• 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!

Denver Occupy Tries to Storm Capitol - Police use pepper spray, etc.

It isn't that simple.

Bull****. Yes it is and you're expanding the goal posts simply to make a case for something which has not happened.

Murder, assault, rape, property damage, syndacalism, etc. are not civil disobedience they are major crimes much like arson, flight from an officer, and endangerment.

NONE of which have been committed/endorsed etc by the OWS on any organizational level. Who has OWS murdered? Raped? Who have they robbed? Burnt down any businesses yet? No? So what have they done that is so horribly unlawful? Set up a few tents in publicly funded parks? March into capitol buildings that their tax dollars pay for?

Civil disobedience is more along the lines of marching peacefully, sitting at a segregated lunch counter, or otherwise disobeying laws that have no basis to exist.

In the US during the 60s there were hundreds of civil rights protests which were given lawful orders seeking to dissolve them. As a matter of fact the police in many cities had the power to use force against any perceived threat to the status quo. The fact that they had to use force against even peaceful protests shows that civil disobedience is NOT defined by the reaction of the regent. This all brings us back to the crux of your argument which was that it was wrong to disobey lawful orders. Remember that? You went on to imply that whether cops acted rightfully/wrongfully was defined by whether they'd need to use force. That seems to be ridiculous line of reasoning given the number of peaceful protests which have been met with force by the governing body.

If the OWS was running around shooting up banks and throwing molotov cocktails at the Capitol building, maybe you'd have an argument. However, that's simply not the case.

The major crimes and their corresponding laws do have a reasonable basis to exist, and that is to protect the innocent from the incompetant.

Keep some perspective on the issue at hand here. OWS isn't killing anybody to achieve goals. They're not raping blond blue eyed conservative women. They're not going to banks and demanding ransoms for the lives of CEOs. That's just NOT what is happening. Your argument was ridiculous to begin with. Admit it and move on.
 
Last edited:
Bull****. Yes it is and you're expanding the goal posts simply to make a case for something which has not happened.
No, I'm really not. Civil disobedience refers to simple laws, not major violations. You can look at it two ways, civil as in civil law or civil as in civil behavior major crimes do not fit in with either.



NONE of which have been committed/endorsed etc by the OWS on any organizational level. Who has OWS murdered? Raped? Who have they robbed? Burnt down any businesses yet? No? So what have they done that is so horribly unlawful? Set up a few tents in publicly funded parks? March into capitol buildings that their tax dollars pay for?
I am using those as examples and there have been reported rapes and sexual assaults. BTW, taxes paid for the government buildings but that doesn't equal all access, if you think it does try visiting a regulatory agency some time and check out all the steps you have to take to get a simple thing done. As well there were reports of theft in many of these protests that have made the news and some have advocated violating the property rights of private homeowners in rich neighborhoods. So yes, they have broken major laws, the last example is just that so I won't discuss it further.



In the US during the 60s there were hundreds of civil rights protests which were given lawful orders seeking to dissolve them. As a matter of fact the police in many cities had the power to use force against any perceived threat to the status quo. The fact that they had to use force against even peaceful protests shows that civil disobedience is NOT defined by the reaction of the regent. This all brings us back to the crux of your argument which was that it was wrong to disobey lawful orders. Remember that? You went on to imply that whether cops acted rightfully/wrongfully was defined by whether they'd need to use force. That seems to be ridiculous line of reasoning given the number of peaceful protests which have been met with force by the governing body.
The key word is peaceful, these protests are devolving into non-peaceful.
If the OWS was running around shooting up banks and throwing molotov cocktails at the Capitol building, maybe you'd have an argument. However, that's simply not the case.
Rape, sexual assaut, tresspassing, and assaulting an officer aren't enough for you?

Keep some perspective on the issue at hand here. OWS isn't killing anybody to achieve goals. They're not raping blond blue eyed conservative women. They're not going to banks and demanding ransoms for the lives of CEOs. That's just NOT what is happening. Your argument was ridiculous to begin with. Admit it and move on.
See above.
 
Ghandi BROKE THE LAW. Over and over again. He was arrested repeatedly for doing so. So was MLK.

Now you've made an excellent point re civil disobedience. However, from your link:

Mahatma Gandhi outlined several rules for civil resisters (or satyagrahi) in the time when he was leading India in the struggle for Independence from the British Empire. For instance, they were to express no anger, never retaliate, submit to the opponent's orders and assaults, submit to arrest by the authorities, surrender personal property when confiscated by the authorities but refuse to surrender property held in trust, refrain from swearing and insults (which are contrary to ahimsa), refrain from saluting the Union flag, and protect officials from insults and assaults even at the risk of the resister's own life.

Somehow a comparison to Ghandi hardly seems appropriate.
 
So the "truth" to you is a group of protesters are using mob rule and being backed by the US president and the democratic party to get corporatations and our us political system seperated but at the same time the democratic party and the US president rely on corporations?

They have announced that they are going to continue to "break the law" until they get their way. And what is it they want ?

Free stuff. Paid for by others. More redistribution of wealth, from others, to them.
 
They have announced that they are going to continue to "break the law" until they get their way. And what is it they want ?

Free stuff. Paid for by others. More redistribution of wealth, from others, to them.
No, they just want a fair shake. That's something that has been sorely lacking in this country for far too long now.
 
No, they just want a fair shake. That's something that has been sorely lacking in this country for far too long now.

A fair shake. What's unfair about the shake they've gotten?

High debit card fees? Get a credit card. Get a checking account. Pay with cash. Gasp!
High college tuition? Go into the service....get it free. Work your way thru college. Another gasp! Go to junior college for two years. Gasp!
Teach in the inner-city and get your loans forgiven.
Talk to your high school counselor and plan your education and lifestyle to get hefty scholarships. They're out there. But not for C students...

What's unfair??
 
A fair shake. What's unfair about the shake they've gotten?

Being told that you are going to have to eat all of these bad loans even though you had absolutely nothing to do with them and those who did get bailed out is not a fair shake.

High debit card fees? Get a credit card. Get a checking account. Pay with cash. Gasp!

I have money in the bank and no credit card debt.

High college tuition? Go into the service....get it free. Work your way thru college. Another gasp! Go to junior college for two years. Gasp!

I haven't been to college in nearly 30 years and I paid as I went.

What's unfair??

What's fair about me (and my children) being responsible for all these bad loans?
 
No, they just want a fair shake. That's something that has been sorely lacking in this country for far too long now.

Here we go with "fair" again <sigh>

Tell you what .... show me "fair" in the Constitution. ;)

What they want is a free ride. Or at least one with a big discount for them. What is "fair" to them is to have government, using its police power and a gun if necessary, to take from one American who earned it and to give it to the freeloader.
 
ROFLMAO... the guy shoves the bike (wrongly, agreed, but he did nearly get his foot run over) and the cop abandons it (letting it fall over) to chase the guy down. The cop was in no way "knocked to the ground". Only the truly deluded could believe that caption after watching the video.

No one, at any time, deserves to have their ass kicked. I would like to make an exception for Andy Breitbart, but will not. Sorry, Rambo fans ;)

You obviously don't know anything about motorcycles.

Balancing a 1000lb motorcycle is a delicate balance of clutch, throttle and brake control...along with feet and legs. When someone upsets that balance by shoving the bike sideways...one of three things happen:

1. The rider might be able to right the bike by giving it gas. This couldn't be done safely because of the congestion of people around the policeman.

2. The rider might try to hold the bike upright by sheer use of muscle. This is a good way to damage yourself.

3. The rider lets the bike fall...getting out of the way so as to not get pinned down by the weight of the bike.


Number 3 is what the policeman did. It was the safest choice for him and for the people around him.

The protester put the policeman's safety in danger...as well as the safety of the other people in the area.

I'll tell you what...if someone did that to me when I'm riding my Goldwing...I'd beat the crap out of him. That protester was lucky he just got arrested.
 
They have announced that they are going to continue to "break the law" until they get their way. And what is it they want ?

Free stuff. Paid for by others. More redistribution of wealth, from others, to them.

So by protesting they are redistributing wealth...?
This connects to Obama and the Democratic Party how?
 
No, I'm really not. Civil disobedience refers to simple laws, not major violations. You can look at it two ways, civil as in civil law or civil as in civil behavior major crimes do not fit in with either.

"Simple laws"? Are you a lawyer of any sort? I really hope not because you move more goal posts more than a 6th grade goalie. Civil disobedience is not defined by the simplicity or complexity of the law but by a collective response to laws perceived as unfair.

I am using those as examples and there have been reported rapes and sexual assaults. BTW, taxes paid for the government buildings but that doesn't equal all access, if you think it does try visiting a regulatory agency some time and check out all the steps you have to take to get a simple thing done. As well there were reports of theft in many of these protests that have made the news and some have advocated violating the property rights of private homeowners in rich neighborhoods. So yes, they have broken major laws, the last example is just that so I won't discuss it further.

There are so many nonsense arguments in your posts that I really don't know where to start. I guess I'll start in the beginning just to see how quickly you bail out.

1. Guilt by association arguments:

OWS is not using sexual assault or rape as a way to voice its political opinions. OWS isn't using theft to promote its cause in any way. So what have you got? A few isolated incidents that are being used to paint a social movement as some sort of criminal mob that is simply there to commit crime. That's essentially what you have done. Honestly, I don't really care whether or not you want to discuss it further. It was YOU who made the argument that OWS wasn't a civil disobedience movement because the police had to use "force".

2. You're contradicting yourself.

First you said that civil disobedience was about disobeying "simple laws". That's nonsense and I'll explain why bellow:

The key word is peaceful, these protests are devolving into non-peaceful.

The peaceful demonstrations in the 60s were against segregation laws with 100s of years of history and legal frameworks behind them. I brought them up as an example because you clearly have not a damn clue as to what civil disobedience is or how it is defined. The South and Mid-West alone had hundreds of laws which made striking them down nearly impossible. They were anything but "simple laws". However you claim that civil disobedience is against "simple laws". So what does that make the hundreds/thousands of demonstrations advocating equal rights for women? What does that make the hundreds/thousands of demonstrations advocating equal rights for minorities? If we were to go by your logic "riots" because the police used force in many of them. However that simply does not fit the universal view of what the civil rights demonstrations were. So what do you say now? Are they civil disobedience even though the police used force? Or were they riots even though they were peaceful and the police were acting "lawfully"?

You clearly did not understand that so I'll make it simple for you. You made the argument in post
Rape, sexual assaut, tresspassing, and assaulting an officer aren't enough for you?

See above.

Red herrings do not help your case. They are a sign of weak debating.
 
Last edited:
Being told that you are going to have to eat all of these bad loans even though you had absolutely nothing to do with them and those who did get bailed out is not a fair shake.

I have money in the bank and no credit card debt.

I haven't been to college in nearly 30 years and I paid as I went.

What's fair about me (and my children) being responsible for all these bad loans?

I guess your point is that your tax dollars are going toward the various bailouts.

Blame your Congressmen!! They are the jamokes that take tens of millions of dollars in contributions from Wall Street to make sure they're regulated properly...wink/wink. What are the OWS'rs doing on Wall Street? They should be in Washington, Dfrickin'C.

Major financial donors to Obama's campaign:

Goldman Sachs $1.01 million
Morgan Chase $808,000
CitiGroup $736,000
Sidney Austin LLP (Securities Litigation) $600,000
Wilmer Hale LLP (Securities Litigation) $550,000
Skaddin Arps (Securities Litigation) $543,000
UBS $532,000
Morgan Stanley $512,000
Latham & Watkins (Securities/Regulatory Litigation) $503,000

Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets

I'm sure Republicans are no better. This is bipartisan cheating/conniving/sellingtaxpayersdowntheriver ****.
 
"Simple laws"? Are you a lawyer of any sort? I really hope not because you move more goal posts more than a 6th grade goalie. Civil disobedience is not defined by the simplicity or complexity of the law but by a collective response to laws perceived as unfair.
I don't think you know what moving the goal posts means. I have represented the exact same position the entire time. The fact is that civil disobedience is not just protesting any old law. If that were the case we would call criminals "civil disobedeyors". The fact is that civil disobedience is not just anything a crowd engages in that is illegal, we have words for a group of people who engage in violence, that is called a mob. Once again, there's a pretty good chance that if an officer had to kick somebody's ass it wasn't civil disobedience.



There are so many nonsense arguments in your posts that I really don't know where to start. I guess I'll start in the beginning just to see how quickly you bail out.
Says the guy associating law breaking with protest.
1. Guilt by association arguments:

OWS is not using sexual assault or rape as a way to voice its political opinions. OWS isn't using theft to promote its cause in any way. So what have you got? A few isolated incidents that are being used to paint a social movement as some sort of criminal mob that is simply there to commit crime. That's essentially what you have done. Honestly, I don't really care whether or not you want to discuss it further. It was YOU who made the argument that OWS wasn't a civil disobedience movement because the police had to use "force".
Obviously you don't understand that my stating the officers had to use force against that crowd for illegal behaviors isn't a guilt by association argument, rather that I am saying they dispersed the crowd for engaging in ILLEGAL BEHAVIORS.

2. You're contradicting yourself.

First you said that civil disobedience was about disobeying "simple laws". That's nonsense and I'll explain why bellow:



The peaceful demonstrations in the 60s were against segregation laws with 100s of years of history and legal frameworks behind them. I brought them up as an example because you clearly have not a damn clue as to what civil disobedience is or how it is defined. The South and Mid-West alone had hundreds of laws which made striking them down nearly impossible. They were anything but "simple laws". However you claim that civil disobedience is against "simple laws". So what does that make the hundreds/thousands of demonstrations advocating equal rights for women? What does that make the hundreds/thousands of demonstrations advocating equal rights for minorities? If we were to go by your logic "riots" because the police used force in many of them. However that simply does not fit the universal view of what the civil rights demonstrations were. So what do you say now? Are they civil disobedience even though the police used force? Or were they riots even though they were peaceful and the police were acting "lawfully"?
Okay man, since you don't understand the difference between what I said and meant I'll clear it up for you. Simple and basic laws have a reason to exist, those being public safety, health standards, not obstructing, etc. Those laws in the '60s and prior were not basic and simple, they were done to specifically exclude people because of factors outside of their control that hurt no one such as skin color and gender, those protests did not erupt in much violence UNTIL the death of Dr. King. It's pretty dishonest of you to even attempt to assume the two are similar. These protests aren't about equal rights they are about......well **** even the protesters haven't figured it out.


Red herrings do not help your case. They are a sign of weak debating.
Red Herring? HAH, you said the protesters were attacked and were civil, I have given you actual criminal acts as reported, you decided to dismiss them. I guess because your case is weakened by those inconvenient facts at hand. Again, do you call these acts civil? And if you would agree that the police are responding to those acts then wouldn't it follow that they have break things up to do their jobs? And if that is in fact the case then obstruction of their duties is a crime, they told the protesters to move on.
 
I guess your point is that your tax dollars are going toward the various bailouts.

Blame your Congressmen!! They are the jamokes that take tens of millions of dollars in contributions from Wall Street to make sure they're regulated properly...wink/wink. What are the OWS'rs doing on Wall Street? They should be in Washington, Dfrickin'C.

They are on Wall Street and the Tea Party can take care of Washington. BOTH share the blame.
 
This violence has got to stop. These people need to calm down and do something productive instead of provoking the police.

That...or be more prepared for it.
 
I guess your point is that your tax dollars are going toward the various bailouts.

Blame your Congressmen!! They are the jamokes that take tens of millions of dollars in contributions from Wall Street to make sure they're regulated properly...wink/wink. What are the OWS'rs doing on Wall Street? They should be in Washington, Dfrickin'C.

Major financial donors to Obama's campaign:

Goldman Sachs $1.01 million
Morgan Chase $808,000
CitiGroup $736,000
Sidney Austin LLP (Securities Litigation) $600,000
Wilmer Hale LLP (Securities Litigation) $550,000
Skaddin Arps (Securities Litigation) $543,000
UBS $532,000
Morgan Stanley $512,000
Latham & Watkins (Securities/Regulatory Litigation) $503,000

Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets

I'm sure Republicans are no better. This is bipartisan cheating/conniving/sellingtaxpayersdowntheriver ****.

Status quo is the status quo. The Republocrats are the status quo. I don't understand how some people think the two parties are different.
 
Status quo is the status quo. The Republocrats are the status quo. I don't understand how some people think the two parties are different.

Identity politics and tribalism. How else do you control the masses while you control the government? You get them fighting each other.
 
Identity politics and tribalism. How else do you control the masses while you control the government? You get them fighting each other.

Sadly too. You also can go the Forever War route and create an enemy we can all hate forever. Any critique of why we hate the enemy or why we continue war against the enemy can be met with "Why do you hate America" or "We have to stay until we win!". That way the majority of people don't have to think about the problem. Also ensure under reporting of the conflict to keep Americans as dumb as possible on the subject. Shouldn't risk "information overload" now should we?
 
Sadly too. You also can go the Forever War route and create an enemy we can all hate forever. Any critique of why we hate the enemy or why we continue war against the enemy can be met with "Why do you hate America" or "We have to stay until we win!". That way the majority of people don't have to think about the problem. Also ensure under reporting of the conflict to keep Americans as dumb as possible on the subject. Shouldn't risk "information overload" now should we?

"We've always been at war with Eastasia..."
 
Last edited:
Police Use Pepper Spray, Rubber Bullets on Occupy Denver Protesters Trying to Storm Capitol | Video | TheBlaze.com

Police used pepper spray and rubber bullets to try to quell an Occupy Denver demonstration Saturday as protesters attempted to occupy the state Capitol building.

The Denver Post reported seven arrests were made, including two for assault and one for disobedience. Police confirmed pepper spray and either rubber bullets or pepper balls were used to break up the crowd, which may have numbered up to 2,000.
Lt. Matt Murray with the Denver Police told the Post some protesters received medical treatment at the scene, but no one had been taken to the hospital.
Police and protesters clash on the steps of the state Capitol building. (Denver Post)


Murray said one officer was knocked off his motorcycle and others were attacked and kicked by protesters...

This violence has got to stop. These people need to calm down and do something productive instead of provoking the police.

From more than one person I know at the event: this story is a complete fabrication of facts by the police. There was no "storming" of the capital, there was no violence by the protesters... the police suddenly showed up sporting riot gear; took positions on the capitol steps and began to provoke the protestors.
 
Ghandi BROKE THE LAW. Over and over again. He was arrested repeatedly for doing so. So was MLK.

Civil disobedience is ABOUT breaking the law to call attention to problems/issues. It is a non-violent way of achieving revolutionary ends without the usually commensurate bloodshed and destruction.

I understand that many don't approve, but the rhetoric is pretty similar to that faced by the civil rights and vietnam protests, and I bet Ghandis as well.

There's a whole lotta hatin goin on, but at least the country is discussing these issues, and will continue to do so as long as the Occupations continue.

Civil disobedience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both Ghandi and MLK accepted the consequences of their actions peacefully. Not only did they not fight back with violence or even anger against the law enforcement that arrested them, but they highly encouraged any of their followers to be as non-violent and respectful as possible during their or their followers' arrests. The battle was taken to the court rooms and the political communities, including those of other countries, not the streets, insulting and throwing things and hindering the police doing their duties.
 
Both Ghandi and MLK accepted the consequences of their actions peacefully. Not only did they not fight back with violence or even anger against the law enforcement that arrested them, but they highly encouraged any of their followers to be as non-violent and respectful as possible during their or their followers' arrests. The battle was taken to the court rooms and the political communities, including those of other countries, not the streets, insulting and throwing things and hindering the police doing their duties.

There's a right way and a wrong way of course.

My comments were for all those who reject civil disobedience out of hand. The lawbreaking ITSELF was being decried. That refusal to obey the orders of police ITSELF was justification for any level of brutality. Its been a pretty common theme since the attempts to end the movement by ending the occupations.

"He got his skull split open for refusing to obey the police. He got what he deserved."

Lets not forget the brutality and deaths experienced by the "peaceful" protesters of the 60s.

Further, the isolated instances of unacceptable behavior and even crime from the entire country are being used to justify aggressive police behavior at INDIVIDUAL protests.
 
This violence has got to stop. These people need to calm down and do something productive instead of provoking the police.

whata, precisely, abouthat ehem makes you itnkn that this is within the rangag of thigns they would be willing to do?
 
whata, precisely, abouthat ehem makes you itnkn that this is within the rangag of thigns they would be willing to do?

are you pwd again? :mrgreen:
 
There's a right way and a wrong way of course.

My comments were for all those who reject civil disobedience out of hand. The lawbreaking ITSELF was being decried. That refusal to obey the orders of police ITSELF was justification for any level of brutality. Its been a pretty common theme since the attempts to end the movement by ending the occupations.

"He got his skull split open for refusing to obey the police. He got what he deserved."

Lets not forget the brutality and deaths experienced by the "peaceful" protesters of the 60s.

Further, the isolated instances of unacceptable behavior and even crime from the entire country are being used to justify aggressive police behavior at INDIVIDUAL protests.

The problem is that what these protesters are doing is, in general, the wrong way. So far, most of what I have seen on these protests, especially the instances requiring police actions, the protesters were not following either Ghandi or MLK 's lead and simply allowing themselves to be arrested peacefully, with no hate or actions against the police, this includes Oakland.

Oakland, they were told to leave the area. (They looked to be in the middle of some street to me, but I've never been to Oakland, so I honestly have no idea where they were.) Instead of simply sitting/standing in silence, waiting to be arrested, they were yelling at the cops and throwing things, paint (earlier in the day), rocks, and bottles, at the least. A hostile atmosphere, especially facing a crowd that the police have already experienced violence from (the paint throwing), leads the cops to expect more violence from the crowd, which means a higher threat level than a "peaceful protest".

San Diego, they were told to leave the area. Unlike in Oakland, the cops lined up across the center and slowly marched toward the group in riot gear, while the group was yelling at them. The cops calmly arrested protesters who refused to move. The area needed to be cleaned and could not be camped in. (I live here by the way, and pass through downtown at least once a week to get from my house to base for shopping, drill, or just to get paperwork done when my husband is off. I know that downtown San Diego is not real conducive for large groups of people camping in the middle of it. Honestly, I can't imagine very many cities being conducive for camping.) There were around 50 arrests or more that one night, but not a single actual injury. And I think the main reason is that the cops had no reason to believe that the crowd was going to get violent, unlike in Oakland, where they had plenty of reason to believe such a thing.

People may not deserve to get their skull split, but I do not feel a whole lot of sympathy for someone who was told to leave an area and somehow (since I really couldn't tell from watching any of those videos how or with what the hell the guy was hit) gets injured for not doing so. I highly doubt that any cop meant to peg anyone with a gas canister though, even if the cops shooting them is what actually caused his injury.
 
Back
Top Bottom