• 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 actually very much does not, but if you have a specific case in mind that you think supports your position, feel free to bring it up and we can talk about that. I recommend looking at Edwards v. South Carolina (1963), and Shuttlesworth v. City of Burmingham, Alabama (1969) to see the Supreme Court holding exactly what I said.

It actually very much does not, but if you have a specific case in mind that you think supports your position, feel free to bring it up and we can talk about that. I recommend looking at Edwards v. South Carolina (1963), and Shuttlesworth v. City of Burmingham, Alabama (1969) to see the Supreme Court holding exactly what I said.

Background of the Case -- Your first cite.

The 187 petitioners consisted of African-American high school and college students who peacefully assembled at the Zion Baptist Church in Columbia South Carolina on March 2, 1961. The students marched in separate groups of roughly 15 to South Carolina State House grounds to peacefully express their grievances regarding civil rights of African-Americans. The crowd of petitioners did not engage in any violent conduct and did not threaten violence in any manner, nor did crowds gathering to witness the demonstration engage in any such behavior. Petitioners were told by police officials that they must disperse within 15 minutes or face arrest. The petitioners failed to disperse, opting to sing religious and patriotic songs instead. Petitioners were convicted of the common law crime of breach of the peace.

The Court's Decision

The Supreme Court held that in arresting, convicting and punishing the petitioners, South Carolina infringed on the petitioners’ rights of free speech, free assembly and freedom to petition for a redress of grievances. The Court stated that these rights are guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by the States.

They marched on the street. They didn't take over private property. They weren't pitching tents on public land. They didn't throw paint cans at the police.

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case. The Petitioner was Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth an African American minister who helped lead 52 African Americans in an orderly civil rights march in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963. He was arrested and convicted for violating 1159 of the city's General Code, an ordinance which proscribes participating in any parade or procession on city streets or public ways without first obtaining a permit from the City Commission. Section 1159 permits the Commission to refuse a parade permit if its members believe "the public welfare, peace, safety, health, decency, good order, morals or convenience require that it be refused." Petitioner had previously been given to understand by a member of the Commission that under no circumstances would petitioner and his group be allowed to demonstrate in Birmingham. The Alabama Court of Appeals reversed the conviction on the grounds, inter alia, that 1159, as written, unconstitutionally imposed an "invidious prior restraint" without ascertainable standards for the granting of permits, and that the ordinance had been discriminatorily enforced. However, the Alabama Supreme Court in 1967 narrowly construed 1159 as an objective, even-handed traffic regulation which did not allow the Commission unlimited discretion in granting or withholding permits, and upheld petitioner's conviction. The case was taken to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Shuttleworth was represented by the prominent civil rights attorney James Nabrit.

Writing for the court, Justice Potter Stewart held that (1) even though the actual construction of § 1142 of the Birmingham General City Code was unconstitutional, the judicial construction of the ordinance prohibited only standing or loitering on public property that obstructed free passage, but it was unclear from the record, whether the literal or judicial construction was applied; and (2) the literal construction of § 1132 of the Birmingham General City Code was unconstitutional, and the statutory application revealed that it applied to the enforcement of an officer's order in directing vehicular traffic. Even though justice Stewart's opinion for the Court mentioned that "the Supreme Court of Alabama performed a remarkable job of plastic surgery upon the face of the ordinance", the Court reversed Shuttlesworth's conviction because the circumstances indicated that the parade permit was denied not to control traffic, but to censor ideas.

These people were refused a permit. The law requiring the permit was viewed as too broad and struck down.

Neither of these two cases apply to the OP where....

On Tuesday, Occupy Oakland demonstrators clashed with police, who used tear gas at least three times in futile attempts to fully disperse the more than 1,000 people who took to the streets after the early-morning raid of the movement's encampment. ["Tent City" Please explain where we have the right to camp out on public property without permission.]

The rolling protest came about 12 hours after hundreds of police from across the Bay Area rousted about 300 people from the two-week old camp at Frank H. Ogawa Plaza. Tensions escalated after protesters vowed to return to the plaza, which was left with tents overturned and food, carpet, personal belongings and mounds of trash strewed on the lawn.

"We had to deploy gas to stop people from throwing rocks and bottles at police," said Interim Police Chief Howard Jordan, adding that he was unsure about what other crowd control methods were used by outside police agencies. There were unconfirmed reports that flash-bang grenades and wood dowels were launched at protesters.

Following the pre-dawn raid, about 500 protesters initially met at the main branch of the Oakland library at 4 p.m., chanting that they would "reclaim" what they now call Oscar Grant Plaza named for the unarmed man who was killed in 2009 by a BART police officer.

The demonstrators sparred with hundreds of police for more than six hours forcing police to close streets, reroute traffic and launch four rounds of bean bags into the crowd of protesters.

At one of the most tense moments near Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, sparks from explosives thrown at police by protesters and tear gas canisters could be seen exploding over the scattering crowd.

The number of protest injuries were not immediately known, but two officers were hurt when protesters splattered them with paint.

As of late Tuesday, the crowd had not dispersed and an earlier tweet by Occupy Oakland organizers gave locations where the group wanted people to congregate and urged demonstrators to "bring bottles."

Chief Jordan said 102 people were arrested Tuesday, the majority taken into custody before dawn. Many were taken to Santa Rita Jail in Dublin and held on $10,000 bail each. Occupy Oakland organizers flooded the office of Mayor Jean Quan and the Alameda County Sheriff's Office with demands the protesters be cited and released. Those arrested included people from as far away as Florida and Illinois, a city official said. Police said the protesters would likely be out of jail by Wednesday.

On Tuesday evening, the group wound its way from the main branch of the Oakland Public Library to the city's jail and then to Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, which had been the epicenter of Occupy Oakland and the site of a tent city where about 300 people lived for two weeks.

Ordering the campers to leave with their belongings or risk arrest, before dawn Tuesday, at least 200 law enforcement officers from agencies across the Bay Area amassed around the plaza, moving in and overturning tents, ripping down cardboard signs, and within 30 minutes clearing out the occupiers.

Protesters tried to hold police off with firecrackers, a fire extinguisher, the Police Department's own barriers, metal Dumpsters, and even the City Hall Christmas wreath, police and protesters said. One man walked around carrying a giant shield he had fashioned out of duct tape.

One officer said that during the camp shutdown, protesters threw bottles, skillets, other kitchen utensils and rocks at police. They also "threw plates at us like Frisbees," the officer said. Police confirmed that protesters had set off a fire extinguisher and several low-level explosives to try to deter oncoming police.

Frank H. Ogawa Plaza will remain closed until public health and safety conditions can be improved; this includes debris, human waste and hazardous materials removal.
In an interview Tuesday, Quan -- who is in Washington, D.C., on city business -- said City Hall "has been trying to walk a fine line between free speech and public safety." But by the second week, she said, "it was apparent that neither the demonstrators nor the city could maintain safe or sanitary conditions, or control the ongoing vandalism."

Setting up a Tent City in violation of any major city's ordinances...refusing to disband so the area could be cleaned up at the very least...blocking traffic...throwing paint cans...throwing bottles...refusing to obey police direct orders enforced for the safety and health of the entire community....yeah, your examples are right on target.

Not.
 
I realize that freedom of speech protects the rights of these embarassments of society to demonstrate their uselessness and cluelessness for all to see.......

But couldn't we just mix a real bullet in every now and then just for fun? I mean, who's going to notice the difference?

I kid, I kid.
 
Last edited:
There is a world of difference between what rights you 'think' you have and what rights you actually have. When the police are telling you that you are inviolation of city and state ordinances its probably a pretty good bet that you ARE...regardless of whether or not you think you SHOULD. When a police officer informing them of the rules is met by a chorus of **** YOU PIGS!!!...well...its a pretty good bet things arent going to have the kind of end you THINK they should have. Just because you THINK 'thems my RIGHTS!!!'...odds are...you dont have the first ****ing clue about your 'rights' as per the law.
 
I realize that freedom of speech protects the rights of these embarassments of society to demonstrate their uselessness and cluelessness for all to see.......

But couldn't we just mix a real bullet in every now and then just for fun? I mean, who's going to notice the difference?

I kid, I kid.

:rofl Nice edit. Ha!
 
Some flash grenades, tear gas and rubber bullets are to expected in a protest of this magnitude. It is gaining strength and the status quo doesn't approve. Unfortunately, I doubt this will go on much longer without some deaths. This is the 1960s all over again.
 
Some flash grenades, tear gas and rubber bullets are to expected in a protest of this magnitude. It is gaining strength and the status quo doesn't approve. Unfortunately, I doubt this will go on much longer without some deaths. This is the 1960s all over again.

Not even close, my friend. The '60's protests had a clear focus...end the war. Filled with idealistic young people who were being drafted into the conflict...a conflict that KILLED 58,000 of our best. This menagerie can't even hold a candle to the dedication that brought those protesters together in the '60's. Don't insult a whole generation by that comparison.

As to deaths? If any coppers are seriously injured, I hope they open fire. These people need to understand that there are rules....even as they execute their right to assembly and free speech. Who doesn't understand that you don't fight the coppers in the streets, you fight 'em in the courthouse? People who figure they're bulletproof. They're not.
 
Not even close, my friend. The '60's protests had a clear focus...end the war. Filled with idealistic young people who were being drafted into the conflict...a conflict that KILLED 58,000 of our best. This menagerie can't even hold a candle to the dedication that brought those protesters together in the '60's. Don't insult a whole generation by that comparison.

As to deaths? If any coppers are seriously injured, I hope they open fire. These people need to understand that there are rules....even as they execute their right to assembly and free speech. Who doesn't understand that you don't fight the coppers in the streets, you fight 'em in the courthouse? People who figure they're bulletproof. They're not.

First of all, this movement is ony a month old and is only getting bigger.

Second of all, it's wrong to hope that the police will fire on unarmed civillians. If you recall, a similar thing happened at Kent State in the sixties. Wasn't pleasant for anybody.
 
They were told to move or they might get hurt. Someone got hurt. Why didn't he move like he was told?
'

Do you understand the difference between a peaceful protestor and a violent one? Do you shoot a peaceful protestor?
 
First of all, this movement is ony a month old and is only getting bigger.

Second of all, it's wrong to hope that the police will fire on unarmed civillians. If you recall, a similar thing happened at Kent State in the sixties. Wasn't pleasant for anybody.

You missed the part where I said if any coppers are seriously injured. On purpose. Paint cans flung at officers' heads are deadly weapons. Rocks are deadly weapons. If these protesters want to engage police on that level, they deserve everything they get. And as to those innocents who are so naive that they are there "for the fun of it," they must understand that they are painted, rightly so, with the same brush as those who use violence....when the chips are down.
 
You missed the part where I said if any coppers are seriously injured. On purpose. Paint cans flung at officers' heads are deadly weapons. Rocks are deadly weapons. If these protesters want to engage police on that level, they deserve everything they get. And as to those innocents who are so naive that they are there "for the fun of it," they must understand that they are painted, rightly so, with the same brush as those who use violence....when the chips are down.

Actually, I didn't miss that part.

Even if an officer gets seriously injured, should we fire automatic weapons into a crowd?

Actually, should we fire semi automatic weapons?

Or any kind of lethal weapon into a crowd?

Ever heard of the Boston Massacre?

Plus, there is no evidence that the protesters were doing anything to hurt the officers PRIOR to throwing the paint.

The police have video tapes. Why don't they release them? What do they have to hide?
 
Last edited:
I don't know, but we should all be proud of the police because as this thing blows up, the Occupy Movement will as well.

Yes, it was predicted that these would become violent. I've known it was coming for months now.

I would look long and hard at the leaders of this movement before you trot after them gleefully.
 
'

Do you understand the difference between a peaceful protestor and a violent one? Do you shoot a peaceful protestor?

No one got shot.
 
Yes, it was predicted that these would become violent. I've known it was coming for months now.

I would look long and hard at the leaders of this movement before you trot after them gleefully.

Lol what leaders.

Do you really want to get into that same discussion again, Josie?

And, as you recall, the NYC protest was completely non violent and look what happened. Now a world wide phenomeneom. The only violence committed there was by police officers

In the beginning of these protests, the police arrestd people who they thought were the leaders so that it would end. But there are no leaders so it didn't end.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it was predicted that these would become violent. I've known it was coming for months now.

I would look long and hard at the leaders of this movement before you trot after them gleefully.

OWS started on Sept 17.

1.3, while technically more than one is hardly "months".
 
No one got shot.

Yeah, the guy got shot with a projectile in the head (Supposedly non-lethal) in the head.

Olsen, 24, was apparently hit in the head with a projectile that the police say is non-lethal. “This poor guy was right behind me when he was hit in the head with a police projectile,” eyewitness Jay Finneburg writes on Indybay. “He went down hard and did not get up.”

While you'll say it is a projectile it doesn't say bullet; remember, something that causes that much damage must be moving pretty quick.
 
Veteran in critical condition after police assault at Occupy Oakland — RT

Apparently the man mentioned in the article is an Iraq war veteran and is in critical condition.
Its always precious when we see people that couldnt give a **** about the military suddenly become concerned when they can use them for their causes. Heres the deal...my guess is he wouldnt be hurt today if he was part of the group that refused to follow the police direction and vowed "to return to keep their fight alive, hundreds came back hours later to continue their occupation in downtown Oakland, a neighboring city of San Francisco."

Ya see...as a combat vet who spent 7 trips to the ME, I know the world is a dangerous place. I also know that if I am behaving in a manner that is consistent with 'civil' disobedience, well...Im entirely likely to get hurt. Vet status doesnt make you impervious to force...especially when the vet carrying such status is employing a healthy dose of stupid.
 
Lol what leaders.
.

Let's start with the creators and editors of the Occupy Wall Street Journal. Surely you would agree that the people feeding information and opinion to the protesters in the form of the official newspaper are leaders, right?
 
They marched on the street. They didn't take over private property. They weren't pitching tents on public land. They didn't throw paint cans at the police.

Those differences are immaterial in determining the validity of the law. A street and a public park would be treated the same, except where safety issues come into play, in which case the street would be prohibited in favor of the park. Paint cans are irrelevant.

These people were refused a permit. The law requiring the permit was viewed as too broad and struck down.

And the same reasoning would apply to the law that everyone must vacate the park at 9. That law is also too broad, as it is coming into conflict with a constitutional right.

I'm sorry if you don't understand the differences between material and immaterial facts, but the distinguishing factors between the cases I cited and the situation in Oakland do not present a material difference. You are incorrect as to the methods by which judges reach decisions under American common law.
 
Yeah, the guy got shot with a projectile in the head (Supposedly non-lethal) in the head.

Olsen, 24, was apparently hit in the head with a projectile that the police say is non-lethal. “This poor guy was right behind me when he was hit in the head with a police projectile,” eyewitness Jay Finneburg writes on Indybay. “He went down hard and did not get up.”

While you'll say it is a projectile it doesn't say bullet; remember, something that causes that much damage must be moving pretty quick.
It was more likely a teargas cannister. They come out pretty quick and they arent made out of NERF. maybe ****heads shouldnt refuse to comply with police orders. Just a little hint there. OR...hey...feel free to do so...just dont run around beging for sympathy when you get hurt. Choices have consequences...thats a bitch, right?
 
OWS started on Sept 17.

1.3, while technically more than one is hardly "months".

I've known it was coming for months, Whatif. The people leading it said themselves it was going to happen several months before it did. It was PLANNED.
 
'

Do you understand the difference between a peaceful protestor and a violent one? Do you shoot a peaceful protestor?
lets be very clear...go to the videos of the Oakland event...do you honestly want to tell me that place was populated by a bunch of peaceful protesters? Cuz...I see a whole bunch of people that are yelling and screaming **** YOU PIGS!!! with nary a mention fo corporate greed, banks, politicians, etc. I see a bunch of little ****heads there to get in on the mayhem. You wonder why the 'movement' is losing steam? Two reason...one...people that go to work are getting tired of them and two...people like those protesters.
 
Back
Top Bottom