• 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

Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
So you are A-OK with the police flash grenading medics trying to remove an injured man? To me, this proves the police showed wanton disregard for public safety.
Click to expand...

Of course I'm not okay with that.
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
So you are A-OK with the police flash grenading medics trying to remove an injured man?
Josie said:
Of course I'm not okay with that.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Josie, that is what the people who trying to get the injured man out say happened. Read my post (#96) and watch the one minute video. No one in their right mind could believe firing this number of projectiles into a crowd was warranted. No wonder the police ran the media off.
 
The OPD needs to answer some questions.

Did any law enforcement agency involved in the police action use rubber bullets? If they did why?
Do the police have any evidence for their claims that the protesters were throwing M-80 fireworks at the police officers?
Given the serious head injuries to Scott Olsen, what sort of measures were OPD taking to insure the projectiles they fired were not shot directly into the crowd?
Why are you lying to us about the flashbangs? This video clearly shows this and police brutality Occupy Oakland - Flashbangs USED on protesters OPD LIES - YouTube
What specific and actual evidence does OPD have to back up its claims that the Occupy Oakland encampments were such a threat to health and safety and law and order that a dawn raid to clear the protest was necessary?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
The OPD needs to answer some questions.

Did any law enforcement agency involved in the police action use rubber bullets? If they did why?
Do the police have any evidence for their claims that the protesters were throwing M-80 fireworks at the police officers?
Given the serious head injuries to Scott Olsen, what sort of measures were OPD taking to insure the projectiles they fired were not shot directly into the crowd?
Why are you lying to us about the flashbangs? This video clearly shows this and police brutality Occupy Oakland - Flashbangs USED on protesters OPD LIES - YouTube
What specific and actual evidence does OPD have to back up its claims that the Occupy Oakland encampments were such a threat to health and safety and law and order that a dawn raid to clear the protest was necessary?
Click to expand...

The part of this video I find real ****TY, and I mean down right disgraceful is the fact that someone was injured and the people run back to help him. When they get there, they are kneeling down beside him trying to help him, and the ****ing police throws in a flashbang. Wow, just wow... Someone needs to go to jail for the crime one of those cops committed. Protect and serve, yeah right...
 
Very good video reporting the incident.

 
TheDemSocialist said:
The OPD needs to answer some questions.

Did any law enforcement agency involved in the police action use rubber bullets? If they did why?
Do the police have any evidence for their claims that the protesters were throwing M-80 fireworks at the police officers?
Given the serious head injuries to Scott Olsen, what sort of measures were OPD taking to insure the projectiles they fired were not shot directly into the crowd?
Why are you lying to us about the flashbangs? This video clearly shows this and police brutality Occupy Oakland - Flashbangs USED on protesters OPD LIES - YouTube
What specific and actual evidence does OPD have to back up its claims that the Occupy Oakland encampments were such a threat to health and safety and law and order that a dawn raid to clear the protest was necessary?
Click to expand...

Excellent video shows clear use of flashbang by OPD, contrary to official statements. Just watch it, it's incontrovertible.
 
Jon Stewart derides Occupy Oakland raids (VIDEO)

On Wednesday’s edition of The Daily Show, Jon Stewart lampooned Oakland’s response to the Occupy protesters in a segment called “Parks and Demonstration.”

After showing a clip from one of the traumatic videos of Oakland police firing tear gas and percussion grenades into crowds of people, Stewart points out the irony of the situation: “Police were worried about public safety, so they did this? It seems a bit heavy-handed.”

And since no segment on Oakland would be complete without A’s and Raiders jokes, Stewart proceeded to poke fun at the A’s playoff drought and the poke fun at the dressed up members of the “Black Hole.”

Watch the video here:Jon Stewart derides Occupy Oakland raids (VIDEO) | SFGate Blog | an SFGate.com blog
Click to expand...

Jon Stewart really breaks it down and makes very good points.
 
Ikari said:
In other countries, they had larger protests without all the police beatings. Our police, particularly at assemble and protest events, MUST be controlled to proper levels to ensure the rights of others are not violated by the thuggery of State.
Click to expand...

From the videos I've seen of Occupy Oakland, the police response was uncalled for -- I'd like to see criminal charges pursued against the officer who thew the canister at the group around the injured protester, accountability goes all ways.

But it's worth noting that many cities have made it a point to accommodate the protesters. Oakland, Atlanta (with the sudden revocation of their permit) and some of the more brutal takedowns in New York seem to be outliers.

I do wonder, though, if the confrontational police response is necessary at all. In Oakland especially, the real violence seems to have been perpetuated by the city and not the protesters.
 
So the OPD came in because of "sanitation issues"? To clean up the unhealthy area of the park?

Who made the bigger mess?

 
After the first heavy-handed police crackdown on demonstrators in Oakland, Mayor Jean Quan wrote a statement on her Facebook page praising police for closing down the Occupy Oakland protest encampment. Now, facing anger from across the world, Quan is backing down on her aggressive language and even says that she supports the goals of the movement. She is committing to minimize police presence in the plaza and “build a community effort to improve communications and dialogue with the demonstrators.”
From Mayor Quan's statement:
We support the goals of the Occupy Wall Street movement: we have high levels of unemployment and we have high levels of foreclosure that makes Oakland part of the 99% too. We are a progressive city and tolerant of many opinions. We may not always agree, but we all have a right to be heard.

I want to thank everyone for the peaceful demonstration at Frank Ogawa Park tonight, and thank the city employees who worked hard to clean up the plaza so that all activities can continue including Occupy Wall Street. We have decided to have a minimal police presence at the plaza for the short term and build a community effort to improve communications and dialogue with the demonstrators.
About the police, she adds (my emphasis):
99% of our officers stayed professional during difficult and dangerous circumstances as did some of the demonstrators who dissuaded other protestors from vandalizing downtown and for helping to keep the demonstrations peaceful. For the most part, demonstrations over the past two weeks have been peaceful.
Click to expand...

US Politics | AMERICAblog News: Oakland mayor backs down; will minimize Oakland police presence at OWS protest
 
TheDemSocialist said:
The OPD needs to answer some questions.

Did any law enforcement agency involved in the police action use rubber bullets? If they did why?
Do the police have any evidence for their claims that the protesters were throwing M-80 fireworks at the police officers?
Given the serious head injuries to Scott Olsen, what sort of measures were OPD taking to insure the projectiles they fired were not shot directly into the crowd?
Why are you lying to us about the flashbangs? This video clearly shows this and police brutality Occupy Oakland - Flashbangs USED on protesters OPD LIES - YouTube
What specific and actual evidence does OPD have to back up its claims that the Occupy Oakland encampments were such a threat to health and safety and law and order that a dawn raid to clear the protest was necessary?
Click to expand...

Now this right here is a decent video.........with a major flaw that I will get into in a moment.

It clears up alot of the false statements Ive heard, but also clears up what I thought to be not true but actually isn't.

A. He was not shot in the head by anything, You can clearly see at :20 to :24 that the subject falls, look closely for the guy in the crowd wearing grey. However, You will notice right before he falls, the riot control agents were deployed well off to the side and not directly on him at that point. Could he have been hit by something that occurred as a result of that? Sure. By saying he was shot in the head implies INTENT to shoot him IN THE HEAD.

B. Some idiot officer actually DID drop a percussion grenade pretty much right on top of the guy. Now, one could state they were doing this to get the crowd back and away so they could go in and assist him... but they didn't bother to do anything for him before the crowd came back after clearing away to help, so that defense goes out the window.

C. Contrary to what I was told.... None of those people who began running up to the injured guy looked like Medics to me..... HMM?

D. None of the Officers bothered to go help the guy, the protesters had cleared out plenty of space for them to go in and help prior to rushing back when they (protesters) noticed him hurt...... That absolutely disgusts me about the Oakland PD.


The part of the video that bothers me.... but it should obviously be taken with a grain of salt at this point knowing the way protesters operate... the video goes from the Ordering them to disburse part straight to riot control already having been deployed..... It doesn't bother to what happened between those points... which is crucial to determine the alleged "Peacefulness" of these protesters.
 
Last edited:
Caine said:
Now this right here is a decent video.........with a major flaw that I will get into in a moment.

It clears up alot of the false statements Ive heard, but also clears up what I thought to be not true but actually isn't.

A. He was not shot in the head by anything, You can clearly see at :20 to :24 that the subject falls, look closely for the guy in the crowd wearing grey. However, You will notice right before he falls, the riot control agents were deployed well off to the side and not directly on him at that point. Could he have been hit by something that occurred as a result of that? Sure. By saying he was shot in the head implies INTENT to shoot him IN THE HEAD.

B. Some idiot officer actually DID drop a percussion grenade pretty much right on top of the guy. Now, one could state they were doing this to get the crowd back and away so they could go in and assist him... but they didn't bother to do anything for him before the crowd came back after clearing away to help, so that defense goes out the window.

C. Contrary to what I was told.... None of those people who began running up to the injured guy looked like Medics to me..... HMM?

D. None of the Officers bothered to go help the guy, the protesters had cleared out plenty of space for them to go in and help prior to rushing back when they (protesters) noticed him hurt...... That absolutely disgusts me about the Oakland PD.


The part of the video that bothers me.... but it should obviously be taken with a grain of salt at this point knowing the way protesters operate... the video goes from the Ordering them to disburse part straight to riot control already having been deployed..... It doesn't bother to what happened between those points... which is crucial to determine the alleged "Peacefulness" of these protesters.
Click to expand...

My wife noticed the guy go down too.

Two things:

He fell exactly on time with a report of some kind.

And the teargas was coming from "away" from the camera rather than from the "right" where the line was that the flashbang came from.

It definitely looks like he was struck by something that came from "away".
 
Via social networks:

315864_309695699046758_149658285050501_1487300_1213213458_n.jpg

There is no excuse for this kind of police brutality, at all. If a protestor did this to a police officer, they would be thrown in jail and likely receive a stiff sentence. Yet the system is allowed to perpetuate violence against citizens.

I'm all in favor of peaceful protest, but eventually you have to fight back when you are faced with systemic violence. There is no excuse for the police cracking a person's head open in order to disband a crowd.

Shame, shame, shame on the police, and the Oakland city hall for disbanding a lawful, peaceful assembly of the people. As if it's UP to them as to whether or not the First Amendment gets honored.
 
Just goes to prove the old adage...its always fun and games, til someone gets hurt.

Regardless of what you think, you dont have the 'right' to do whatever you want, wherever you want, and however you want and you damn sure arent the arbiter of law. Protest...fine...have a ball. When the police say...OK...this has to stop, then the true 'peaceful' protester will say, you bet, officer...we'll stop...regroup, figure it out, and come back and press on. Instead we get paint cans, bottles, firecrackers and a whole steady stream of **** YOU MOTHER****ERS!!! and **** YOU PIGS!!! from people who apprently arent smart enough to realize that the police...the ones they say are part of that 99% that they represent...are just enacting law as directed. As usual...instead of being upset with government you are upset with the police. Instead of being upset with themselves for being stupid, they are upset with the police.

You dont have the right to do whatever you want to do because you THINK you do.
 
Does this old propoganda technique really still work?

Protestors, who have admittedly no real agenda, just "occupy" public places, and in some cases when they are in areas they cannot be "occupying", and the police tell them, tell them again, warn them, form up a riot line....

And then protestors provoke them further.....

And some random person up in their face ends up hurt from what looks to be a very mild stand-off, it's POLICE BRUTALITY 99% OWC **** YEA!! Please.

It's an attempt to manufacture sympathy support. We have no agenda, so we'll **** with the police and break the law, and when they don't take it, we'll point and say "See, there is your problem, support us!!!
 
Last edited:
^ Oh look who showed up to yet another thread to remind us all that the First Amendment realy isn't the first amendment, and that the rights we "think" we have aren't actually real rights unless the government says you have permission to use them.

What part of FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY AND SPEECH is not sinking in here?

You don't need a permit to do ANY of those things, yet municipalities all over this country think that they have a right to apply zoning restrictions to public assembly and tell you when and where you can protest.

This is systemic violence and the fact that they are bashing in people's skulls for not dispersing on their command is a clear violation of the First Amendment.
 
Temporal said:
^ Oh look who showed up to yet another thread to remind us all that the First Amendment realy isn't the first amendment, and that the rights we "think" we have aren't actually real rights unless the government says you have permission to use them.
What part of FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY AND SPEECH is not sinking in, here?.
Click to expand...

I thought most rational humans understood the limits on free speech and assembly. Are you saying you don't? Or better, that there are no limits? Please, enlighten us.
 
VanceMack said:
Just goes to prove the old adage...its always fun and games, til someone gets hurt.

Regardless of what you think, you dont have the 'right' to do whatever you want, wherever you want, and however you want and you damn sure arent the arbiter of law. Protest...fine...have a ball. When the police say...OK...this has to stop, then the true 'peaceful' protester will say, you bet, officer...we'll stop...regroup, figure it out, and come back and press on. Instead we get paint cans, bottles, firecrackers and a whole steady stream of **** YOU MOTHER****ERS!!! and **** YOU PIGS!!! from people who apprently arent smart enough to realize that the police...the ones they say are part of that 99% that they represent...are just enacting law as directed. As usual...instead of being upset with government you are upset with the police. Instead of being upset with themselves for being stupid, they are upset with the police.

You dont have the right to do whatever you want to do because you THINK you do.
Click to expand...

The police should have to justify every single ounce of force they apply against American citizens.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
The police should have to justify every single ounce of force they apply against American citizens.
Click to expand...
They have. The people were told to clear the streets and they refused. The police then cleared the streets. Justified. You want to protest? Great. You want to be civilly disobedient? Fine. But when the policeman says its time to change the game then you either change it or face consequences. That you and others dont get that is both a mystery and a comedy.
 
Temporal said:
^ Oh look who showed up to yet another thread to remind us all that the First Amendment realy isn't the first amendment, and that the rights we "think" we have aren't actually real rights unless the government says you have permission to use them.

What part of FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY AND SPEECH is not sinking in here?

You don't need a permit to do ANY of those things, yet municipalities all over this country think that they have a right to apply zoning restrictions to public assembly and tell you when and where you can protest. This is systemic violence and the fact that they are bashing in people's skulls for not dispersing on their command is a clear violation of the First Amendment.
Click to expand...
Or...could it be maybe YOU dont have the grasp 'law' that you think you do...

See...thats the hilarious part...apparently those municiplaities and their decisions have been affirmed by lawyers...and for some reason they arent consulting a random internet blogger on matters of law and constitution. Huh...go figure.
 
Last edited:
Mach said:
Does this old propoganda technique really still work?

Protestors, who have admittedly no real agenda, just "occupy" public places, and in some cases when they are in areas they cannot be "occupying", and the police tell them, tell them again, warn them, form up a riot line....

And then protestors provoke them further.....

And some random person up in their face ends up hurt from what looks to be a very mild stand-off, it's POLICE BRUTALITY 99% OWC **** YEA!! Please.

It's an attempt to manufacture sympathy support. We have no agenda, so we'll **** with the police and break the law, and when they don't take it, we'll point and say "See, there is your problem, support us!!!
Click to expand...

The burden of proof is on the state. What specific laws were being broken? if it's misdemeanor trespassing or demonstrating without a permit (in the case of Atlanta, the permit was revoked), you think that warrants tear gas and rubber bullets?

Throwing firecrackers and buckets could be seen as assault. So what is throwing a flash grenade at a wounded man?

Your low opinion of the protesters does not justify state violence.
 
VanceMack said:
They have. The people were told to clear the streets and they refused. The police then cleared the streets. Justified. You want to protest? Great. You want to be civilly disobedient? Fine. But when the policeman says its time to change the game then you either change it or face consequences. That you and others dont get that is both a mystery and a comedy.
Click to expand...

The police must use appropriate force. All I ask is that they justify every rubber bullet fired.

Remember, the protest was weeks old, not hours. What changed, the protesters actions or the city's?
 
Last edited:
GhostlyJoe said:
The police must use appropriate force. All I ask is that justify every rubber bullet fired.

Remember, the protest was weeks old, not hours. What changed, the protesters actions or the city's?
Click to expand...
If you had a complete video of the events and not just the snipped version edited for cause you might have an answer to that. You might also inquire why the police were directed to disperse the crowds from the streets and parks. All of that is irrelevant when you are the 'peaceful protester' in question. When a police officer says you must stop...three guesses what you MUST do...(Id just say one guess because you already know the answer, but I'll give you the first two so you can rage on about your legal rights).

Refuse to comply with a police officer on a traffic stop even if you believe you are totally in the right and guess what happens.
 
Threads like this give me reason to smile in my own firm belief that many on the right who scream the loudest about liberty and freedom are more than happy to use any excuse to put the clamps of authority and repression on those on the left who they hate and despise. And they bristle when we accuse the authoritarian right wing of having fascist tendencies. :roll:
 
danarhea said:
I think the point he was making is that this was no "dirty hippie", as FOX News, along with assholes of their ilk, likes to describe the protesters. He is a soldier, who served 2 tours in Iraq.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean he isn't a dirty hippy. Clearly, he's shown a lack of discipline. When the cops tell you to un-ass an AO, you un-ass that AO, immediately.

As a soldier, he should understand that there are rules and there are consequences for breaking those rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom