3. police ordered them to disperse
3. they started throwing things at the police

if 1. never occurred it is likely none of the actions subsequent to 1. would have occurred.
Click to expand...

So, essentially you are blaming the police for the independent actions of a bunch of anarchist thugs that thought they owned the park?

They made the decision to try to re-take the park.

What happened to them when they refused to disburse is on them.



You support invasions and lawlessness apparently.
 
Caine said:
Why don't you ask Ikari those questions..... It is his contention that Camping should be allowed if it is in the name of "assembly and free speech". From all that I can tell, there should be nothing stopping the Occupiers from rolling out a sleeping bag in the Mayors office.
Click to expand...

Because I was responding to your post not Ikari's


Caine said:
Im not a fan of the camping.
Protest, then go sleep somewhere like a normal person, then come back and protest again... Im all good with that.

But camping out creates lots of problems.
Click to expand...

Great.... and by your own logic, at least one way to ensure this doesn't happen anymore is to continue to allow them to camp there.
 
Swit said:
While I don't think you have any evidence to support any claim you just made... How about answering 2 questions for me:

1. Why did the police not help the injured individual in question?
2. Is it acceptable to set off a concussion grenade near an injured citizen?
Click to expand...

A. Why don't you bother watching the videos that have been posted in the thread instead of just arbitrarily claiming I don't have any evidence? Dishonest much?

1. For the 4th time in this thread, I am disgusted that they didn't bother to help.
2. It is not acceptable to set off a concussion grenade near an injured citizen.
 
Caine said:
LOL... I find her reasoning to be ignorant as hell.

"I think their response was completely overboard for people throwing bottles and rocks at police in full riot gear."

So where is that logic going... Im not supposed to shoot back if a guy shoots a gun at me because Im wearing a protective vest?????
Click to expand...
Once again a false analogy... rocks and bottles =/= firearms
 
Swit said:
Because I was responding to your post not Ikari's




Great.... and by your own logic, at least one way to ensure this doesn't happen anymore is to continue to allow them to camp there.
Click to expand...

And rape.... and beat each other.... and **** all over public lands, and piss all over the place.... leave rotten food out, refuse to allow police to investigate crimes, refuse to allow medical personnel to treat people brutally beaten by the others.....

This list goes on and on....
 
Swit said:
Once again a false analogy... rocks and bottles =/= firearms
Click to expand...

So do you or do you NOT think it is acceptable to excuse throwing stuff and assaulting police officers just because they are wearing protective gear.

They are wearing that gear because those idiots would throw **** at them and assault them even if they were not wearing that gear....

The fact that they were wearing the gear does not excuse assaulting them.
 
Caine said:
Karl said:
Caine said:
haymarket said:
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"?[...]
Click to expand...
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: [...]
Click to expand...
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. [...]
Click to expand...
You mean the media showed no evidence of these reports? [...]
Click to expand...
I mean that your argument is a massive fail.

Caine said:
[...] 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.
Click to expand...
More massive fail. Metaphorically speaking, you are drinking what could easily be police propaganda and asking for a refill. Nothing in your posts on this particular issue is substantiated, which you now claim (above) is someone else's fault. As well as mine (for not blindly drinking the police Kool Aid). Priceless.
 
Karl said:
I mean that your argument is a massive fail.


More massive fail. Metaphorically speaking, you are drinking what could easily be police propaganda and asking for a refill. Nothing in your posts on this particular issue is substantiated, which you now claim (above) is someone else's fault. As well as mine (for not blindly drinking the police Kool Aid). Priceless.
Click to expand...

Do you have anything substantive to claim other than......

noise-fingers-in-ears-001.jpg
 
Caine said:
Yes, they should.
Click to expand...
No argument here

Caine said:
But when violence comes from an assembly of angry people shouting obscenities at you, and it is impossible to determine who the many assailants are..... THAT constitutes an unlawful assembly... and then people are legally ordered to disburse. Failure to do so will result in MAKING them disburse. Which is what happened here.
Click to expand...
Fully agree, after protesters were forcibly evicted, the reassembly and assault on the police was most definitely both unlawful and NOT constitutionally protected. However I am of the opinion that certain actions taken by individual member of the police were equally egregious.

Caine said:
The injury was an accidental result of an attempt to control Chaos.
Click to expand...
This is a distinct possibility, however malicious intent is also a distinct possibility. Without any evidence to back up either claim it is only speculation.


Caine said:
Even if police WERE able to exactly pinpoint the many assailants, do you think it is wise from a standpoint of safety for officers to to INTO an angry crowd to attempt to arrest someone???


If only police were such wizards that they could shoot a lazer beam at a specific target in a giant crowd and that lazer beam them grabs them and lifts them up above the rest and then brings that person to them for arresting purposes.....

If only....
Click to expand...
Gotcha, the police have no duties if their own safety is threatened.

Caine said:
Reality is... You participate in an angry mob and refuse to leave.... You take the responsibility for what happens to you in your own hands.
Click to expand...
Circular... No forced eviction, no angry mob...
 
Caine said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thank you. We are in agreement on this. (except I do take exception to the extend of Riot Control methods employed.)
 
Last edited:
Caine said:
Occupy Baltimore group discourages reporting rape, health advocates say - baltimoresun.com
Click to expand...
Already posted, already saw it. Again, you've got nothing... but you're welcome to explain how this detracts from their anti-greed message that Wall Street is raping the middle and lower classes. Furthermore, this is unrelated to the Oakland event (the topic of this thread).

For those that are unfamiliar with this story, here is the pertinent section:

[...] The directive also says, in part, "Though we do not encourage the involvement of the police in our community, the survivor [of sexual abuse] has every right, and the support of Occupy Baltimore, to report the abuse to the appropriate authorities."

Occupy Baltimore group discourages reporting rape, health advocates say - baltimoresun.com
Click to expand...
I would further note to all that the poster above, nor the source above, has released an actual copy of this 'directive'... so we are again taking the word of the media at face value.
 
Swit said:
Would you agree that if the "eviction notice" was never issued or enforced that the resulting situation would not have occurred?
Click to expand...

It would not have occurred. But more people would be beaten, raped, it would end up in someone getting murdered in that camp.

You can't just put a group of people in a camp of lawlessness and expect everything to be hunky-dory.
 
Caine said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can't find any actual police statements in regards to these incidents, just newspaper and blog reports.

No quotes from police in the articles that I can find. I looked through three pages before I found the actual cbs article.

I'm beginning to smell a rat (not you), but I'm not all caught up on these threads, so if I'm missing something, please point me in the right direction.

Its looking more and more like a propaganda blitz designed to cast the protesters in a negative light to foster acceptance of putting an end to the protests once and for all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom