Straight Up Police Brutality at Occupy Berkeley

From a Nov. 9 demonstration at UC Berkeley: 

Via Lucy Kafanov

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Tman||

    One of those "can't they both be wrong?" kind of videos, cops being cops, college kids being college kids.

    It's not Kent State yet, but can you imagine if it this was?

    Man. Kent State today? With Youtube?

    (shivers)

  • ||

    Sorry, I don't see that as cops being cops. That guy who started striking that kid looked like a criminal thug.

  • Tman||

    Yeah, the one guy whacking the little lady was ridiculous, but is anyone really surprised at the outcome just from watching this short video?

    The cops are trying to clear the park or whatever, and isn't this what happens?

  • Tman||

    This doesn't even register on the nut punch scale, is what I'm saying.

  • ||

    I think you are nuts.

  • ||

    Nope. I've worked riot squad - WTO, N30, etc. I've NEVER SEEN something like this. It is NOT par for the course at all. It's fucking disgusting

  • Tman||

    You've NEVER seen cops swinging like this?

    Really? Come on man.

  • ||

    I've seen cops swinging. I've swung. That's not the point. Te point is that this looks utterly unjustifiec and a blatant assault.

  • irwin mann||

    Cry me a river.
    You go to a protest looking for trouble,
    stand toe to toe with riot equipped police
    and complain when after taunting them
    they smack you with their stick.
    You got what you came for.

  • Juice||

    I was wonder why the cops always go to protests looking for trouble too.

  • poetry||

    the fuck is wrong with you.

  • Jacque||

    Looking for trouble? Are you kidding? Looking for change is the more accurate goal. They're drawing attention to the problems our country has right now. Nobody deserves to be beaten for taunting. You really think people deserve to beaten for demanding change? Our Union was built out of a revolution and the men that created it begged its people to stand up to injustices and make revolutions for ourselves. Beliefs like yours are what's turning the United States into a more oppressive regime instead of a more perfect union.

  • Tman||

    You're right, Never happens.

  • ||

    I didn't say it never happened. ALREADY e ignorati bigots are twisting my words. 8 said in all my time working riots quads, I have never seen it.

    Those re entirely different things. Can you go even two or three posts without starting up a cycle of lies and stuff.?

  • Tman||

    You said you "worked riot squad - WTO, N30, etc. I've NEVER SEEN something like this."

    I linked a video of 99 WTO protests which were way worse.

    Who's "starting up a cycle of lies and stuff"?

    I'm just saying on a Balko scale, this doesn't even graze my nutsack.

  • ||

    No you said that I said it NEVER HAPPENS. I hav said dozensof time that police brutality happens. I personally saw no police brutality during my 80 plus hrs on the line at WTO. I SAW A LOT OF FORCE, though.

  • Tman||

    So you've never "seen" it happen, but you agree that it happens?

    ok.

  • ||

    I said in my entire time ON THE LINE AT WTO AND N30 I never saw police brutality. I Am well aware police brutality and assault occurs,ad in cases like
    Paul Schene, I have pointed it out. Just fucking take a microsecond to READ what you are responding to.

  • Tman||

    The point I'm making dunphy, is that apparently you were among an elite group of professionals during your time ON THE LINE AT WTO AND N30 if you honestly expect me to believe that this particular video is really that bad. I'm not excusing the assholes that make the rest look unprofessional, but they exist and there are A LOT of them.

  • ||

    And I think you are full of shit. I know what I saw at WTO AND N30 . I saw cops shove back protesters after giving warning, and stuff like that. These were point of baton impact strikes. WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION. that's assault. I saw nothing like that during my time at WTO

  • Tman||

    I just linked a video from the WTO protests which was a hundred times worse than this one. Or, Glenn Miller for you jazz enthusiasts.

    So you didn't see anything like that at the WTO. Well, it still happened.

    Do you think the guys in this video "gave warnings, and stuff like that"?

  • ||

    and the video you show shows all sorts of incidents, but small clips of time, with no context. sure, it looks bad. even JUSTIFIED force looks bad, especially when seen out of context.

    that is entirely different than this video, which shows a cop assaulting somebody. i see no legal justification whatsoever and frankly can't even IMAGINE that there could be one.

    the video you linked to does not show that level of clarity

    AFTER shit started flying through the air, numerous orders to disperse were given, cops were attacked, innocent protesters were getting caught up in shit, etc. but it was fucking chaos and we needed to do stuff that was not pretty, even though the vast majority was justified

    this is an entirely different scenario.

    if you can't see that difference, i can't help you

  • Tman||

    even JUSTIFIED force looks bad, especially when seen out of context.

    Good thing most videos of cops beating protesters who are dumb enough to stand around when Joe Swat team practices his latest Steven Segal impression give us enough context to realize that NOT ALL COPS ARE BAD MAN, JUST THE BAD ONES.

  • ||

    again, nice way to evade the issue. again, your video shows a lot of chaos and a lot of UOF's . i see nothing there that is clearly excessive, let alone an assault

    it is distinguishable from this incident.

    it is certainly POSSIBLE that some of the stuff in your video was excessive or even assault, but there is no way of knowing.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Good thing most videos of cops beating protesters who are dumb enough to stand around when"

    Good thing most of the videos you're referencing have the presence of mind to consciously edit out any footage of the protesters throwing things at cops, starting fires, smashing businesses, instigating violence ETC ETC ETC

  • Apatheist||

    Do you think dunphy is some kind of omnipotent god who can see everything that is happening anywhere? What exactly has he said in this thread that is objectionable? Yeah he some times equivocates too much for our taste but this isn't one of those times.

  • ||

    what people call "equivocating" they would call "being fair" if the subject was somebody they LIKED.

    when a conventional suspect is freed because of a hung jury, for example, that's our justice system working

    when it happens to a cop on trial, it's because the prosecutor purposefully threw the case.

    it's that kind of ridiculous black helicopter double standard bullshit that is typical of reason bigorati

  • ||

    So you've never "seen" it happen, but you agree that it happens?

    I've never seen an electron jump energy levels, but I'm sure it happens.

  • ||

    which again, i never said. i said DURING THE WTO/N30, i never saw any police excessive force.

    i most definitely have seen it. police assaults too.

    e.g. the paul schene case. e.g. this case.

    i don't think it's so much a lack of reading comprehension in general, on the bigorati's part. it's a near deliberate choice to read what they want to read into what people say vs. actually considering what they say

    it's much easier to attack strawmen.

  • ||

    I personally saw no police brutality during my 80 plus hrs on the line at WTO. I SAW A LOT OF FORCE, though.

    Helen Keller saw more police brutality on her ride along than you've seen in your career, dunphy.

  • ||

    troll-o-meter: .01

  • cdub||

    Nuance is lost on the troll.

  • ||

    Sorry dunphy, they need to lash out at the nearest person who doesn't get with the cop hate.

  • Amakudari||

    I, for one, want to hear the Glenn Miller Orchestra and see cops beating up hippies.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1JC_p2EVJw

  • Tman||

    That was much more pleasant.

  • GILMORE||

    Can you all please shutup? You're distracting me from vicariously enjoying the hippy-beatings...

    Oh, yeah, it's totally wrong... Abuse of power... Freedom of assembly... My Balko-side is indignant with rage....

    ...but my son of Vietnam-marine side is going, "are you a bunch of girls playing wiffle ball? I wants to see me some hippy-stuffing pronto! Put some backbone into it!"

    I kid. But only partly. The arguments I've heard so far in support of the OWS movement have been so crushing embarrassing that I can frankly excuse a little fascist baton thwackin... At the very least, now they can legitimally claim "they's bein oppressed!!" without me being sickened

  • Brian R||

    Idiots block the road should be forcefully removed. You have the right to assemble, but not the right to impede the freedom of others.

    Learn to Libertarian idiot.

  • It's par for the course||

    youtube proves cop brutality time and time again.

    It's not a few bad apples.

    The problem is the barrel.

  • Juice||

    dunphy is a good apple

    good apple, dunphy, that's a good apple

    who's a good apple? you are. yes, you are

  • ||

    it's not par for the course. youtube proves that some morons taser their balls and tongue too. on purpose. doesn't make it "par for the course".

    99.99%+ of people will never taser their balls or tongue

  • JohnD||

    You are a fool. These people were given a lawful order to clear out and and refused. I would like to see a lot more of these fools roughed up. They are nothing but punks

  • Libertarianism||

    Means never being told what to do.

  • ||

    I'll be the first to say.... That looks like a pretty blatant assault on the part of that cop. Not merely excessive Force, but outright assault.

    Riggs is right.STRAIGHT UP BRUTALITY.

    disgusting

  • Apatheist||

    I mean what was the fucking point? They beat on the kids and... everything is the same as it was before. They accomplished nothing but looking like jackasses on camera.

  • ||

    That disgusts me. I'm assuming the kid said something that pissed off the cop. And if that's the case, it's totally inexcusable.

    I recall at N30 standing on a skirmish line and some little piece of shit started dancing around in front of my partner and calling him a "fucking n...ER" over and over sgain . He did the right thing. Nothing. I just find this unconscionable.

  • ||

    Since the cop is the one who's being accused of straight-up brutality, I'm assuming nothing about what the kid said.

    He could have been communicating an imminent threat to the cop, or the cop could have heard a warning from whomever the cop was looking at over his right shoulder immediately before, perhaps concerning something that the kid or someone nearby had in hand.

    That's the risk that each invididual demonstrator takes if he sticks around while a demonstration devolves into a mob. He bears the responsibility -- and the brunt -- for what the mob does.

  • mr simple||

    Great, more team Red cheerleaders. Right, because there is no such thing as freedom of speech. If your in a park and the police start beating you, it's your fault for being around. I'd tell you to go fuck yourself but it looks like you're too busy fellating cops.

  • JohnD||

    Hey moron, freedom of speech also requires assuming some responsibility for what you say.

  • ||

    Threats aren't protected by freedom of speech (if that's what the person said).

    Nor is occupation of a public park; when done peaceably and in a way that doesn't interfere with the use of the park, it's protected by freedom of assembly. The Occupy gatherings are not following that template though.

  • ||

    #1 threats in order not to be protected, need to meet the true threats standard.

    even advocacy of violence is not in itself enough to meet the true threats standard.

    regardless, even if the subject of this assault (and yes, i said assault) made some sort of verbal threat, given the context, it's hard to imagine it could have reached the level of a true threat.

    the woman had her arms interlocked with others, and the reality is that cops on a riot line should EXPECT to put up with verbal abuse, histrionics and people TRYING to press their buttons.

  • Juice||

    dunphy,

    would there be a "skirmish line" if the cops never showed up?

  • ||

    no, there would probably just be lots more illegal activity on the part of a small cadre of the protesters, such as trespassing, vandalism, assault, rape, etc.

    i am going to assume that the cops were lawfully holding a line at that protest. what i see no reason to believe is that the cop was justified in those baton strikes

  • bfd||

    So the cops maybe knocked the wind out of a few morons with the end of a baton. BFD.

    There are lots of ways to be heard and influence the political system legitimately. One of the worst things about the 60s is that the Media and the political class allowed street mob rabble-rousing to become accepted as mainstream.

    The video shows next to nothing of any importance. No heads were cracked. Nobody went to the hospital. Innocents were not pulled out of a stream of uninvolved onlookers and beaten into unconsciousness. Nobody was shot by the police and had a gun planted on them afterwards. If anything, it was probably a good lesson for the students that actions have consequences and that participating in a mindless, chanting mob just because the weather is nice and it's a cheap date might not be such a good idea.

    "Taking to the streets" has become so trivialized. The purpose of the Occupy "movement" is to provoke physical confrontation and to provide a pretext for more serious property destruction and violence by criminals and true radicals. It is pathetic that naive students allow themselves to be used as useful idiots. A punch in the gut is just what these fools need to make them think about what they are really doing.

  • rts||

    I mean what was the fucking point?

    Paid time off?

  • ||

    I'll be the first to say.... That looks like a pretty blatant assault on the part of that cop. Not merely excessive Force, but outright assault.

    Riggs is right.STRAIGHT UP BRUTALITY.

    disgusting

  • ||

    It would be hard to imagine anything that would make him striking her legal, but I really want to know what happened! She must have said something to piss him off, and I want to know what it was.

  • JEP||

    it shouldn't matter what she said

  • ||

    Not in regards to the criminal aspect,but it would be INTERESTING.

  • ||

    Not in regards to the criminal aspect,but it would be INTERESTING.

  • Abdul||

    Dunphy, if you shot a squirrel in the foot, and said the gun went off accidentally, I totally wouldn't hold it against you at this point.

  • ||

    as a firearms instructor, i would never say a gun went off accidentally. that doesn't happen with modern firearms. there are unintentional shootings, but there are not accidental shootings, technically speaking

    but i appreciate it

  • ||

    Yes it does. See my comment above.

  • ||

    No, it doesn't you fucking moron. If he or she said a threat then arrest him, don't beat the shit out of him. There is absolutely nothing that justifies this brutality.

  • bfd||

    Nobody in the video got the shit beat out of them. At most some got the wind knocked out of them or got a bruise on their wrist.

    There is absolutely nothing that justifies this brutality.

    Brutality? Nigga, please. dunphy has his panties in a bunch because the comportment of the police violated the standards by which he was trained, but he doesn't seem to recognize just how silly his rules of engagement seem to have been. Police are people too. There is no way to know from the limited field of view of the video and its short length what really went on there. There was no riot barricade visible. Maybe the protestors had backed the police line up 20 ft. before the video was shot and the officer in charge decided that the building or people the police were there to protect was starting to become jeopardized so he gave an order to push back a little against the crowd. You don't know and I don't know. But my experience at Berkeley and on other university campuses is that the people organizing these kinds of things lie about and misrepresent the nature of incidents at protests as a matter routine policy. The cops are always wrong no matter how they behave or what they do. The protestors are always innocent and never doing anything but exercising their right to free speech - even though they are rarely actually speaking. Mostly, they are trying to irritate and obstruct people who are uninvolved and just want to go about their day.

    The purpose of these mob instigating activities is to exert political influence by being physically threatening. Protestors should understand that and realize that they may end up with a few bruises. Hopefully, the cops won't be subjected to too much discipline, not likely since this is Berkeley. Their actions probably taught the students a good lesson and a few of them will undoubtedly think twice before mindless joining a protest line. Who knows? It may even make them wonder who organized the protest and what their real agenda is.

  • ||

    i am saying that based on what i see i believe there is ample cause to believe an assault occurred. i am not the prosecutor. i would expect the prosecutor to review reports, review dept training,interview etc. before making HIS or her decision to prosecute

    but based on what i see here, it appears to be a criminal assault

  • bfd||

    but based on what i see here, it appears to be a criminal assault

    You may well be right and, if so, I think the law should probably be changed. The cops have a hard enough time without having their every action questioned in a prejudicial, after-the-fact manner. I really think that many cases of real police brutality, such as the Rodney King beating, are caused by police who are so frustrated by the difficulty of convicting criminals and being subjected to harassment by politically charged oversight boards that they figure that dispensing a little "justice" without the formality of arresting and convicting someone is warranted. Not saying it's right, I'm just saying that the liberal attitude toward law enforcement may actually create more instances of police misconduct.

  • Geohayduke||

    Its clear to anyone paying attention that the system is breaking down, and is in its death throws. The Nazis didn't lose WW2, they came to America to help the corps. that funded them. # operation paperclip

  • Apatheist||

    No the Democrats and Republicans who have been in charge of this country are their own brand of stupid.

  • ||

    I'm sure claiming to have beaten up Berkeley students can probably get you elected to congress in certain parts of the country, but police brutality is still police brutality--even if we don't like the victims of the brutality.

    Shameful conduct on the part of the police.

    It should come as no surprise, by the way, that the most progressive local governments in the country (in places like Oakland and Berkeley) seem to have the most brutal police reactions to the occupation protestors.

    Is there any major political movement that's less tolerant of internal dissent than progressives? ...and when you add that progressive firm faith in the coercive power of the police and the state to solve problems? It's civil disobedience is still disobedience--so here's a baton in your abdomen sucka!

    Shameful.

  • jtuf||

    + 1 to Ken Shultz

    I'll add that police brutality in some municipalities have been a problem for years, but it only becomes news when it happens to progressive protesters.

  • Cabeza de Vaca||

    I think you nailed it jtuf. I'm sure the minority communities in Berkley could tell you a lot about Berkley police brutality.

  • ||

    and most people here would automatically assume any ALLEGATION of police brutality is of course true.

  • bfd||

    I think you nailed it jtuf. I'm sure the minority communities in Berkley could tell you a lot about Berkley police brutality.

    Have you ever actually lived in Berkeley? Like many university towns, Berkeley is so twisted up with civilian police review boards and other mechanisms to complain about police misconduct that the police have to tiptoe on egg shells in every thing they do, especially if it has anything at all to do with any politically favored "minority". Furthermore, though Berkeley does get some spill over crime from the cesspool that is Oakland, it is a college town with minimal crime problems. Minorities in Berkeley are brutalized by police? Spare me.

  • Brett L||

    Hippy-punching has really taken off in Democrat political circles.

  • RoboCain||

    While I wouldn't reach any sort of general conclusion from only two examples, Berkeley is extremely neoliberal.

    It's also quite used to student protests, which is why I find this incident so surprising.

  • ||

    btw, is this city of Berkeley PD or UC Berkeley PD?

  • Gabe E||

    I have to say... some of those nerds are pretty tough.

  • JEP||

    they are tough. I just think it's sad that their protest is misguided and inaccurate.

  • blu||

    there goes berkeley

  • JEP||

    is it just me, or is this a perfect example of why the second amendment is important?

    Would riot cops be so eager to start beating people with clubs if they notice several protesters with legal side arms?

  • ||

    I'm not sure what you're saying.

    The Second Amendment is important so that a bunch of ignorant people can occupy land that's not theirs, without permission and with impunity?

    Or the Second Amendment is important so that police sent to clear them out will see the guns and thereby know to put down the batons and start shooting?

    Please clarify.

  • Native Americans||

    The Second Amendment is important so that a bunch of ignorant people can occupy land that's not theirs, without permission and with impunity?

    Guess so.

  • ||

    laughed so hard on this I think I had a seizure.

  • Gen. Sherman||

    Groups of people have been swiping one another's land for as long as they have existed. Don't feel so special just because you were too primitive and smelly to defend yourselves.

  • bfd||

    Beating people with clubs? WTF are you talking about? The cops punched a couple of people with their batons and swatted a few a couple of times on their wrists.

    Jeebus, you would think from some of the comments here that the incident left piles of corpses in the street.

  • ||

    Mike Riggs:
    From your post yesterday I concluded you believed we can always count on the police to do the right thing. Romney-esque flip flop.

  • ||

    I'd love to know why you think Riggs said that. I don't know anybody who would say that.

  • Riggs||

    I do not believe that, and have never said/written that, at reason or any other media outlet.

  • ||

    Oh really?
    Your post yesterday had nothing but contempt for a clearly unorganized cluster of students whose sympathies continue for a frail old man, because his Great Sin in life was in not calling the cops.

  • WTF||

    I guess the Penn State Board of Trustees agrees with Riggs.

  • ||

    That was business, not personal.

  • ||

    SHE DESERVED IT. COPS PROTECT US.

  • ||

    So, when is dunphy gonna call for prosecutions of these criminal pigs?

    A&B? ADW? Where to start?

    What say you, dunphy?

  • Apatheist||

    Jesus, give the man a break. He said above that it was straight up assault, not police brutality. As a cop I'm sure he chose to use the word assault (a legal term) purposefully. I personally think it take a lot of balls for dunphy to come in here to the lions den and put up with people harassing him all the time.

  • ||

    Thank you. Like I said, the reason bigots don't see what I post. They see what they want to see. How much more fucking blatant could I be?

  • Jesus Apatheist||

    why are you defending him so much? It DOESN'T MATTER what he says, or if he's right or wrong on any given subject. DOES NOT MATTER. He's a cop, the lowest form of scum-sucking, piece-of-shit-on-the-bottom-of-your-shoe form of life there is, except for politicians and pedophile rapists, and should be treated as such.

  • Apatheist||

    I assume this is an attempt at witty satire.

  • cynical||

    Either that or Episiarch posting under an assumed handle.

  • JohnD||

    Apatheist, this isn't a lion's den. It is a den of whiney pussies. You jerks talk big, but talk is cheap.

  • cynical||

    Agreed with the last part.

  • ||

    If you would fuckingread before spouting you would see said it appeared to be more than excessive force, that it looked like ASSAULT. That's a crime. IMO. It should be prosecuted

  • ||

    **faints**

  • ||

    again, your dramatics are boring. i have called for cops to be prosecuted before. i will do it again

    people here see what they want to see. liberal, conservative, libertarian, it doesn't matter

  • mt||

    Some people have nothing to add bbut ad hominems and to twist other people's words. I wouldn't pay them too much mind.

    I wish we could see a little more of the shot, theres a skirmish line on the left side of the screen as well so it's to know whats going on here. The use of force does seem troublesome, but it's hard to know for sure without more context. I'm not sure why they didn't just push the line forward and then arrest the people by the bush. Why waste the effort to push them forward unless this part of the line is cut off? I feel like I m not getting the whole story here.

    And I say this as someone that got beat up by the DC police at the 2000 inauguration so I have no sympathy with CD operators getting out of control. It looks like assault to me too,but I want some more context. Why is this happening and why the baton strikes?

  • mt||

    Did anyone else hear someone say, right before the baton strikes start, "hear they come"? Was there an order to move the crowd back?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Yes. The first cop to poke with his baton was yelling out orders. He yells the same thing twice (like "code 6" though that's probably not it) and then says "We're moving forward." Somebody in the crowd says "Here they come," and then the cop says "Move!" and the groups starts doing the baton poke thing and moving forward.

    Considering that all the cops did the same thing with their batons, I assume that is something they were trained to do.

  • bfd||

    the cop says "Move!" and the groups starts doing the baton poke thing and moving forward.

    Considering that all the cops did the same thing with their batons, I assume that is something they were trained to do.

    Which strongly suggests that there is important context that is not shown in the video, which may have been edited to vilify the cops. The cops were working as a group to back the crowd up. Why? Also, notice that there weren't a lot of cops and they didn't all have riot shields so they couldn't do a shield push to back the crowd up.

    But go ahead, everyone. Keep trying to blow this minor scuffle up into some catastrophic case indicating the end of civilization.

    Face it. This is not police brutality. This is not the police beating the shit of someone. No one was knocked to ground. No one was dragged away with bloody lacerations on their face. Nobody was tasered. Nobody was detained with a choke hold. This was crowd control. Maybe a couple of delicate snowflakes got an ouchy on their wrist. Boo-hoo.

  • ||

    He's just defensive because of his shrunken prostate, dunphy.

  • bfd||

    Excessive force? Assault? Prosecuted? How about an investigation first?

    Gawd, America has become such a country of pussies.

  • ||

    Having spent 15 years living in Europe, often being the only American in the room, I've had to take plenty of pile-ons from snobby Eurotrash who want to blame me for every single (real or perceived--not enough socialism!) fuck-up the US ever made, as if I was personally responsible. It is self-righteous idiocy and this ritual piling on dunphy is similar. He's not responsible for these cops actions and he's already said he considers this blatant assault.

  • ||

    I based my statement on years of dunphy posts, not just the few in this thread.

  • ||

    dunphy has decried police brutality and/or criticized police behavior many times here.

    This is a feeding frenzy and you guys are just rationalizing it.

  • ||

    I'm really sad to see so many Reason readers refuse to defend free, peaceful assembly unequivocally. Yes, the occupy movement is moronic. But it is pretty clear here that students were brutally beaten while exercising their first amendment rights. That's totally inexcusable.

  • Apatheist||

    Who the fuck isn't defending free, peaceful assembly? So many readers my ass.

  • ||

    Look at the Facebook posting from Reason.

  • Apatheist||

    Lots of human garbage on there. But then what do you expect from the cesspool that is facebook. I didn't even know they posted their articles to facebook but now I know not to go back there.

  • ||

    That's like saying youtube commenters are representative of Reason readers...

  • youtube commenters ...||

    ... are representative of Reason readers

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "I'm really sad to see so many Reason readers refuse to defend free, peaceful assembly unequivocally. "

    Maybe when this force-of-numbers based Us vs Them "Occupation" starts assembling peacefully.

  • ||

    "Occupation" is not peaceful. Denying the public the use of public property is passive violence.

  • bfd||

    "brutally beaten"? Beating implies a sustained series of blows. A few people in the crowd were punched, not particularly visciously, in the stomach and and swatted a couple of times. There was no "beating".

    How are the police supposed to exercise crowd control in that situation? The crowd was acting like a mob. They weren't speaking or discussing anything rationally. They were whipping themselves into mindlessness by chanting slogans. The police couldn't just ask them to back up, although they may have tried. They only thing the police could do in that situation was to punch and swat a few people a couple of times. It is quite likely that the police had a legitimate reason to move the crowd back.

    The "mob should be allowed to do whatever it wants without interference from the police" attitude being displayed here is troubling. The police exist for a reason and it is debatable that chanting brain-dead political slogans at an event that isn't meant to advance the political discourse, but rather to obstruct, annoy and threaten qualifies as peaceful assembly to exercise free political speech.

  • 0x90||

    I like the one in the shiny blue helmet, who makes his way around the bushes (left side of the frame) at around 40s, stabs at one particular kid for awhile, and then sneaks back past the bushes again.

  • Apatheist||

    I noticed that too. He kept hitting the guy in the back of the head then kept hitting him when he had already fallen to the ground and was being pulled away. What a fucking pussy.

    This sums it up nicely:
    http://thebestpageintheunivers.....ge_to_cops

  • iamtheeviltwin||

    I missed that one the first time. The rest of the scuffle didn't appear that bad, mostly punching with the baton to push people back.

    However, the gentleman you pointed out did seem to go beyond any reasonable amount of justified force.

  • ||

    dunphy can suck my dick. For the innumerable times we've seen cops beat the piss out of peaceful people...for the innumerable times we've seen brutality by the cops go unpunished and he said "wait and see"...for the innumerable times he's defended the double standard of "protecting the brotherhood"...fuck him.

    Until he defends the right for people to stand freely and sleek their minds, which he has failed at miserably on these threads, he can kiss my fucking ass.

    He is a badge-licking fuck that deserves our disdain at every drop of the hat. He defends the indefensible regularly. He is an enabler of the corrupt system that fails to punish the most egregious of police abuses in the name of "officer safety" on a regular basis.

    He can kiss my asshole on the brownest part.

  • Apatheist||

    Then give him shit when he does that not when he calls for the cop to be prosecuted for assault. Isn't that what you want to hear from him?

  • ||

    i've never once done what he claims i have done. he's full of shit.

    i have called for cops to be prosecuted WHEN justified. e.g. paul schene. e.g this guy

    when the facts were NOT clear, i did not.

  • ||

    Haha. I'll hold my breath as people rush to defend that statement.

  • ||

    The silence of your supporters is deafening, dunphy.

  • ||

    Maybe they have jobs they have to get up in the morning for.

  • ||

    i 100% percent support the right of free speech. *i* have personally participated in street protests.

    i know officers IN MY AGENCY who were PROTeSTING at WTO.

    in fact, our admin made it clear that they would entirely support any officers who chose to protest (OFF DUTY) as long as they did out of uniform and did not break the law.

    and some did.

    i haven't licked any badges. you just see what your bigotry shows you

    this incident clearly looks like a criminal assault, and that's why i said that.

    hth

  • ||

    Hey, I don't always agree with Dunphy and I am certainly not a major fan of the police, but this seems pretty uncalled for to me. To me, just the fact that a cop is in here discussing these kind of things on a libertarian (more or less) website is pretty remarkable.

    I believe Dunphy is sincere and genuine in his views, though I think he has a certain amount of understandable bias. My disagreement with him generally stems from my notion that state authorized agents should be required to adhere to a significantly higher standard of behavior than those of us who are unauthorized and unempowered in that way and they are, instead, held to a lower standard and to a significant extent (like so many other public officials) are shielded from the consequences of their behavior. Plus there is my belief that the FIRST people to condemn the abuse of police authority should be the police themselves, rather than inclining toward protecting each other in that respect. I applaud that Dunphy finds this as offensive and indefensible as I do.

  • Apatheist||

    If they want these protests to die off and for us all to move on none of this shit is productive. Throwing flash bangs at veterans lieing bleeding on the ground and beating on little Asian girls only makes people feel sympathetic. I can only conclude that these guys care more about cracking heads than doing their jobs.

  • mt||

    Indeed, and that's likely the plan the OWS organizers have in mind. Create sympathy by forcing confrontations. If I wasn't such a skeptic and didn't have my tin foil hat on I'd almost say the progressive governments secretly want to create scenes like this. But I'm not that crazy. You don't need a conspiracy of that order, just willing useful idiots that will let themselves get beaten by over zealous LEOs, all for an Ill defined and clueless "movement" to eliminate liberty just so it can stay in the press.

  • cynical||

    How does it hurt them if people feel sympathetic to OWS? Any success ends with more tax money flowing to the state and more laws, which can only mean be good for them.

  • ||

    I have a couple of questions for those in the know (I've never been a cop):
    1- Isn't it possible that the crowd is near the flash point of a riot and could soon turn deadly?
    2- Is it possible the cop thought the woman was on drugs and more force than normal would be needed?
    3- Could the recent violent outbreaks in occupyX protests be reason to use force early?
    4- Can we see the whole picture in one small clip?

  • Apatheist||

    disgusting

  • ||

    in brief, the officer was using impact point strikes. that is not a justified level of force *if* he was trying to move the line back. and i don't see any reason to believe he was trying to accomplish that goal, which would only have been done ANWAYS by the whole line at once, which clearly wasn't the case.

    i'm a UOF instructor. i teach this shit. firearms and use of force stuff.

    i really can't imagine how this could be justified. maybe there is something i am missing, but i strongly doubt it.

    it looks egregiously wrong.

    i say that from a UOF perspective and from legal analysis. i am not talking about it "looking bad" in the respect that anytime a riot gear wearing cop strikes somebody it is going to "look bad".

    i mean it looks like a CRIME.

  • Apatheist||

    Is there any situation short of her brandishing a gun where that tiny woman could pose a threat to full grown man in riot gear? I mean if there is a drug out there that turns her into River from Firefly I want to try that shit. Even in a full blown riot why would he be wasting his time beating on her? I sure hope that guy was trolling because all four of those questions are retarded.

  • ||

    Ask him what happens when a cop shoots an unarmed guy in the back and says he drew the wrong weapon. Then ask him what happens when a "civilian" does the same.

  • ||

    when you can show me a case where a civilian was in the exact same situation and similarly armed with two weapons, then we can talk

    i've never seen such a situation

    balko was right.

    he should have been convicted of involuntary manslaughter and he was.

    but i find it telling that no matter what i say or do, you will always find some past thing to drum up to try to 'prove' your case.

    how about for once, let's talk about the instant case.

    clearly, we disagree on the BART shooting. so, why keep rehashing the same shit

  • ||

    Fair enough.

    If two "civilians" walked up to a guy in a wheelchair and beat him unmercifully because he "had a bottle of booze with him," (that ultimately didn't exist) and had talked shit to them, then falsified a police report about it, lied in a sworn statement about it, etc, etc, etc...

  • ||

    i'm not even going to begin to address the gender and size issues, because i think this is (a rather sad fact for a libertarian site) a card people here play too often. iow, if the force would have been justified based on her behavior and she happened to be a woman or a man, the gender is not the issue.

    the law is, and should be gender neutral and women are not automatically nonthreats any more than men automatically are.

    there's a reflexive will to "go there".

    clearly, if she was brandishing a gun, the cop would have been justified in doing what he was doing, but imo he would have been doing it entirely differently, and it wouldn't have looked like this.

    honestly, imo i am close to certain that he simply just lost his temper. that's what it looked like to me.

    it looked like rage.

    what i see is a woman who has her ARMS locked with the people next ot her

    completely nonviolent and nonthreatening

    maybe i am missing something

    i am NOT omnipotent. :)

    but all i see is rage, and excessive force and blatant assault

  • Apatheist||

    Its not about gender, she is just clearly physically incapable of posing a threat to that cop. We can be PC all we want but some people are going to be de facto less of a threat than others. A huge strong person would not deserve a beating any more than her using the same behavior but the OP suggested the mere fact that she could have been drugs was enough to consider whether extra force was needed.

    I'm saying that even if all four of his absurd propositions turned out to be true she still couldn't be a threat (short of having a deadly weapon).

  • ||

    jesus christ, that is simply horseshit. it just amazes me that alleged libertarians play that card.

    i don't CARE what her fucking gender is.

    but i don't know how SHE is "physically incapable" of posing a threat.

    i work with a woman who is a pretty good MMA fighter and i have posted about her before. she is trying out for the SWAT team. she's strong, she's fast, and she's got great fucking hands.

    in street clothes, she wouldn't look any more "threatening" than this "clearly physically incapable" woman

    so let's stop dealing with IRRelevancies.

    i think the gender shit is ridiculous. the same reasonoids who don't buy into the whole victimology issues that libs play with gender and race vis a vis economics, etc. all of a sudden play the EXACT same cards vis a vis police (and many play the race card with illegal immigration, too)

    i find that very telling

    the force is unjustified (and imo apparently criminal) because of what i saw. it would be NO different is she was a he.

  • 77343393||

    I personally know a couple of things that a tiny, out-of-condition person, man or woman, can do to render a large, physically imposing person incapacitated in about 2 seconds. And no, I'm not talking about kicking someone in the nuts. Anybody can be a physical threat if they know what they are doing, even if they are unarmed.

  • JohnD||

    Yeah Apatheist, disgusting. How dare someone not automatically assume the worst of the cops and wonder if there was a reason for their response.
    Speaking of disgust, you are a disgusting piece of shit.

  • Apatheist||

    barf

  • ||

    This post is resting a heavy case on some pretty thin reeds that are then followed with question marks. Frankly, your objections sound pretty post-hoc and ridiculous. Still, kudos to you for using your real name (unlike me and everyone else.)

  • chris||

    'Stop beating students' is a weak chant. 'Keep the blood flowing. You don't know where I have been, Lou!' would have made them think twice.

  • ||

    I thought they were chanting "Stop BEING students".

    In context, that made more sense. Like they were trying to get the non-trust-fund kids -- attending classes to learn marketable skills -- to join them.

  • Dave||

    I was wondering why they were chanting "Stop these students". Your version makes more sense.

  • chris||

    Beat us! Cut us! We'll give you Super AIDS!

  • ||

    most agencies # them for accountability. each helmet individually identifies the officer

  • jtuf||

    I visited Occupy Wall Street today. It was rather calm. One guy lamented that he couldn't get any of this fellow protesters to confront the police so that he could film it and post it for the sake of the cause. It's encouraging that no one was following his advice.

  • ||

    Why didn't he give his camera to someone else and confront the police himself?

  • anonymous||

    I saw one cop whose aggressiveness looked like excessive force, namely the unreasonable use of a weapon. The others seemed somewhat restrained. I guess "police brutality" is term of art because from the headline I was expecting bloodshed, broken bones, or a bunch of cops stomping all over somebody like Rodney King. There's much worse that happens to people in jails, as Reason readers are well aware. You can call the worse stuff police bloody murder to mark the difference, but it would be a shame if the word brutality were to lose the ability to evoke those more violent incidents.

  • jtuf||

    Since you bring it up, anonymous, if a 19 year old woman has sex with a 16 year old boy, is it rape? ( http://news.discovery.com/tech.....11108.html )

    20-year-old Mariah Yeater is suing 17-year-old Justine Bieber for allegedly fathering her 3-month-old child. Working backwards, I figure she was 19 and he was 16 at the alleged time of conception. That's statutory rape in California where the alleged incident took place, and the LAPD might press charges ( http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/en.....escalates/ ), but you don't see much of a media outcry. Even in statutory rape cases, there are degrees.

  • anonymous||

    Wow. Given that 16 is the age of consent in many jurisdictions and romeo (juliet) exceptions commonly allow age gaps, I'm surprised that it could be considered statutory rape, but if the law defines 16-year-olds as children and forbids people over 18 from having sex with them, then yes it is rape. Not every rape is the rape of Nanking, or with less brutality (and more controversy over the meaning of "rape"), the rape of the Sabine women.

    You have a good point. Like I intimated, I accept that the term "police brutality" is term of art. I expect legal definitions of police brutality or misconduct vary from place to place, so there surely are gray areas. There's something about calling this incident "straight up police brutality" which seems like journalistic sensationalism to me, but, again, that's not say the incident doesn't qualify as an instance of police brutality.

  • ||

    brutality is not a legal term . assault is (or assault and battery in some states).

    excessive force is a better term, because force can very often appear BRUTAL (it's hard not be brutal when you are striking somebody with a baton. but it may or may not JUSTIFIED or excessive)

    this imo looks like more than excessive force.

    it looks like criminal assault

    realize also that a lot of minor "assaults' aren't charged in the real world against normal people. i mean a shove in a bar , stuff like that. but those are technically (usually) actual assaults

    this is imo an assault that rises to the level (iow not de minimus) where prosecution would be warranted

  • anonymous||

    It sure doesn't look right.

    I'm looking at California law and assault would fit the bill, but I'm not convinced it would be a slam-dunk. I'd think a civil suit alleging unreasonable use of a weapon would have a very good chance. And there are all the elements needed for something called a section 1983 claim, but IANAL, so this all comes with a big fat grain of salt.

  • ||

    fwiw, assume arguendo before the cop attacked, this person DID make some kind of threat.

    so what? there is such a thing as the "true threats" standard etc.

    cops on a riot line should ASSUME that people are going to try to say whatever they can to MAKE cops overreact.

    like i said, a guy repeatedly called my partner the "N" word which is pretty fucking egregious. he WANTED a reaction. he didn't get it. although eventually a couple of his co-protesters told HIM he was being a racist piece of shit and to knock it off.

    but again, i don't really care what, if anything, this person said to the cop. considering the circ's, the cop should have gone "whatever". attacking the person if they truly were a threat, the way the cop did, would be doubly stupid.

    what this LOOKS LIKE to me is simply a cop who lost his temper. you can see it in his movements, etc.

    and imo it looks like assault.

  • ||

    If somebody did that to me, even if I was screaming in his direction, I would have been justified in shooting the fucker. But the typical Californian from that "zone" is 1) a pussy, 2) a pussy, 3) a damned pussy, 4) unarmed, and 5) unwilling to confront agents of government.

    I'm guessing he would have gotten life without parole had he pulled a piece and shot the assailant cop. Double standards, eh?

  • ||

    omg. it's always double standardz. derp derp derp!

  • bfd||

    If somebody did that to me, even if I was screaming in his direction, I would have been justified in shooting the fucker.

    In your own mind maybe, but legally, no. If you had shot a cop in that situation, you would probably be thrown in prison and given the task of picking up all the bars of soap from the floor of the showers and rightly so. Nobody's life was being threatened and nobody was being threatened with severe bodily injury. I also doubt that most juries would have any sympathy for you.

  • Rothbard those kids!||

    The POLICe must protect the POLIS' property values or I'll call my POLITician and ask for better POLIcy.

  • barfman||

    *barf*

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    What were they chanting at the end there?

  • ||

    It was either "stop beating students" or "stop eating students," I can't tell.

  • ||

    Any private detectives out there. I'll bet you could make a killing getting addressees of the thugs who do this sort of thing.

    After their organizations clear them with completely above board internal investigations, separating them from the tribe and having a little 4 on 1 discussion in their front entry way might deter future misconduct.

  • ||

    Or just look for the take home unit in the driveway.

  • ||

    Because morning links don't go up until mid-afternoon I'll ask here: What do y'all think of the Paterno shake up at penn?

    I think that they've wanted a reason to fire the old man for a long time, but his popularity has been too high for such action. Now, if it's found that he covered for or enabled a pederast then string 'im up, but it seems as though he's being scapegoated.

  • ||

    Scapegoated to protect whom?

    The president is kiboshed as well.

  • ||

    That's it? Where is the blood? The dead and the maimed? I was promised police brutality dammit! They couldn't even knock down the little chick. The tall guy still had an attitude.

    I would like to see the previous 5 minutes to this thing - looked like something that had been escalating for a while.

    Here's some police brutality:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

  • ||

    It looks like the first pig to take the punch is getting orders from the white shirt pig, then turns around and start whaling.

    Note to Pigs: If you do get orders to move the line, the first person you punch in the guts shouldn't be the little asian lady.

    RE: Dunphy. Mr. Dunphy has already proven his libertarian bonofides as far as I am concerned. And Dunphy is not a piñata to beat for the sins of all the other pigs out there. That is just as stupid as beating on women for the sins of Eve.

    Hell, I used to be a prosecutor, but I don't get any shit. And, IMHO, a the prosecutors of this once great nation have more answer for than front line pigs. Hell, many people who post here post from nice cushy government jobs but no one rails against them.

    And this is UC/Berkely, so these are just likely snarky punk ass unemployed hippies. And I thought one of the acceptable "*"'s of the libertarian No Harm Principle was beating up on hippies.

  • Libertarianism||

    Ha ha. We call cops "pigs."

  • hmm||

    Were these expert baton wielders or merely civilians with batons?

    Kinda makes you wonder what would have happened if someone defended themselves. (other than the obvious being beat to death)

  • GILMORE||

    What this protest needs is more instigated violence, and fewer ideas....

  • GILMORE||

    Were they chanting, "Stop being students?"

  • ||

    Apologists for the police state: Just following orders is getting pretty old as a defense, and they are just dirty hippies is almost as bad.

    Armored cop clubbing unarmed woman because he knows he can get away with it. Way to miss the fucking point.

  • KPres||

    Actually, "they are just dirty hippies" sounds pretty good to me.

    I don't care when murderers murder murderers.

    I don't care when thieves steal from thieves.

    I don't care when the state beats up statists.

    Seriously, these "innocent" hippies want to use state violence against people who've done them no harm whatsoever. Why should I care when somebody does a turnabout on them?

  • Comment Tater||

    I don't care when the state beats up statists.

    Nice. Would your parents/grandparents on Medicare qualify as "statists" too?
    It's OK to swing a truncheon at a little old lady cashing her SS check?

  • ||

    Troy,

    How many potheads did you throw in the WOD dungeon system, and are you proud of yourself?

  • ||

    0. Yes.

  • ||

    And if Dunphy can defend the murder of a marine veteran by the Pima County SWAT team then he deserves to be piled on. If you are that fucking blind, then maybe you need to be shown he light.

    Or have the candy beaten out of you, whichever.

  • ||

    Dunphy can defend himself, but I am pretty sure i remember his remarks were pretty tough against those pigs. But you know what, I don't think you are really a Loather of Cops. I think you are a federal troll. So you Feds, suck my cock.

  • ||

    if you are talking about guerana, it wasn't a murder. calling it murder begs the question

    i read the actual forensic reports, etc.

    it was justified.

    the UOF specifically.

    they had some piss poor tactics, but the actual shooting of the homeowner was justified under the law as far as I am concerned.

    but again, who the fuck cares? let's talk about this case. we can agree to disagree on guerana. i already explained why i thought it was justified, and the evidence supports my POV.

    that's over and done with . this one isn't

  • ||

    I'm surprised this story of (seemingly) blatant excessive use of force never got any play at Reason. Unless I overlooked it.

    http://gizmodo.com/5857129/an-.....-no-reason

  • *||

    Observations three:

    1) The cop that starts it all appears to have stripes on his sleeve. One of the few there that does. Whether or not he's taking orders from elsewhere, *he* seems to be in charge of that group in the immediate area. His helmet says "14", but there appears to be a character prefix, maybe "#14", but it's hard to tell.

    2) The video clearly shows him looking around first. My guess is he's looking for TV cameras, or cameras that might have a good angle on him. He sees it's all clear, then starts the assault. (Note to self: self, not only keep the cameras running, try to have one overhead)

    3) I forget number three. Oops.

  • D||

    I wouldn't say the students are completely innocent. If you listen carefully you can hear some guy at the very beginning say "Give em shit" and then before the cop starts swinging you hear him say "We're moving forward" and then he says "Move" right before the cop starts swinging. The police definitely overreact though and it seems they would be smart enough to realize at this point that they must be extra careful with their actions because they are continuously watched and recorded.

    Just seems a little dishonest to say straight up police brutality when there was some provocation going on.

    Thoughts other than the police obviously overacted...I've got that part?

  • *||

    subtle troll is subtle

  • Fatty Bolger||

    That's the cop who makes the first jab talking, and apparently he looks around to make sure the other cops can hear him and are in place before they start the "move forward."

    Not sure what he says the first two times - sounds something like "Code 6" but it's really hard to tell.

  • ||

    Right when the video starts the protestor is gesturing to the camera - like "watch this". He is obviously trying to get the cops to react.

    I'd like to see the preceding minutes before hand - did they purposely approach the police? Or vice-versa?

  • ||

    the cop was delivering impact strikes to somebody standing with some other people with his arms locked. sorry, but unless there are facts not in evidence that somehow justify BATON STRIKES in this case (i am not saying it's impossible, but i am hard pressed to imagine what they could be), i am calling this an assault by the cop

    and that is not a term i use lightly.

  • ||

    At some point, I just don't care if these people are getting beat downs from the cops. I live in DC, and after this weekend at the AFP event, I'm done with OWS. IMHO, once you are told the party is over, it's time to go home. If you want to dare the police to move you, don't be surprised when they do. I have more of an issue with them knocking 78 year old women down a flight of stairs than I do with watching cops whack these clowns with batons.

  • Comment Tater||

    once you are told the party is over, it's time to go home

    I think you're missing their point, their only point: to occupy a space. That's it. No coherent philosophy or agenda, no leadership (individualism is bad!) no goals other than to occupy a space. It's the least ambitious "movement" since John and Yoko stayed in bed.

  • ||

    it really doesn't matter, as far as UOF

    let's assume these protesters are actually the worst of the worst. neo-nazi communist fascist fundamentalist vegan deep dish pie eaters.

    it doesn't fucking matter.

    force is not justified based on whether or not the person receiving the force is sympathetic or not

    i know many reasonoid bigots like the play that card, in cases of perceived police brutality, but it's irrelevant to justification

  • bfd||

    force is not justified based on whether or not the person receiving the force is sympathetic or not

    True, but it has a heck of a lot to do with whether or not the force is excused.

  • ||

    not ime.

    rodney king was a fucking piece of shit, for example.

  • ||

    sick

  • anarch||

    dunphy: It's fucking disgusting

    How do we know without all the evidence?

  • Your Teacher||

    C-

  • Kristen||

    Fucking bunch of fucking hypocrites up in here. Nice to know your hatred of cop brutality only applies when the victims aren't dirty liberal hippies (and believe me, my dislike of dirty liberal hippies is just as strong as yours). Fuck all you unprincipled corpsefucking douchehammers. You're just as thuggish and statist as the dirty hippies and privileged hipsters - you just want the state to work for you. I live in the DC area and I've seen protest after protest after protest broken up merely by breaking out the zip ties and carting the hippies away in a paddy wagon without anyone getting a beatdown.

  • bfd||

    I've seen protest after protest after protest broken up merely by breaking out the zip ties and carting the hippies away in a paddy wagon

    The Berkeley police don't have nearly enough money in their budget to cart off all of the protestors at all the protests on campus. Protests are way more common than rain at Berkeley.

  • ||

    No, Dunphy defended he right of Pima County SWAT to riddle a veteran with bullets in their continued war on plants. He criticized their "tactics", whatever the fucking hell that means.

    So fuck you too, Troy. Your homosexual overtures don't interest me. Dunphy might be available for tongue action, if you'll dress up like a cop.

  • ||

    i defended their shooting as legally justifiable . because it was

  • ||

    Brutality is brutality. If they'll beat a homeless man to death while yelling "stop resisting", who says your mother or son or grandfather is safe? If a gang of black clad commando wannabes take a dislike to your outnumbered and unarmed ass, you are dead. Your family might get a payout from the city with no admission of wrongdoing (procedures were followed, all 6 dash cams failed at once), but you will still be dead.

    It was a stupid movie overall, but when the cop shoots the little girl near the end of V for Vendetta and the crowd moves to tear the cop limb from limb is probably how this whole cop vs non cop thing shakes out.

  • Dello||

    When I started the vid, I had the Pirates of the Caribbean theme playing in the background.

    It was awesome.

  • Thom||

    They deserved it because they are entitled lazy do-nothing hippy zeroes, AMIRIGHT???

  • ||

    Wow, they hit that skinny college kid hard enough to kinda stagger him a little bit. I bet he even has a small bruise!
    Whahhh.

    These idiots go to these "protests" with one goal in mind - provoke a cop so you can get on You Tube.

  • protestor||

    No way man. I don't want to get hit by a cop. I just want to get laid and score some weed.

  • ||

    America used to work. The people had work. The system worked. Hey, EVEN the Congress used to work...(sometimes). God knows, it was far, far, far from perfect - but at least we all had some share in the struggles AND the rewards. But somewhere along the way, we lost our way. And now we seem to have an economy and a political system that works only for the rich. What they call "trickle down economics"... just leaves most of us out in the cold cold rain. We need to get back to what America was, and what it should be, and what it can be.  Occupy Wall Street is no longer just  a place called  Zuccotti Park -  Zuccotti Park is everywhere. You can try to pen us in, you can beat us and arrest us, you can mace and tear-gas us , and you can try to "permit" us to death....but you can't kill an idea. You can't keep down a people’s hopes and dreams for a better life.....a life with dignity and freedom....for us... for our kids. More power to Occupy Wall Street, as it spreads to every town and city - because  OWS is us, and for us, and by us. It comes up from the grassroots, and it lifts us up in turn. With OWS America has found it’s voice, and that voice demands fairness and justice. This land IS our land! AND WE WANT IT BACK! ...We want our lives back!... We want our future back! ....So why not take some time, find a quiet place somewhere, and consider this: Each of us has only one brief life...one chance...and many choices. It’s time to choose...and to act. If not now...then when? If not you, then... who? You DO have the power my friend....and the choice is yours.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement