• 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!

Police clear out Oakland protest camp

Ikari said:
MMMMM, appeal to authority. Good thing you weren't around when the founders where doing their thing.
Click to expand...

Protest is only proper if it is protest against what you want protested. Otherwise, those hoologins should shut up and obey the law!!!!
 
j-mac said:
Are rocks and bottles hurled at police in Oakland non violent? Where did they come from if protesters didn't throw them? Out of thin air?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Finially you describe a violent act. When did this happen? before or after the police began use of force?
 
Boo Radley said:
Protest is only proper if it is protest against what you want protested. Otherwise, those hoologins should shut up and obey the law!!!!
Click to expand...

That seems to be the consensus with some folk around here. I'd rather protect the right for all and uphold it to its fullest. I like freedom, the alternative sucks.
 
Ikari said:
That seems to be the consensus with some folk around here. I'd rather protect the right for all and uphold it to its fullest. I like freedom, the alternative sucks.
Click to expand...

I do agree.
 
j-mac said:
Um, that would be before....


j-mac
Click to expand...

I think that opens it up to the realm of possibilities. Is there proof of the claim? Lots of vids were taken, yes? Then surely there are those demonstrating the initial barrage by the protesters BEFORE the police moved in to clear them out.
 
j-mac said:
Um, that would be before....


j-mac
Click to expand...

While I'm not sure that is the best evidence, I do like you using MSNBC. ;) Good to see you can trust a source when you want to.

But that would be the point. Argue that these people went too far and not that merely not obeying is equal to violence.
 
Ikari said:
I think that opens it up to the realm of possibilities. Is there proof of the claim? Lots of vids were taken, yes? Then surely there are those demonstrating the initial barrage by the protesters BEFORE the police moved in to clear them out.
Click to expand...

As I thought...I specifically used a cite that not only had the video talking with Lawrence O'Donnell, which I can't stand BTW, but it also included transcribed what the protester being interviewed, whom was there said....And it isn't good enough for you in our discussion....typical.

j-mac
 
nijato said:
Bitch is an offensive, sexist term, and it has no place in public speech of any kind. Period.
Click to expand...

Wahhhh OMG Its the PC Police Comin' to get me!!!!!!!
 
j-mac said:
So the rocks and bottles flying, the fires started, and the destruction of private property were the actions of these "nonviolent protesters"????

Talk to the hand dude.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Actually those were conservative terrorist out to sabotage the message of this peaceful protest and the great message the Occupiers have.
 
j-mac said:
As I thought...I specifically used a cite that not only had the video talking with Lawrence O'Donnell, which I can't stand BTW, but it also included transcribed what the protester being interviewed, whom was there said....And it isn't good enough for you in our discussion....typical.

j-mac
Click to expand...

As I said, enough to open up realms of possibilities. But one testimony is only that. I merely asked for corroborating evidence. Is that somehow now unacceptable?
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Just out of curiosity, would the people condemning the OWS protests and applauding the actions of the police be saying the same thing if it were a Tea Party protest? I don't really take any sides in this issue at all. This is just a question that I'm honestly curious about. I don't see OWS accomplishing anything and I think that the original message has been skewed so much that a good portion of the people don't even know what they are protesting anymore. I also think that some of the police have been going overboard and that the people who are applauding them are doing so because they don't agree with the entire premise of OWS.
Click to expand...

Im a cop... So Im going to be supportive of police being allowed to do their thing despite politicians preventing them from doing so.

I am supportive of clearing out crime cesspools like these encampments because reducing crime is a part of our job.

It has everything to do with their actions, and nothing to do with their politics.

Although I can't say that I agree with their message, but thats another thing entirely, if they were protesting like normal people without causing any problems, I wouldn't be encouraging shutting them down.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
It doesnt say a lot of things Jamesrage. It states you have the right to peacefully assemble. Which they are doing. Your pulling strings right now.
Click to expand...

Yes, and time place and manner restrictions have been okayed as constitutional by the supreme court since the early 80s.
 
Boo Radley said:
Provocative does not mean violent. Civil disobedience means to disobey. it does not mean that they started the violence. The police have the option on how to proceed. They don't have to use force.
Click to expand...

Peaceful Civil Disobedience means you sit there and allow yourself to get arrested.

It does NOT mean you throw bottles, rocks, motolov cocktails, fireworks, paint cans, etc at police in the course of doing their lawful duties.

There is nothing "civil" about that.

In Ghandi and MLKs versions of civil disobedience, you don't even bad mouth the police or view them in contempt.
 
Caine said:
Peaceful Civil Disobedience means you sit there and allow yourself to get arrested.

It does NOT mean you throw bottles, rocks, motolov cocktails, fireworks, paint cans, etc at police in the course of doing their lawful duties.

There is nothing "civil" about that.

In Ghandi and MLKs versions of civil disobedience, you don't even bad mouth the police or view them in contempt.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you on that. But it does matter who resorted to force first.

BTW, I haven't seen any Ghandi's or MLK's so far. It would be good to see such a person step forward.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't disagree with you on that. But it does matter who resorted to force first.

BTW, I haven't seen any Ghandi's or MLK's so far. It would be good to see such a person step forward.
Click to expand...

The police showed up and ordered them to disburse.
They were then attacked by bottles and rocks.

This was reported by the police, and corroborated by a protester on national TV via the MSNBC Lawrence O'Donnell Show.

Also, during one of the videos I have seen, after police have started using force, you can see protesters still throwing things at police, so with this, it is not hard for me to believe that the throwing began before police started using their force.

No protesters are going to post videos showing them doing something wrong.....
 
Boo Radley said:
While I'm not sure that is the best evidence, I do like you using MSNBC. ;) Good to see you can trust a source when you want to.

But that would be the point. Argue that these people went too far and not that merely not obeying is equal to violence.
Click to expand...


So, someone actually at the event, and witnessed what transpired, and reported by someone on a Network that I can not stand, and it isn't good enough for you...I am shocked.

j-mac
 
Caine said:
The police showed up and ordered them to disburse.
They were then attacked by bottles and rocks.

This was reported by the police, and corroborated by a protester on national TV via the MSNBC Lawrence O'Donnell Show.

Also, during one of the videos I have seen, after police have started using force, you can see protesters still throwing things at police, so with this, it is not hard for me to believe that the throwing began before police started using their force.

No protesters are going to post videos showing them doing something wrong.....
Click to expand...

So....why doesn't Law Enforcement video the event as well? It would seem to me that it would help in making cases and stronger evidence.
 
Ikari said:
So....why doesn't Law Enforcement video the event as well? It would seem to me that it would help in making cases and stronger evidence.
Click to expand...

Maybe they did. But whether you are privy to that video is another question. Unless you are saying that in order for their actions to be acceptable you have to be satisfied.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Maybe they did. But whether you are privy to that video is another question. Unless you are saying that in order for their actions to be acceptable you have to be satisfied.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Of course I must be satisfied that their actions were acceptable. They are the government and the government is restricted. It should be well demonstrated that they acted within the prescribed powers granted to them by the People and restricted through State Constitution and proper law.
 
Ikari said:
So....why doesn't Law Enforcement video the event as well? It would seem to me that it would help in making cases and stronger evidence.
Click to expand...
Sometimes they do sometimes they don't.

But, they don't video tape things for the purpose of throwing it on national TV or youtube to prove themselves to people.

Also, I think folks are failing to remember that this was a rogue group of idiots who decided they were going to re-take the camp after they had been moved out that morning.

During the original taking of the camp, only one "use of force" was made, and it was an accidental deployment of riot control agent, deployed on top of the POLICE group's location, not on protesters.

I really hate having to say this over and over so people can understand what was REALLY going on that night, and I sure as hell ain't going to repost my same links every time I have to do this because hard headed members of debate politics continue to choose to ignore the fact that the protesters were trying to RE-OCCUPY the park while it was occupied by the police after having moved them out that morning.
 
Caine said:
Sometimes they do sometimes they don't.

But, they don't video tape things for the purpose of throwing it on national TV or youtube to prove themselves to people.

Also, I think folks are failing to remember that this was a rogue group of idiots who decided they were going to re-take the camp after they had been moved out that morning.

During the original taking of the camp, only one "use of force" was made, and it was an accidental deployment of riot control agent, deployed on top of the POLICE group's location, not on protesters.

I really hate having to say this over and over so people can understand what was REALLY going on that night, and I sure as hell ain't going to repost my same links every time I have to do this because hard headed members of debate politics continue to choose to ignore the fact that the protesters were trying to RE-OCCUPY the park while it was occupied by the police after having moved them out that morning.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Though I still do not know if it was just to have moved them out originally. That was the original government intervention to which response was made.
 
Ikari said:
Of course I must be satisfied that their actions were acceptable. They are the government and the government is restricted. It should be well demonstrated that they acted within the prescribed powers granted to them by the People and restricted through State Constitution and proper law.
Click to expand...


What in the video that is out there for public consumption is troubling enough to you that you feel the need to question the police actions in this matter?

j-mac
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Just out of curiosity, would the people condemning the OWS protests and applauding the actions of the police be saying the same thing if it were a Tea Party protest? I don't really take any sides in this issue at all. This is just a question that I'm honestly curious about. I don't see OWS accomplishing anything and I think that the original message has been skewed so much that a good portion of the people don't even know what they are protesting anymore. I also think that some of the police have been going overboard and that the people who are applauding them are doing so because they don't agree with the entire premise of OWS.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with people protesting, I have a problem with people squatting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom