Occupy Wall Street Response Suddenly Causes Middle Class White People to See Law Enforcement In New Light

At right is a picture of Keith Gessen, editor of the pro-OWS literary journal N+1 and author of All The Sad Young Literary Men, a readable bildungsroman about a gang of hyper-literate belly buttons who just want to be successful, and happy. In case you cannot tell, Gessen is being arrested in this picture, for protesting at Occupy Wall Street. I discovered the image on Twitter, where one can watch the revolution happen in real time. It was captioned thusly: "This is crazy. Skinny intellectuals are no danger." 

It's unlikely that fat and/or stupid protesters are any more a danger than Gessen, but I see the captioner's point. Harmless, if obnoxious people, are getting the crap kicked out of them by cops at Occupy protests across the country. In Berkeley, one officer beat a young female student in the stomach completely unprovoked. In Seattle, police sprayed an inch-thick stream of pepper spray into a crowd, hitting an 86-year-old woman and an expectant mother, among others, square in their faces. Journalists who have never covered protests before, much less spent time on a police beat, are getting clubbed, gassed, and cuffed alongside their unwashed and unruly story subjects. 

The responses of police departments and Democrat-run municipalities is causing a much needed paradigm shift. The Occupy Wall Street movement is composed largely of people who have never before been cuffed to anything but a headboard, if that. Many of them are white, and some of them are probably urban gentrifiers, which means their previous attitudes toward police likely ranged from indifferent to fond. And now those same cops, who used to only screw with blacks and hispanics, are suddenly going after highly educated, well-bred, pale-faces, AKA "skinny intellectuals."

This is not how police are supposed to work seems to be the prevailing sentiment. Also: Some crimes are worse than others, and blocking a street is not one of the bad ones. Which crimes are worse, and why, is a great question for OWS supporters to consider. If getting pepper-sprayed and batoned for the minor crime of blocking traffic is absolutely outrageous, how much crazier is it to knock down someone's door in the middle of the night, shoot his pets, point a gun at his wife, and call child services all because he had some pot in his house? Do OWS participants think they could see themselves protesting no-knock raids, now that they've been inconvenienced for an afternoon? (If not, that's OK. But it's something they should think about next time they want to tell a stranger that they're doing what they're doing for anybody other than themselves.) 

Police militarization and the unchecked power of the state are not issues at the root of OWS. But the debate has shifted somewhat from what OWS should be able to take away from Wall Street, to what the State should not be able to take away from OWS. This is good, because negative rights are good, and also, they are crumbling.

Which is why I'd encourage all of you in OWS (sorry, been doing a lot of that lately) to think about the politicians you elect, and all the ways you've helped increase the size and scope of the state because you couldn't imagine it shoving a boot up your white, well-behaved ass. Think about the public workers who you've supported carte blanche—firemen, teachers, police officers—and their unions, and the power those unions have to shield their members from accountability and reform. Because the political check you cut yesterday paid for the gut-check you received today. 

[Photo of Keith Gessen by Daniel Massey]

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.

  • ||

    Yes, the statists and the Stupefiers don't see the connection between advocating for unlimited government and the actions of a not-very-limited government.

    What's interesting is that the overreaction of governments to this silliness is giving it more credibility (still not very much) than it ever could've had on its own.

  • ||

    I am not sure many people in the general public care. If these clowns keep holding up traffic, most people are going to want to volunteer to crack their heads open.

  • teh rael o3||

    so mike, how does one reconcile "intellectuals are no danger" w the resident RW meme (like john above) that OWS is repulsive?

  • ||

    it's a stupid meme anyways because the guy wasn't getting arrested because he was or wasn't "a danger" . he was getting arrested, because he (ostensibly) broke the law

    granted, if this handcuffed man had been shot or whatever, THEN the argument htat he was "no danger" would make sense. cops aren't supposed to shoot people who don't represent a threat, generally speaking.

    but as for arrest? it's an irrelevancy, generally speaking

  • ||

    the vast majority of alleged police brutality incidents... aren't. like the video i posted that is garnering outrage at DU

    sure, an old lady got pepper sprayed. it LOOKS bad

    the reality was, she was in the middle of the street at rush hour, and the crowd had been given multiple orders to disperse... iow get the fuck out of the street, and they didn't

    polls are showing OWS is losing support rapidly. even amongst democrats.

    granted, given riotous, chaotic situations, there WILL be excessive force on occasion, and even justified force almost always looks ugly.

    if anything, the OWS assmunches have proven that the cops have been remarkably restrained, considering the levels of criminal assmunchery they are dealing with.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Pepper spray is not an appropriate method to get people out of a street. What the fuck is wrong with you?

  • Cytotoxic||

    So what is?

  • Fluffy Got Demoted||

    It depends on what the people are doing to try to remain in the street.

    If they are passively laying down, you can get in there and pick them up and carry them out.

    If they are fighting you physically, you can pepper spray them to incapacitate them.

    But trying to overcome passive resistance by inflicting pain to get people to comply (pepper spray, taser, sonic weapon, billy club) is all police brutality.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    They can pull people one by one. If an individual gets violent, then some type of force is justified against that person. I have a problem with the cops initiating force on a general crowd that is not posing any physical threat.

  • ||

    and when you have a crowd that vastly outnumbers the police, and you have downtown seattle rush hour traffic which is a COMPLETE cluster fuck, and you have given multiple orders to disperse, pepper spray IS a legitimate force option.

    i guess we'll just disagree on this.

    if they had been sitting down in, for example, a bank... where the cops would have ample time to get proper staffing to make all the arrests, etc. then i would agree with you. if the cops had gotten the proper staffing, waded in, and arrested the people one by one etc. it would have taken hours, and i don't think that's a good idea, when you have downtown seattle traffic backing up during rush hour.

    i would suggest the vast majority of commuters would agree

  • Destrudo||

    I'm shocked at myself, but I'm going to agree with the dunphmeister for once. Pepper spray them if they don't comply with orders and are holding up traffic. Assemble somewhere that's maybe oh, not the middle of the fucking road when I'm trying to get home from work. If it was tea party people in the road I would feel the same way.

  • The Derider||

    Libertarians love their public roads once OWS takes them away.

  • Brandon||

    Really pathetic attempt at a gotcha.

  • ||

    I guess the traditional answer is that in a libertarian society, roads would be private property, so owners could rightly evict the protesters, by force if necessary.

    Regardless, they are owned "in common", OWS doesn't have the right to block their use by other taxpayers any more than the police have the right to block OWS's use of a park.

  • ||

    If it was the Tea Party they would have just opened fire and nobody would have cared.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    I am aware that when there are thousands of people, pulling them one by one will have no effect. And it does not excuse using weapons like pepper spray just because it is more efficient. Or because it will enable travel times that people desire.

  • ||

    it most definitely DOES excuse using weapons like pepper spray

    fwiw i've been peppper sprayed three fucking times in training. it sucks. it's not the end of the world.

    these people could have chosen a better place to protest. choosing to block downtown seattle during rush hour, sorry...

  • ##||

    You admit that pulling them out of a large crowd one by one would have no effect and then go on to say that more aggressive measures are uncalled for. Since asking nicely didn't work, what exactly do you suggest that they do instead, just let them stay there and break the law?

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Breaking the law by blocking a street that no one is entitled to in the first place. I'm not really outraged by it.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Going to have to agree with the Dunphy here. The counterarguments are weak. Although water cannons/firehoses should perhaps be used first.

  • ||

    Actually we're all entitled to it, as we're all forced to pay for it. If it's common property, they don't have the right to intentionally block us from using it.

  • Mike||

    If you've seen the video, or heard her account (or the account of the reverend who also got pepper sprayed)... she wasn't in the middle of the street; no one was. The cops had already pushed everyone back onto the sidewalk before they deployed pepper spray.

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon||

  • Art Vandelay||

    They can pull people one by one.

    Before or after the mandatory hot oil back rubs?

  • ||

    Snow Plow?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Bulldozer.

  • ||

    So what is?

    Hand them a jaywalking ticket.

    Other then that nothing is...reroute traffic. Hurting poeple because they are holding up traffic is bullshit.

    What the fuck is wrong with you?

    To answer your question Dunphy is the resident apologist for police brutality....he also reports to be a former or current cop...don't know which. I really do not care. He is a dick and his opinion on these issues is generally crap.

  • ##||

    You have got to be kidding, a jaywalking ticket??? Yeah, you try rerouting traffic in downtown Seattle during rush hour on the spur of the moment and see how well that works. Blocking traffic, refusing to obey a lawful order to disperse, and creating a danger to yourself, the officers, and the people driving is a damned sight worse than jaywalking. If you get pepper sprayed for your trouble then you have no one to blame but yourself. In fact, I would expect to be pepper sprayed or worse and that's exactly what these people are trying to do in order to gain sympathy from people like you.

  • Ice Cream Bunny||

    Hurting poeple because they are holding up traffic is bullshit.

    Holding up the unimpeded movement of hospital ambulances, and endangering the lives of those innocents within -- solely in service of selfishly redistributionist "protest" -- is bullshit.

    Thwarting the swift, direct progress of fire engines, thereby endangering both the lives and property of the blameless -- again, solely in service of selfishly redistributionist "protest" -- is bullshit.

    Pretending not to know any of this, or else simply not giving a damn: Super-Secret Double Probation Bullshit.

  • alienrants||

    Bunny Pwnage. +50.

  • ##||

    Come now Bunny, I'm sure that if the aforementioned 86 year old woman had a heart attack instead of being pepper sprayed that she wouldn't mind waiting an hour or two for police to reroute enough traffic to get an ambulance to her. After all, it's for a good cause with no coherent demands or workable solutions. Besides, it would give the police time to issue her a jaywalking ticket.

  • Ice Cream Bunny||

    The absolute last sound our poor, elderly dear would ever hear in this life, as the distant wail of ambulance sirens physically and literally incapable of reaching her dwindled and faded in the distance:

    "... but we're doing this for YOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUU --!"

  • cynical||

    Granting legal immunity to normal traffic for any tragic, but unforeseeable protestor deaths that occur when it is given the all clear to move forward as though the protestors are not there.

  • ||

    That when it comes to cops, corruption and brutality, Dumphuck has a blind spot the size of Texas?

  • ||

    no, but thanx for the hyperbole

  • ||

    Yes, you do.

    You insist that anything bad that goes on amongst cops is some minor thing and not really entrenched, despite any and all evidence to the contrary.

    Hell, you insisted that we didn't have enough evidence when Kelly Thomas had his face turned to hamburger when you defended the Fullerton Six.

    You won't even turn in one of your own if s/he is breaking the law/abusing their police powers.

    Big. Fucking. Blind. Spot.

  • wareagle||

    let's dump on the cops and glorify human debris that seems intent on provoking confrontation, that believes itself to have a right to take over property indefinitely, and which NEVER goes away passively. Look at any video of a cop arresting an OWS person; not a one of the protesters is peacefully going..

  • ||

    let's dump on the cops and glorify human debris

    No glorification here. The OWSer are pure idiots. Still pure idiots don;t need to be beaten down by the government. Let them protest. In a free country we should be able to handle a little crowd of annoying idiots.

    And mostly I blame the government for not reigning in the cops. Dunphy is correct that they are breaking the "law". it is a stupid law and it is a stupid overreaching and brutal government that allows cops to enforce it with violence...but there it is.

  • ||

    we did NOT have enough evidence merely based on how kelly's face looked. and when the evidence was there, i supported the prosecution

    again, police use of force is VERY rare in general, deadly force even rarer, and the facts simply don't support your meme.

    period.

    i have been as fierce a critic of police excessive force as anybody WHEN there is reason to conclude thusly

    otoh, like in cases like guerana where the shooting WAS justified, i did not jump to conclusions. and guess what? the shooting was justified.

    but again, you always want to make this into some big meta collective responsibility wank

    in regards to OWS, which is what this thread is about, the cops have been VERY restrained, and frankly i'm proud of how restrained they have been doing a very difficult, stressful, scary job.

    there are a metric assloads of videos etc. and they go to show the remarkable police restraint.

    that's simply the facts

  • ||

    Shorter Dunphy: I turn my eyes away when the evidence before me is incontrovertible! So I don't have to criticise as much!

    Seriously though, how did Mr Thomas end up in the state he was in when the only other people in his immediate vicinity all wore police badges? And everyone who was there all saw what went down? We even have video evidence of what happened.

    But no. Dunphy thinks we don't have enough proof that this was police brutality. No. There has to be some other reason for Mr Thomas' condition. Fullerton's Finest can't possibly have done something so horrible! They were just doing their jobs!

    You'll excuse anything, Dumphuck, you waste of space and good genetic material.

  • ||

    no, we have to have good evidence

    hth

  • ||

    Like what?

    They were the only people in Mr Thomas' immediate vicinity that night, and Mr Thomas did not look like he did before the altercation. But he sure did after his encounter with the police.

    Also it was caught on camera.

    And the police department fucking lied about it to the media before Friends For Fullerton's Future uncovered the real story.

    What "good evidence" do you need?

    [I'm getting the impression from you, even with all this staring you in the face that you just don't want it to be true, 'cause it fucks up your narrative that bad cops are a rarity in this world, despite all evidence to the contrary.]

  • Cytotoxic||

    Silver Fox kills the strawman!

  • ||

    there are a metric assloads of videos etc. and they go to show the remarkable police restraint.

    Because when you know you're being filmed, you have to be on your best behaviour or tomorrow you'll be in a court of law. That's why the cops hate being video recorded so much.

  • ||

    even if true, so what? again, riggs et al are claiming rampant brutality against the OWS'ers

    it's simply not true

    regardless of WHY, it's not happening.

    the police should be APPLAUDED, but i realize reason can't do that

  • ||

    I wasn't talking about the OWSers.

    Personally though, I wonder how they would've acted if they thought they wouldn't be filmed.

    Would they still show the same level of restraint as the angels-in-blue you see cops as also show?

  • ||

    again, who fucking cares?

    this is a thread about OWS'ers and alleged police brutality.

    and riggs didn't do his homework e.g. the poor old woman pepper sprayed

    there is no epidemic of police brutality vis a vis the OWS'ers

    there is a laudable record of restraint in scores of incidents, with a few incidents of police brutality.

    considering the # of incidents, # of protesters, # of cops, etc. it's a very positive record for the cops

  • ||

    "considering the # of incidents, # of protesters, # of cops, etc. it's a very positive record for the cops
    Ah, see.. there's the problem. Police departments consider one bad apple in the bunch to be just one bad apple. Everyone else with even a trace of competence or moral conviction aims for a 100% success rate, 0 incidents. The fact that you're okay with >0 incidents is a little worrisome.

  • ||

    If the Stupefiers move from being perceived as rebels without a cause to victims, this all could change really quickly. And don't forget, this is activism without any real leadership, but make them victims, and unsavory people will jump in to lead these very easily led fools into something perhaps more damaging.

    The kids need to realize that their economic problems stem much more from an intrusive and unrestricted government than anything else. Want a job? Want even an artsy job with pay? You need a strong economy. To get that, we need less government, less taxation, and more freedom.

  • ||

    They intentionally try to create an untenable position. Ignore them and they tear shit up and shut down the city. Disperse them and they claim to be victims. That is why I have little sympathy for them. They are pulling this shit in hopes the cops do something bad and they can whine about it. That hardly makes them innocent victims.

  • ||

    Yes, I do think they're bringing a lot of this on themselves, but the governments need to be careful. Force is justified in some cases but only reasonable force.

  • Paul||

    This. If these are just skinny intellectuals, gently ask them to leave as a row of cops hold their hands up saying, "Move along, move along".

    Also, if the cops aren't using unreasonable force, then video recordings will help their cause, not hurt it.

  • ||

    imo, the videos ARE helping the police AND losing OWS support. OWS is losing support in polling data. sure, there have been some excessive force, but the force overwhelmingly has been restrained and most of the videos i see on youtube makes the cops look sympathetic, not the protesters.

  • Maxxx||

    And then what do you do when they refuse to move along?

  • ||

    Call in the scoops.

  • Paul||

    And then what do you do when they refuse to move along?

    As someone who's been in handcuffs during my misspent youth, I can assure you that you can peacefully arrest someone without incident-- if they're willing to go.

    Again, video taping here will help the cops more than it'll hurt them.

  • ||

    Yep. Majority of Americans are okay with police brutality.. as long as it's against those they disagree with.
    I wish I was kidding, but this seems to be the case.

  • ||

    Yes, let's not forget that the #1 goal of many of these people is to get themselves arrested. Preferably with some violence.
    You get to post yourself all over YouTube being "beaten by the man." You get instant cred with all the hippie chicks being a martyr for the cause. And you get to pad your "revolutionary" resume.

    Not arresting them would be more of a punishment, unfortunately the Police don't have the option of just standing around doing nothing as the law is broken.

  • Chris||

    And don't forget, this is activism without any real leadership, but make them victims, and unsavory people will jump in to lead these very easily led fools into something perhaps more damaging.

    It's too late. The revolutionary cadre has already formed. Over the past two months they have bonded and developed a hive mind much like radical groups in the sixties. The next several years will see terrorist actions similar to the Weathermen movement of the 60's. Likely worse, given our social institutions are inclined to support them.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    It could be as long as several decades. And multiple opposing groups.

  • ||

    This is crazy. Skinny intellectuals are no danger

    There are a few hundred million dead bodies from the 20th Century who would disagree.

  • ||

    In this case, I'm not too worried. The people protesting don't much represent "the people"--maybe not at all--and they most certainly aren't the intelligentsia behind any revolt.

  • Paul||

    Wha?!! They're 99% of the people! I read it on their signs!

  • ||

    That was clearly something some ad agency type came up with, but it's amazingly stupid. Too many people react by saying, "Um, they don't speak for me, my family, my friends, my neighbors. 99% of what?"

  • Paul||

    I believe that Ad Agency was AdBusters.

  • ||

    That's what I've heard. What a load of crap this all is.

  • Coeus||

    I believe that Ad Agency was AdBusters.

    That is a seriously Orwellian name for a political PR group.

  • Mainer||

    Alot of people likely cannot comprehend the enormity of the horrors that governments inflicted on their citizens in the 20th century.

  • Apatheist||

    Stalin and Mao weren't exactly skinny.

  • ||

    But Lenin and Pot, arguably the two worst were. And so was Hitler, although I guess you could argue he wasn't strictly speaking an intellectual.

  • Apatheist||

    You know who else was an unemployed artist?

  • Apatheist||

    and I disagree, you said a few hundred million dead, which can only refer to Stalin and Mao.

  • ||

    Stalin was nothing but Lenin's erend boy. Had Lenin lived he would have killed just as many as Stalin or more. And the only reason Pot didn't kill more is because he had a smaller population to work with. He killed 25% of the population of Cambodia. A record that thankfully has never been touched.

  • Apatheist||

    All evil men, and Pot possibly the most but I disagree about Stalin. He knew exactly what he was doing. I would say he used Lenin as a stepping stone rather than an accident of history.

  • ||

    Even Lenin didn't want Stalin to succeed him; in fact he wanted him out of power.

  • ||

    Hitler, no.
    Goebbels, yes.

  • ||

    Some skinny intellectuals are cannon fodder/useful idiots.

    Others are pschopathic mass murderers.

    I suspect the OWSers are the former. But why take the chance?

  • ||

    Incidentally, where, precisely, are these intellectuals? This level of incoherence is not consistent with that label.

  • ||

    the peter schiff video. if the people he was talking to ARE intellectuals, then that word doesn't mean what i thought it meant

  • James C. Bennett||

    An intellectual is someone who likes to sit around thinking and talk with his friends about thinking. It doesn't mean that he's good at thinking.

  • GILMORE||

    Your use of reason is bougouis. Spelling is also boojwah.

  • ||

    I was about to correct you, then I achieved understanding instead.

  • ...||

    Frasier: I find her cousin Jen just a bit judgmental for my taste. Yesterday she told me my show was bourgeois. I pointed out that anything that had mass appeal could be said to be bourgeois. She then said that my argument was bourgeois. Which I found to be jejune.

    Niles: People in their twenties are always like that. The world is so daunting at that age. They comfort themselves with the idea that everything's just trash. We were like that in medical school. Acting as if we were above it all, smarter than everybody. It passes.

  • jtuf||

    I met one college professor at Occupy Suffern and another today at Occupy Wall Street.

  • ||

    Agreed. I.F. Stone looked pretty thin. He had no problem helping out Stalin.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    how much crazier is it to knock down someone's door in the middle of the night, shoot

    But OWSers genuinely like and support fellow nutbars who take a shot or two at someone else during the night, Mike.

    Oh, well... back to the drawing board!

  • ||

    Dude, you're being an ass. If some leftist tried to tar all Tea Partiers by the actions of a very few, I imagine you'd be indignant as hell.

    Collective guilt is fucking bullshit, I don't care who you're trying to smear with it. Knock it off.

  • ||

    The one thing that is relevant is that even these kinds of incidents really weren't part of the Tea Party activism. Their "incidents" were more about people having guns and, once or twice, sounding bigoted.

    I had thought that the Tea Party was a little incoherent and random, but compared to these idiots, it seems like an organized effort with a comprehensive and consistent platform.

  • Mainer||

    Which, according to Pelosi, made it not a grass roots movement but "astroturf" because it wasn't spontaneous.

  • ||

    There are always stupid people in any movement, and cringe-inducing people who claim to share your views.

    Camping out does dramatically increase the chance of idiocy as opposed to rallies where people go home afterwards.

  • ||

    and as the peter schiff videos, and various other videos show, the OWS has a MUCH higher percentage of stupid/cringeinducing people as well as outright advocates of class warfare, killing the rich, etc. as the tea party did

    the tea party had scores of thousands of protesters, without any significant incidents of massive vandalism, and all the other assmunchery we have seen from OWS'ers

    look at some of the videos. they are all over. there are TONS of marxists, advocates of violent overthrow of govt. etc. amongst the OWS. some of their protest songs advocate killing rich people, lynching them, etc

    this is a movement filled with complete scumbags, radicals, marxists, criminals, anarchists, etc.

    they are rapidly losing support

    as it should be

  • ||

    and as the peter schiff videos, and various other videos show, the OWS has a MUCH higher percentage of stupid/cringeinducing people as well as outright advocates of class warfare, killing the rich, etc. as the tea party did

    the tea party had scores of thousands of protesters, without any significant incidents of massive vandalism, and all the other assmunchery we have seen from OWS'ers

    look at some of the videos. they are all over. there are TONS of marxists, advocates of violent overthrow of govt. etc. amongst the OWS. some of their protest songs advocate killing rich people, lynching them, etc

    this is a movement filled with complete scumbags, radicals, marxists, criminals, anarchists, etc.

    they are rapidly losing support

    as it should be

  • Juice||

    Sounds like they want to water a different tree with the blood of tyrants.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Actually they want to water themselves with the blood of the prosperous.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Collective guilt is fucking bullshit, I don't care who you're trying to smear with it.

    "... except for cops, of, course."

  • ||

    Cops are responsible for arresting people who commit crimes. When they fail to do so to their brethren who commit crimes, they have made themselves guilty; there is nothing collective about it.

    That was pathetically weak, you collectivist asshole. Try again.

  • ||

    lol

  • ||

    Oh, dunphy...I can't believe you have the temerity to show your face around here. LOL indeed.

  • Almanian||

    Gotta give it up for d here - nice

  • ||

    seriously, epi. i realize you are butthurt and all, but your protestations are always about tangents.

    lets talk about how the cops have acted IN RESPONSE to OWS protests/criminal behavior

    there's fucking scores of thousands of people at OWS etc. recording videos, there are videos all over youtube etc.

    and with all these encounters, protests, violence, etc. etc. where's the police brutality?

    i'm seeing very little brutality. most of what i am seeing is reasonable police response, and in many cases, astonishingly restrained police response, in the face of some seriously fucked up criminal assmunchery on the part of OWS

    OWS is making the cops look quite good, and OWS quite bad.

    and we may get some kind of awful police overresponse incident. given the fog of combat, and the thousands and thousands of cops working OWS incidents, that's not at all unlikely.

    but c'mon. you have massive criminal assmunchery on the part of OWS and overwhelmingly restrained cops

    the evidence is out there

  • Leroy||

    "given the fog of combat"

    Leave it to dunphy to call police interaction with protesters 'combat'.

  • ||

    in many of the cases it is. when they are actively assaulting, erecting barricades, etc. it's combat

    deal

  • Shorter Episiarch||

    "My personal definition of 'collectivist' is more infinitely elastic than Nancy Pelosi's facial flesh."

  • ||

    +1 me

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Doubtless you "+1" yourself on a regular basis.

  • ||

    That was a great insult, dude. I'm awed. Could you assign more collective guilt now please? Maybe to the Jews or something?

  • JoJo Zeke||

    +1 me

  • ||

    +1 Jim

  • Gojira||

    To be fair, the Jews really do deserve it. Everyone knows the world is run by 5 Jewish bankers orbiting earth in the Death Star of David, ruled over by Mort Vader.

    If anyone gets this reference without looking it up, I will +1 you. Which is a euphemism for fellatio.

  • yonemoto||

    use a wider comb.

  • Coeus||

    Dude, it's Maud Vader. And don't ignore the bags at the base of the tower.

  • ||

    Bea Authur was a sith?

  • Nipplemancer||

    She was a sith and a Marine.

  • Maxxx||

    Collective guilt is fucking bullshit, I don't care who you're trying to smear with it. Knock it off.

    The douchebags in San Diego created their own collective guilt by having a moment of silence to honor a failed assassin.

  • Ice Cream Bunny||

    +1

  • ||

    Unfortunately, Mike, the people you're addressing seem incapable of connecting the size of government to these abuses. Their brains cannot encompass it. They won't learn a thing.

  • ||

    Corporations are the greatest danger ever to anyone in all of human history! Stomp them out, even if it means killing us all!

    LLCs are okay, though.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I'd have a great deal more sympathy for the OWSers who were roughed up by the cops if they fucking got that it is the state that oppresses, always and everywhere. Even if they were to do so at the behest of some corporate entity, it would still be state power that made that possible.

    The whole "the corporations are somehow behind this!" line is just too prevalent. I'm reminded of the worthless NYT reporter in The Killing Fields who tried to blame the Khmer Rouge atrocities on corporations. People can honestly believe some messed up shit, but at some point you have to call willful blindness.

  • ||

    And if the cops had beat up a bunch of Tea Partiers, I am sure the Occutards would have been outraged. I am not going to defend police brutality. It shouldn't happen. But don't kid yourself. These people are mad it is happening to them. They wouldn't have a problem if it was happening to someone else.

  • sarcasmic||

    And if the cops had beat up a bunch of Tea Partiers, I am sure the Occutards would have been outraged.

    Really? Did you forget a negative in that sentence somewhere?

    I'll bet most everyone on the left would be dancing a jig if the cops beat up a bunch of Tea Partiers.

  • ||

    Sarcasmic misses the sarcasm. Oh the irony.

  • sarcasmic||

    I wasn't sure since your first and last sentences conflicted with each other.

  • ||

    and the tea partiers didn't (generally speaking) fight with the police, break the law, erect barricades against police advance, etc. - and thus there were very few incident with the cops

    the OWS'ers are routinely breaking the law, trying to provoke police, obstructing them, and frankly... complaining about brutality when in most cases... there hasn't been any

    OWS is showing the public two things

    1) the cops are very restrained and being pretty professional
    2) OWS is infected by a core of criminal fucksticks

  • ||

    The cops are very restrained.

  • sarcasmic||

    The cops are very restrained when they know cameras are pointed at them.

    ftfy

  • ||

    regardless, they are being restrained.

    i agree with you, and have stated ad nauseum... people should record cops in public, and should be able to do so, and cops should do the same

    we can agree on that

  • sarcasmic||

    Regardless? I'll bet that if the eyes of the world had not been on the cops, that commuters would be pulling teeth out of the tread of their tires.

  • ||

    Tompkins Square Park 1988?

  • ||

    Tompkins Square Park 1988?

  • ||

    i am certain that if the police weren't there, the commuters would be loosening those teeth themselves

  • ||

    Which in the age of YouTube with a pack of iPhone wielding occupidiots is pretty much 24/7...

  • ||

    the cops are very restrained and being pretty professional

    Huh?

    Hey man all i saw at the beginning of this was a bunch of kids on the sidewalk and some dude in a white lieutenant's shirt randomly spraying them with pepper spray....

    Then there is the Oakland flash-bang being thrown on top of an unmoving wounded man while he was surrounded by people trying to help him.

    Anyway they are not restrained.

  • ||

    I linked to the Oakland video elsewhere in this thread and he's insisting the cops were perfectly justified there as well.

  • ||

    no, i am not. i have said from the beginning the flash bang thing looks bad.

  • ||

    No, dunphy, not you. Diomasach is the one saying it's justified.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    I picked up on the sarcasm, especially when he then typed "But don't kid yourself.... They wouldn't have a problem if it was happening to someone else."

  • Abdul||

    The Occupy Wall Street movement is composed largely of people who have never before been cuffed to anything but a headboard, if that.

    Mr. Riggs! Rowr!

  • Au H20||

    Okay, who had Mike in the "BDSM fetishist" pool?

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon||

    I had him in the "closet submissive" category. Does that count?

  • Abdul||

    You had him "pegged" so to speak.

  • Mainer||

    Should I feel ashamed that I got that ?

  • Gojira||

    *sigh* Now I had to go and look that term up. And there are yet more terrible cookies and search results stored on my PC now.

  • Gerholdt||

    Google CCleaner - great tool for giving your PC a colonic.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    Of course now when I hear that countries are pegging their currencies to the dollar, it will take on a whole new meaning.

  • Almanian||

    Yeah, I want to applaud Mr. Riggs for this.

    And the alt text was also good.

    You're progressing at an excellent pace, Mike! I'll be sure to mention this to the Koch Brothers™ when we have lunch to discuss my next contribution to Reason.

  • ||

    McDonald fry cooks get to have lunch with the Koch Brothers?

    Oh wait i get it...sometimes even the Kochs get fast food.

  • Barack Obama||

    Skinny intellectuals are no danger

    ... heh-heh-heh...

  • Mainer||

    Skinny, sure.

    Intellectual ? Haven't seen any proof of that.

  • Au H20||

    Mike, come now. It isnt that the government has too much power, it is just that we don't have The Right People using that power

  • Doctor Whom||

    A combination of laser-beam libertarianism and shotgun statism pretty much defines the leftist fluffy bunnies, as well as various other political groups in this country.

  • ||

    The single funniest thing in the world is, "poop".

  • ||

    +10 me!

  • Warty||

    HOME OF CHALLENGE PISSING!

  • Warty||

    What the fuck, squirrels? I replied to Jimbo.

  • Warty||

    Well, rectal is correct here.

  • Gojira||

    Got to look at that car commercial you posted once I got home last night. Hilarious. Can't believe I hadn't seen that before.

  • T||

    A sign for you.

  • Almanian||

    I may need to order one of these. I think this would go over big in the operating review meetings...

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Boom! More capitalism! Why didn't the Prez and Congress think of this? This guy is actually creating jobs. Go figure.

  • ||

    "Stilgar, do we have poopsign?"

    "We have poopsign of the likes that even God has never seen."

  • Gojira||

    Given that spice is basically worm excrement, this comment actually kinda makes sense.

  • ||

    Fermented worm excrement. Which only makes it more delicious.

  • Gojira||

    If we could Human Centipede the worms, would it produce super-spice once the last worm in line pooped?

  • JoJo Zeke||

    "SLURM!!!"

  • ||

    That sounds like the movie.

  • ||

    In the police' defense, if there are hundreds of these people and they really won't move, what are the police supposed to do? How do you move a big mob of people without using force? And if you say don't move them, then what about the rights of the 1000s of people they are stopping from using the street?

    Maybe they used too much force. I would have to see the films. But I am sorry, if your idea of political expression is getting a bunch of your jackass friends together and blocking a street for no apparent reason, I can't have a lot of sympathy for you when the police come along and club you or pepper spray you when you refuse to move.

  • Mainer||

    When the Chinese cleared Tiananmen square, there were a few who pointed out that the US would eventually do the same if folks here occupied a public space (but perhaps without the tanks)

  • ||

    And there were right about that. The problem was not that the Chinese cleared the square. It was that they did it with tanks and machine guns. (as a side note the massacre at Tianamen Square was actually in the side streets around it very little killing happened in the actual square).

    I don't think we should shoot these people. But I dont' blame the cops for arresting them.

  • ||

    the cops are not doing the same.

    the cops are demonstrating the difference between us and them

    WE look good, OWS looks bad

  • Juice||

    The cops don't really look that good.

  • ||

    imo, they do. to any dispassionate observer

    the reality is 1) force ALWAYS looks ugly and 2) it's hard to look sympathetic, when you are dressed in riot gear

    but DESPITE that

    they STILL manage to look good.

  • ||

    Sounds like you made the case that the reality is they look ugly and unsympathetic.

    Claiming they look good dispite the "reality" you claim, shows a bias.

    Just sayin.

  • Juice||

    Tony Balogna, Scott Olsen, grabbing hot chick's boobs while arresting her, mass arrests with no warning, the thing on the brooklyn bridge, etc. don't make the cops look good. Just because one side looks bad doesn't mean the other side is good, like Israel and Palestine. You're Israel. They're Palestine.

  • ||

    We live in a country where the few make the many look bad. Profession is irrelelvent. Few cops behaving badly will make the rest look bad.

    I'm not saying it's right, nor am I saying the cops are bad. It's a perceptions game. And of course a cop is going to be biased for his own. That's natural. We are, generally speaking, all biased towards our own kind.

  • ||

    there are a FEW cops looking bad. there are videos of tons of cops looking VERY good, like the one i posted that DUers are all verklempt about

    sorry, get your finger on the pulse. people aren't sitting around their dinner tables talking about how fucked the cops are. the OWS'ers otoh are rapidly losing support

  • ||

    ""people aren't sitting around their dinner tables talking about how fucked the cops are.""

    I see more talk about the cops looking bad than the OWS looking bad. I don't agree with them. But there is a lot of talk.

  • jtuf||

    Tiananmen Square is a park. Wall Street is a street. Battery Park was almost empty today. If OWS wanted to just peacefully protest, they could have gathered there. OWS intended to block others from having free access to the roads and sidewalks.

  • ||

    I concur. Protest where you won't bother anyone else, your rights end where mine begin, etc...

  • Apatheist||

    Well in the Berkeley and Seattle incidents they could have done nothing because there was no need to do anything. And the vet who got hit in the head and then had another flashbang thrown at him, what was the point of that?

    That's the problem here, they aren't using any common sense. If the only incident was this last one clearing the park I'd be a bit more sympathetic.

  • ||

    And for those incidents, sure blame the cops and hold them accountable. But Gessen is whinning about being arrested. He was part of a mob blocking a public street. He should have been arrested.

  • ||

    you are full of shit. in the seattle incident the protesters sat down/stood without moving, in the middle of the street in downtown seattle, and during rush hour

    and they were given MULTIPLE Orders to disperse and warnings

    that's not in dispute

    THEN, the cops pepper sprayed the crowd and oh noes... an old lady and a pregnant woman got pepper sprayed

    bfd

  • ||

    Well, is there really an urgent need for dispersal, or should they be escorted/carried one by one?

    I would think that crowd control techniques would only be necessary for active, not passive, resistance.

  • ||

    I think they should let commuters run them over.

  • Art Vandelay||

    or should they be escorted/carried one by one?

    Maybe a nice, hot box lunch and a blowjob, while we're at it?

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon||

    A nice hot something:

    Video:

  • ||

    and do you have any idea how long that takes and the amount of manpower, time and money it takes.

    do you think that when people are blocking the street DURING RUSH HOUR IN DOWNTOWN SEATTLE that the cops should wait for proper backup and transport vehicles to make arrests, then make arrests one by one, etc. ...?

    i can tell you it would have taken probably about 2 hrs or so AT LEAST to do so, iow that long to get the street clear

    do you think (the insane cost issues aside) that that's fair to the commuters, taxpayers, etc. who are just trying to get home to their families and do you have any idea the kind of clusterfuck it would cause?

  • ||

    Life isn't fair.

    Non-violent protests are deserving of non-violent responses, regardless of inconvenience or expense.

  • Cytotoxic||

    No, fuck that MP. If you're occupying a street you're doing violence to commuters. Honestly, not running them over is pretty generous.

  • ||

    Like I said - just pretend you don't see them...

  • ||

    and again, maybe that's because we disagree about pepper spray

    i've been pepper sprayed three fucking time

    bfd

    it sucks, but if you have been given multiple orders to disperse and especially warnings you will be OC'd and you are blocking an intersection at rush hour in downtown seattle

    too fucking bad for you.

  • ||

    When you have hundreds of cops, and hundreds of protesters trying to provoke cops, a couple here and there are going to break down and beat somebody. Nobody is perfect, and that includes cops.

  • ||

    yup.

    like i said, i don't doubt there have been some incidents of police brutality

    what i have seen though is considering the amount of conflicts, thousands of cops, scores of thousands of protesters, and the fact that nearly everybody has iphones etc. videotaping, what is clear is that the cops are being very restrained and reasonable iN GENERAL.

  • Sandy||

    You know, I really somehow doubt that the vet who got hit in the head and then had another flashbang thrown at him, that incident? I really doubt that was deliberate in any way whatsoever. They were trying to clear out protestors. Sorry, but standing in an unruly crowd with riot police bearing down on you is a dangerous place to be.

    Why ask what the point was when discussing something that wasn't deliberate?

  • Zeb||

    I also very much doubt that it was deliberate. But flashbang grenades don't seem like a good thing to be using in that situation.

  • ||

    It wasn;t intentional? You mean the cops have no control over where the flashbangs go? Have you watched the video? The guy is laying on the ground bleeding, some other protesters try to help him up, and a cop quite intentionally fires a flashbang into the middle of them.

    I have no love for these OWS fools, but that cop is a Grade A asshole.

  • ||

    and fwiw, like i have said, THAT incident clearly looks like the cop was wrong, and it should be investigated

    just like i said, the berkeley one actually appeared to be a blatant criminal assault

    but they *are* isolated, despite the fact that reasonoids laff at that meme

    the VAST majority of force has been entirely reasonable and justified

  • Juice||

    The dude that got hit still can't speak correctly.

  • ||

    well, in THAT respect it just makes him like most of the other OWS'ers :l

  • ||

    Key point there; it was thrown at the crowd rushing "to his aid." Because when a person is down and crowd of unruly protesters charges towards him the immediate thought is "oh, these kind upstanding people are rushing to this gentleman's aid." Not something like "that poor dude is about to get trampled."

    Best possible choice? No. Brutality? Not by a long shot.

  • ||

    So, you're hoping everyone will take your word for it rather than watch the video? Otherwise, I can't explain why you'd insist the crowd was charging towards the guy when it's quite clear that they were standing around him when the grenade was lobbed into their midst. But, gee, now that you mention it, it sure does make more sense to believe that the cop tossing the flashbang right next to the stricken guy's head was just trying to save him from being trampled.

  • ||

    I did watch it. Repeatedly. But then my mind wasn't already made up about the situation when I did. That's probably the difference.

  • Whappan?||

    You're a liar. I don't have much sympathy for the OWS protesters in general, and from what I've seen the cops have been mostly restrained in their dealings with them. However, the incident with the flashbang grenade was clearly thrown with malice and forethought to harm innocent people. Hell, even Dunphy said it looked like the cop was wrong.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    If anything, THAT incident should have been the one to begin a large racheting of national public sympathy. But thus far, the reaction has basically been, "So what?"

    This is why I keep saying that these goons are doing nothing more than playing "Revolutionary" dress-up. The Tea Partiers, even without a coherent leadership and messaging matrix, managed to very quickly change the tenor of the national political discussion and even get sympathetic Team Red politicians elected to Congress.

    The Dems, by contrast, are now doing their best to disassociate themselves from the OWSers. OWS has no control over the media narrative whatsoever, despite a political and economic climate that's tailor-made for their grievances.

    Unless some national candidates come out as "OWS Candidates," this movement's always going to be seen as a bunch of Phaggot Striver Poors looking for life to give them their participation trophy.

  • ||

    there was no NEED to do anything?

    when scores of people are blocking the middle of the road in downtown seattle during rush hour, the cops had no need to do anything?

    seriously?

    you are fucking deluded

  • ||

    A little stick work on hippies and unemployed art history majors who refuse to disperse when lawfully ordered to do so does not a police state make.

  • ||

    Think about the public workers who you've supported carte blanche—firemen, teachers, police officers—and their unions, and the power those unions have to shield their members from accountability and reform.

    But they did think about this, Mike. As you alluded to, the OWS protestors apparently think that because they're in favor of cop unions and pensions, the cops shouldn't and wouldn't arrest them for violating (some admittedly stupid) laws.

  • ||

    i don't laws that state

    1) don't block the fucking street. it's for people to move about in, not for people to sit down, stand resolutely and block traffic , especially during rush hour

    2) you can't fucking camp and take over a park. protest all you want. nobody was camping in oakland public spaces BEFORE OWS and just because your message is sympatico with oakland progressives doesn't mean you can get away wiht it forever

    3) when the cops give you a metric assloads of warnings to disperse, heck, TWEET your fucking headquarters and drop off written notice as to when you need to be out by, and you erect fucking barricades against police approach...sorry, you are proper fucked.

  • Zeb||

    And if you do those things as some sort of civil disobedience demonstration, don't be surprised when you get arrested. Isn't that the point of civil disobedience?

  • ||

    That is something that's occurred to me. Don't they want what's happening?

    The last thing Gandhi wanted was for the British to ignore him.

  • ||

    right. civil disobedience often includes those willing to break the law... peacefully... and get arrested.

    but the idjits at DU etc. are claiming that OWS has the right to camp etc. in oakland and the authoritahs are WRONG for arresting them.

  • ||

    If I ever am moved to protest something, look for me to act in a nonviolent manner but in such a way as to provoke the government to arrest me.

    That's the whole point of civil disobedience.

  • ||

    Dunphy, I was pointing out #2 a while ago. I don't get to camp in a NYC park. Why the hell should they.

    However with #1, it's about duration, at least in NYC. Busy NYC streets and avenues are closed often in the summer for parades and street fairs. We are the land of a thousand parades.

    I argee they are over playing their hand. At this point I'm ready to go down their, borrow a cops baton, and beat a few myself.

  • ##||

    Closings for parades and street fairs are planned and advertised well ahead of time. That's not even remotely that same as blocking the street during rush hour.

  • ||

    Many that drive in NYC don't live in an area where they would know about the street fairs in advance.

  • ##||

    So there are no detour signs or anyone directing traffic during these events? Again, not even remotely the same thing.

  • ||

    ""So there are no detour signs or anyone directing traffic during these events? ""

    There is not. You come upon it and you have to go around.

    The differences are,
    1. Permits
    2. Duration of event

  • ##||

    I stand corrected.

  • Mike's Fan||

    Mike, I must say, I like what the Occupy movement has done to your writing style!

    Seems like every day this week, you've knocked one out of the park after teeing off on OWS...keep it up!

  • Zeb||

    You really need to get your ball-hitting metaphors straightened out. Which is it, golf or baseball?

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

  • Zeb||

    But you don't say "tee off" in t-ball, do you?

  • ||

    "and an expectant mother"

    Perhaps I don't know the whole story but if I were an expectant mother, the LAST place I would want to be is near an OWS protest.

    These protests started out as just that, protests, agree or disagree they were fairly normal protests (as protests go) in the beginning. At first I was even sympathetic to some (THOUGH CERTAINLY NOT ALL) of their points. I too opposed the bailouts after all. But week after week they have gotten gradually more obnoxious and gradually more violent. At this point they are no place for pregnant ladies and / or children.

  • ||

    ^^This^^ I wouldn't be surprised if they put her in front specifically so they could get the "they sprayed a pregnant woman" talking point. If that women gave a shit about the safety of her child, she wouldn't have been there.

  • Mainer||

    That was the first thought I had when I saw pepper sprayed granny on the Yahoo home page...they're getting what they want

  • JoJo Zeke||

    I wouldn't be surprised if they put her in front specifically so they could get the "they sprayed a pregnant woman" talking point.

    Occupy DC Protesters Use Child in Wagon as Human Shield As They Try to Storm AFP Meeting (Video)

  • ||

    they really are their own worst enemy

  • jtuf||

    John, to their credit, the OWS organizers today announced at the start that people willing to take risks should be in the front and people who wanted to play it safe should stay in the back.

  • ||

    the "expectant mother" and the elderly woman were in the middle of a crowd that was blocking a downtown seattle street at rush hour and had been given MULTIPLE orders, and ample time to disperse, and ample warning.

    and they refused to vacate, and they got pepper sprayed

    big fucking deal.

    seattle traffic is bad enough

    you have people with actual jobs who spend over an hour each way just to get to their jobs in seattle, and then you have a bunch of privileged assholes blocking the streets during rush hour?

    the cops probably saved them a public beating by those with jobs

  • ||

    Cops doing them a favor. Protesters keep it up and we'll see "Have you run over a protester Today" bumper stickers.

  • Almanian Lee Roth||

    ...better save, the women and children first...and she said,

    "Could this be magic?
    Or could this be
    love?"

  • Coeus||

    Perhaps I don't know the whole story but if I were an expectant mother, the LAST place I would want to be is near an OWS protest.

    I always see that shit. Bitches acting crazy, then when it comes home to them they're all like "waa" "waa" "I'm pregnant."

    I remember watching a video of a guy who was attacked by a pregnant mother after she almost hit him with her fucking prius. He hit her car in frustation and she lept out and started making threats. He peper sprayed her when she wouldn't get away and the local press made him out to be history's biggest monster. Pregnancy entitlement is basic female entitlement on steroids. And everyone seems to want to play along.

  • Tolly||

    Tried making this point on BoingBoing - one month everyone is crying about how evil GOP stooges are robbing pensions from honest, hardworking cops. Next month, those poor beat cops are pepper-spraying granny in the peepers and beating them down.

    I really dont expect them to wake up and realize they are pissed at the wrong sector. They'd need to have a functioning brain first.

  • ||

    anybody who is pissed off at the cops for pepper spraying those people in seattle needs to have their heads examined.

    it was entirely justified

  • WTF||

    Yes - If I was trying to get to work and these idiots were blocking streets, I'd be pissed if the cops didn't pepper spray them.

  • ||

    No worth the effort. What do they run, 7-8 posts a day on the glorious Stupefy movement? I knew they were unrepentant leftists, but this is ridiculous.

    What's really odd to me is how much the Democrats want to "own" these protesters. Not only is that ignoring how many Americans think the whole business is a joke, but it's also just flat-out bizarre considering that the Democrats control the White House and the Senate and had total control of both branches for a couple of years. WTF?

  • Coeus||

    It fits their narrative. If there's one thing I learned from the Bush years, it's that people are willing to believe a narrative in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary. Ignoring reality is easier for most people than re-thinking their position on an issue (if they even thought it through the first time.)

  • ||

    god knows its true in this thread

  • Coeus||

    Not seeing it. Most people here, myself included, agree with you about the pepper spray. Now in most police brutality and/or taser threads, you're the one doing this.

  • ||

    of course you're not seeing it

    thanks for demonstrating my point

  • T||

    Reap the whirlwind. This is the end result of the state you demanded.

  • Mo||

    Aren't the people with political sympathies with the Occupados more likely to be suspicious of the police? Literary journal editors don't tend to be rah rah law and order types. I would guess there are more "Legalize It" stickers on the bongo drums than "I support my local police force" ones.

    The Tea Party, OTOH, seem to have more law and order folks. For example, Scott Walker's police union exemption for CBA.

  • ||

    This is crazy. Skinny intellectuals are no danger.


    What exactly is crazy about it? Because they're skinny? Or because they're "intellectuals"? Sorry, but this has the reek of "But...but...I'm WHITE!!!" to it.

  • ||

    Yup. Liberals are the biggest police lovers I know. Got to any nice white rich liberal suburb sometime. And then watch how the cops treat young black men who happen to come through.

  • Mainer||

    "Go to any nice white rich liberal suburb..."

    and you'll see Obama bumperstickers on the cars,too.

    but he's clean and articulate

  • Zeb||

    I really don't think that is fair to day of liberals in general. I think you spending too much time in Washington. Or maybe I just know a lot of weirdos.

  • ||

    I definitely spend too much time in Washington. And I have seen how Montgomery County cops act. If a hoard of black people descended on the white DC supburds the white liberals would want the cops to bring in tanks.

  • ||

    To be sure, I'm no racist, but if hordes of any kind of people, including blacks, descended into my neighborhood, I might want tanks, too.

  • ||

    lol. .. "i'm no racist, but"...

    :l

  • ||

    Is this article stupid or just ill-timed? OWS people are actively interfering with normal people's lives all over NYC today. Middle Class White People are seeing OWS in a new light.

    The cops are the only thing preventing total chaos. They are also the only thing preventing normal commuters and business owners from literally assaulting and / or killing these fucking assholes.

  • ||

    "Journalists who have never covered protests before, much less spent time on a police beat, are getting clubbed, gassed, and cuffed alongside their unwashed and unruly story subjects."

    When I first got into journalistic photography decades ago, one of the first things I had pounded into my head by my mentors (my father included) was "stay the hell out of the way of the police and fire fighters when they're doing their jobs." I missed out on a couple spectacular, potentially award-winning shots because I was too busy running away from the collapsing walls or out of the paths of firefighters, and the fact that I was trained to do so kept them from ejecting me behind the police barricades during the fires.

    Put yourself in "harm's way" to get "good" pictures? Don' cry if the tear gas, ball of fire, wall, or baton hits you.

  • Bradley||

    Who knew that the old playground tactic "I'm going to start swinging my fists now, and if you get in the way, it's your fault!!" would turn out to be so useful?

  • Chris||

    This is crazy. Skinny intellectuals are no danger.

    That's what they said about Lenin.

  • ¢||

    Many of them are white

    On a scale where OWS is "many"-whited, there are several white people amongst the rainbow coalition at Stormfront.

    And on any scale, fewer Nazis.

    Since 'Fronters already consider the state not theirs, they'd make a more receptive audience for the daily affirmation/helpful hint you've been wasting on the Occupants.

    Outreach!

  • ||

    Question:

    Is Reason.com arguing that OWS protesters should be allowed to occupy public property (or private, in the case of Zucotti) indefinitely?

    If that's what Reason.com is arguing, then that means anybody can occupy anybody else's property indefinitely.

    That's a perversion of private property rights.

    So, if Reason.com is NOT arguing that OWS protesters may occupy public/private property indefinitely, how does Reason.com suggest that municipalities evict protesters who refuse to be evicted?

    If OWS protesters sit down and refuse to move, then municipalities have no choice but to use force in order to move them, even if the protesters are acting in a non-violent way.

    Am I wrong?

    If Reason.com is arguing that government has no right to use force to evict OWS protesters from public/private property, by definition that means Reason.com is also arguing that OWS protesters have a right to occupy public/private property indefinitely.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    So, if Reason.com is NOT arguing that OWS protesters may occupy public/private property indefinitely, how does Reason.com suggest that municipalities evict protesters who refuse to be evicted?

    "Stern, disapproving gazes," evidently.

  • Chris||

    I didn't make Riggs write his silly post. he did it all by his loathesome.

    Street justice, like when the Korean store owners fragged some rioters? That is exactly the sort of thing I can get behind.

  • Chris||

    They've seen the precedent that happens when libertarians show support for necessary police actions. As when Rothbard criticized the L.A. Rioters. Their limped wrist liberal buddies still give them shit about that, and point it out anytime they can't refute a fact.

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon||

    Rothbard talking about "street justice" was odious, your cosmotarian-baiting notwithstanding.

  • Chris||

    You have a better explanation for Riggs' reality warped post above?

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon||

    Confusion.

    Not everything has to be Race-Baiting Yokeltarians vs. Limp-Wristed Cosmotarians, yanno. Sometimes people can be genuinely misguided without it having the SPORTZ BAR background.

  • Chris||

    Jeez Rev, I thought you would catch on to my proper use of 'limped wrist' rather than the common form would clue you in on the cosmo on cosmo violence of this clash.

  • Chris||

    I don't like seeing libertarians in a prone position when in the presence of progressives. Head should be held high, and the tone should always be condescending to them when not out right hostile. It's as if Riggs would not even know what to do with a monocle.

  • ||

    I think you're missing the point. Not just any protesters can occupy public/private property indefinitely. Just the SKINNY WHITE protesters.

  • ||

    This comment is a perfect example of why Reason.com comments need a "Like" button!

  • Bradley||

    Is Reason.com arguing that OWS protesters should be allowed to occupy public property (or private, in the case of Zucotti) indefinitely?

    Does having the state declare some property "private" make it legitimately private from a libertarian standpoint? Is land seized through eminent domain "private"?

    If Barack Obama gave away all federal government buildings to his campaign staff, would that make them "private" holdings that we're obligated to respect?

  • ||

    Libertarianism, like Republicanism has been infected by leftism. Leftism, unlike the aforementioned, has insinuated itself into much of the information imparting structures of our civilization, their ideas permeate everything. It takes an act of will to resist.

    Thus one gets the spectacle of reason writers defending ideological enemies on ideological grounds.

    Frightening.

  • Bradley||

    Uh huh. And what exactly is "leftist" about insisting that one's ideological opponents still have basic rights?

  • ||

    What I find amusing is that these alleged intellectuals (many of whom no doubt consider themselves the vanguard of the proletariat) are complaining about getting arrested.

    Getting arrested is a large part of the point of civil disobedience, you numskulls. That's why you block traffic: not to inconvenience the proles still afflicted with false consciousness about things like "jobs" and "self-reliance", but to provoke the State into a reaction.

    Amateurs. Ignorant amateurs.

  • ||

    That is a good point. But these people were raised in the trophy generation. The point of any activity is so they can feel superior and good about themselves. They honestly think they should run around and live their version of the glory days of the 60s but this time without any of the unpleasentness of being arrested or actually having to make a sacrifice.

  • jtuf||

    + 10 each to RC Dean and John

  • cynical||

    Dude, these are the people that want to go work for a non-profit to get the smug self-satisfaction of fighting capitalism or changing the world or whatever, but throw a bitch fit if doing so doesn't bring in as much dough as a normal job would. The concept of choices and consequences is too much for them to handle.

  • sarcasmic||

    Tell me dunph, do you get an erection when you whip out your club?

  • ||

    interesting. this reminds me of the anti-gunners constant penis references in their anti-gun screeds

    amazing how similar you are to an anti-gunner in your imagery and thought processes

    actually, not that amazing. an anti-rights bigot is an anti-rights bigot, no matter where on spectrum they fall

  • sarcasmic||

    I will take that as a yes.

  • ||

    ""Tell me dunph, do you get an erection when you whip out your club?""

    Oh come on, his erection IS his club.

  • ||

    that's a fair cop.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm sorry. I suppose if an incident is caught on video and the video is not lost or destroyed before it makes it to the media, then there is a chance someone might lose their job after a long paid vacation.

    But "consequence" in terms of criminal charges.

    Right.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....z1dzi9A6mF

    A special prosecutor is also reviewing the February 13 incident and will decide if the two will face criminal charges.

    Lift rug. Sweep.

  • ||

    consequnces in terms of criminal charges are there

    what you fail to ever recognize is that there are actual elements ot crimes that ... when they cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt...means that people don't get convicted.

    darn that pesky rule of law. cops shouldn't be protected by it!

  • sarcasmic||

    I figured you would explain away a couple large cops kicking and punching a skinny twerp who is making no effort to defend himself.

  • ||

    why would i explain away what appears to obviously be excessive force?

    i haven't ever done so

  • sarcasmic||

    Don't go around pissing of guys who sought out an occupation where the job description includes inflicting pain and bodily injury without consequence, and not expect some of them to deliver you some pain and bodily injury without facing any consequences.

    Der.

  • ||

    lol. utter rubbish. "without consequences"

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm sorry. I suppose if an incident is caught on video and the video is not lost or destroyed before it makes it to the media, then there is a chance someone might lose their job after a long paid vacation.

    But "consequence" in terms of criminal charges.

    Right.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....z1dzi9A6mF

    A special prosecutor is also reviewing the February 13 incident and will decide if the two will face criminal charges.

    Lift rug. Sweep.

  • ||

    consequnces in terms of criminal charges are there

    what you fail to ever recognize is that there are actual elements ot crimes that ... when they cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt...means that people don't get convicted.

    darn that pesky rule of law. cops shouldn't be protected by it!

  • sarcasmic||

    Caught on camera beating a someone half your size who is making no effort to resist.

    So manly.

  • ||

    and again, you are just full of shit. cops get in trouble all the fucking time, including tons of times they are not caught on video.

    heck, i can think of two officers in my agency alone who were fired, and one who was criminally charged and in neither case was there video

    you are just detached from reality

    you see what you want to

  • Juice||

    Damn. You don't think there is any double standard with respect to enforcement of the law on cops? Really?

  • Coeus||

    There is no possible way he's ignorant of it. He often argues in bad faith, asking questions he knows the answers to and hoping no one else will get on a search engine to call him on it.

  • Coeus||

    damn nesting limit. That was to Juice.

  • ||

    i think in some respects cops are treated more harshly and in other respects given more benefit of the doubt.

    i can quote a judge in a recent case who after giving a harsh sentence to a cop said that he held them to a higher standard, to justify the sentence

    i think most reasonoids select and choose , aided by this blog, and thus it's easy to create the appearance of a double standard.

  • Coeus||

    My two to one offer on lack of conviction in police misconduct cases still stands.

  • Lester Hunt||

    The premise seems to be: middle class liberals like the police, or at least don't mind them. I don't find that to be the case at all. They like *government* -- and detest the police, and the military as well. That doesn't make a lot of sense -- what is more governmenty than the military and the fuzz? -- but there it is, a fact.

  • sarcasmic||

    what is more governmenty than the military and the fuzz?

    Free shit.
    Government is the provider of free shit.
    They want their free shit.

  • ||

    except again, ACTUAL data shows you to be wrong

    i have cited the polls here many times.

    public support for the cops is very high, has been very high, and remains very high.

    the cops poll as amongst the most respected of professions, year after year

  • Chris||

    Riggs is out of his mind. If anything, these rioter scum underline the clout you guys have, and I'm the first to criticize you tax eaters.

  • ||

    y'know i've admitted many times... we are very well paid, get great benefits, and a lot of cops are lazy as fuck and don't work very hard.

    otoh, working this riot work/crowd control is tiring as hell, stressful, you are damned if you do , damned if you don't, scary, you got people screaming at you, etc. etc.

    these cops are EARNING their fucking pay

    i was on the line for 16+ hrs a day during WTO and it was grueling. you'd get home, covered in pepper spray, dried sweat (and cue reasonoids : blood and protesters teeth) , just achy and stressed out with your synapses firing like mad, etc. etc. get a few hours of restless sleep and then have to do it all over again

  • Juice||

    All that heavy riot armor must get really tiring. I'll bet you can't in get more than a few hundred baton swings a day in that stuff.

    I guess it's lighter than hauling around chainmail while subduing serfs, so there's that for modern police work.

  • ||

    lol. i actually lol'd

    so, it doesn't even register on the troll-o-neter

    good job

  • chris||

    Yeah, but think of the stories you get to tell your grandkids.

  • ||

    They hate individual police. That kind of work is beneath them. But they love THE POLICE as an entity. Same with the military. They would never soil themselves by actually serving. But, they love calling in the military in places like Kosovo or Libya where their use allows liberals to feel good about themselves.

    It is fine distinction but an important one.

  • ||

    Few "love" the police, or the military for that matter. Many respect them for the difficult job they perform. The difficulty of that job provides some built-in excuses for lousy performance. And I can understand some of that. But, some actions are inexcusable.

  • SFC B||

    No. A thousand times no.

    They don't "respect" the military or police as anything but a tool for their chosen policies. They have the same degree of affection for the people who compose those "tools" as they do for any other useful, innanimate object. In the view of your OWS-type protester we're merely hammers.

  • jtuf||

    Most Liberals don't understand that people obey laws because the police enforce them. They spend to much time in social circles where no one objects to the laws they propose.

  • ||

    Wow, an ENTIRE thread filled with comments by Eric Cartman.
    When you douchebags grow up, you will realize that simply having a job does not make you a member of the Daddy Warbucks, Monopoly dude crowd that you try so hard to worship. You are not a 1% and never will be, so quit bowing so low to them who are.
    When your lizard brains evolve a bit, you will develope "empathy" (grab a dictionary) and realize it is always wrong to pepper-spray 84 year old women and expecting mothers.
    I hope your heartless Internet displays live on long enough for you to feel ashamed one day.
    Carry-on, tools.

  • Shorter Peter||

    "DOWN TWINKLES!!!"

    [::smugly strides off to rejoin drum circle::]

  • ||

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon||

    You know, it is interesting to me that you acquired a hard-on for John and, at the same time, I have not seen MNG for a while.

  • Chris||

    So says the dude who voted for politicians who voted for the bailouts and then conveniently three years later protest those bailouts a year before going to the polls to vote for the same politicians. Fuck your holy righteousness, you clueless mouthbreathing moron.

  • k2000k||

    Why should I have sympathy towards expecting mothers going into a situation where they, and their baby could get hurt? Doing so shows extremely poor judgement. Expectant mothers should be no where near any protest or place like that. And its hard to have sympathy for individuals who are violating civil law and.physically preventing people from moving freely about. This shit did.t happen with the teapartiers and that's probably why I was way more sympathetic towards them. Your rights end where mine begin, but the protestors don't care about rights, just entitlements

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon||

    You know, it is interesting to me that you acquired a hard-on for John and, at the same time, I have not seen MNG for a while.

  • Chris||

    MNG did state he is voting for Obama next year, so the hypocrisy of this post if he is the one behind it is, well, not breathtaking, but more like par for the course.

  • Art Vandelay||

    MNG did state he is voting for Obama next year

    ... so, in other words, he wants it without any lube or even a perfunctory kiss, next time out?

  • Chris||

    Rumor has it, he didn't even get the complimentary handjob the last time the schmuck voted for Obama.

  • JoJo Zeke||

  • ||

    I would say this was a spoof but I know better. Ladies and gentleman Your progressive douchebag moron.

    I don't want to be the 1%. I just want you fuck heads to leave me alone and stop bankrupting the country. MM kay.

    And somehow I am not surprised that an occutard doesn't look at having a job as being a good thing. Why don't you guys try occupying a cubical or a fry station?

  • ||

    I love how it's inconceivable to Peter that anyone could have, like, principles and believe that rule of law applies to everyone.

  • T||

    Stand out in the road and block me purposefully and I'll pepper spray granny and baby momma myself. Fuck 'em. Empathy is reserved for the deserving.

  • ||

    it is NOT always wrong to pepper spray expectant mothers...

    this is the kind of douchebaggery i expect from a lib

    they are all about wimminz power and equality etc.

    but then when a woman gets force used upon them in a JUSTIFIED manner, suddenly they play the woman as victim card

    it's something you constantly see at DU

    it's a ridiculous inconsistency.

  • Coeus||

    it's a ridiculous inconsistency.

    Yup. And as long as women are the gatekeepers to sex, men will keep trying to buy their way into the pussy by supporting and promoting that shit.

  • ||

    ok, that's a fair cop. as PJ ORourke said, a substantial # of men in these movements are there for the pussy.

    granted, most of the OWS wimminz i have seen are fucking RANK

    especially the ones in oakland

  • Coeus||

    An estimated 20 % of the male population in the U.S. is involuntarily celibate. "Rank wimminz" are still better than chauffing themselves to midget gangbang porn.

    Not saying whiteknighting gets you anything (except votes if you're running for office), but they think it will.

  • ||

    When your lizard brains evolve a bit, you will develope "empathy"

    Apparently you weren't here for the enlightening results of the empathy test a few months ago.

  • T||

    Possibly my second favorite thread here.

  • ||

    Just behind the lost sheep fucking thread?

  • KDN||

    Monopoly dude

    It's Rich Uncle Pennybags, you cretin. Kids today, I tells ya...

    ...them who are.

    When your lizard brains...

    Lulz.

    it is always wrong to pepper-spray 84 year old women and expecting mothers.

    Now that's just flat out wrong. That you can't see any situation where such an act is justified shows just how silly you are.

  • Zeb||

    "it is always wrong to pepper-spray 84 year old women and expecting mothers."

    That's bullshit and you know it. It woudl be perfectly OK to pepper spray either of those people if they were, say, coming at me with a knife (or some fresh fruit). Using pepper spray rather than a gun woudl show considerable restraint on my part in such a situation.

  • Mitch||

    I bet you wouldn't say a thing about it if the 80 year old and preggers female were tea baggers.

  • ||

    also, let's compare and contrast

    tea party - overwhelmingly LAWful protests. the libs were apoplectic that at some rallies tea partiers were even OPEN CARRYING EVIL GUNZ. and cops went "whatever".

    OWS - numerous incidents of wanton lawbreaking, from massive vandalism (oakland) , to sexual assault, to assaults on cops, to illegal encampments, etc. and when given orders to disperse and with ample warning (often DAYS), some who remained erected barricades against police approach etc. and then god forbid... the cops responded with (usually) reasonable and lawful force.

  • ||

    OWS isn't violent - except for these bad apples.

    http://www.verumserum.com/?p=33490

  • ||

    Exactly, a few, um, few dozen, er few hundred bad apples don't represent the whole 99%!!!

  • NotSure||

    I doubt these people really have any principled stance against police beating up others, they just don't like it happening to themselves. If libertarians, rich people, businessmen etc. were beat up, I doubt they would make much noise.

    They want the police to take orders from them, if they did, they would have no real dislike for a police state.

  • Mr. OWS||

    Ban Corporations!

    Capitalism is Greed!

    Bush lied!

    9/11 was a hoax!

    Stop global warming!

    Deodorant is bad!

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon||

    You know, it is interesting to me that you acquired a hard-on for John and, at the same time, I have not seen MNG for a while.

  • ||

    The author's confirmation bias is showing.
    - Police are bad.
    - See all the bad things they are doing to the nice OWS people?

    The problem is, the middle-class sees the OWS for they are - communists / statists.

    The Middle-Class has their own confirmation-bias and it isn't against cops.

  • Mr. OWS||

    Head lice unite!

    Cast off these bonds of representative democracy and rise up against the jackbooted oppressors!

  • ||

    So I see John will suck some cop cock nice and deep as long as they're sticking it to the dirty fucking hippie's.

  • ||

    LOLOLOL I am sure you were just so upset back in the Clinton era when they were burning people to death on national TV.

  • ||

    Clinton=moderate Republican.

  • Mitch||

    Clinton=lefist douche

  • sarcasmic||

    Holy fucking squirrels.

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon||

    What the hell?

    This is where this comment is supposed to be:

    You know, it is interesting to me that you acquired a hard-on for John and, at the same time, I have not seen MNG for a while.
  • ||

    "Many of them are white, and some of them are probably urban gentrifiers, which means their previous attitudes toward police likely ranged from indifferent to fond."

    I don't think so. I think their previous attitude towards police ranges from mistrust to hatred. These aren't 45 year old white folk from Tennessee who might be inclined to join a tea party. They're more like suburban 20 year olds spoon fed anti establishment lore form their posh community colleges. They despised the police from day one.

    I'm sorry, but the police has to utilize certain tools to disperse crowds that outnumber them in vast fashion. Inaction is actually one of them, and we've already seen the Oakland organization occupy a port.

    It's probably difficult to arbitrarily decide when to use flash bangs or what quantity of pepper spray is appropriate when dealing with crowds of this size. If Mike Riggs was among the police, would be always use sound judgment in the face of human wall the size of a minor regiment? In situations that continue to shift and potentially escalate into something bigger?

    If a terrorist shouted "God is great" near them without a bomb anywhere near his body, he could probably kill dozens by trampling alone.

  • ||

    Shorter XM: I'll suck police cop as long as they're cracking liberal skulls.

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon||

    Shut up, MNG.

  • ||

    nice post.

  • jtuf||

    XM, at OWS today, about half the protesters were retirement age and half were college age. For some reason, almost no one between those two ages showed up for an all day protest on a Monday.

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon||

    For the love of All Holy Fuck. What is going on here?

  • ||


    When your lizard brains evolve a bit, you will develope "empathy" (grab a dictionary)

    *clutches chest, falls to floor*

  • Patrick||

    I've noticed the OSW crowd doesn't blame government for the police actions...they still blame corporations.

  • ||

    Police are the armed guardians of the corporate class.

  • ||

    right, i mean 90% of the calls i go to are to arrest proletariat for infringing on the well manicured lawns of the gentry in their mansions

    oh wait...

    the VAST majority of victims I deal with are upper middle class to middle class to lower middle class, to lower class victims of other "99%ers"

    the other day i assisted in the arrest of some fuckhead burglars who broke into a solidly middle class home and stole their IPAD, drugs, etc.

    cops spend the vast majority of their time dealing with average people who are victims of predatory assholes. and both lie solidly in the "99%"

    the vast majority of violent crime is intraracial, and the vast majority of property crime is suffered by people who don't really have that much in the first place.

    it's fucking heartbreaking to take a theft report from some hardworking single mom who just had both her kids bicycles stolen by some piece of shit meth-head who will likely sell the bikes for $.10 on the dollar and the kids are now w/o their bikes that she could barely afford in the first place

    this meme that we are protecting the corporate class gets old. crime victims are overwhelmingly average joes, and when people get victimized they call us

  • ||

    Hey, dunphy, I read somewhere that the overwhelming majority of property crimes are committed by someone who lives within half a mile of the thing(s) they're swiping. Any truth to that?

  • ||

    my experience is that this is true

  • ||

    to qualify that, though ... remember that a lot of people live in cities. 1/2 mile in the city is FAR. 1/2 mile in a rural area isn't

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, the "cops are just there to protect the rich people" crap is just idiotic. And I'm a pretty strong critic of the police. Not only is most crime committed by "regular people" against other "regular people", but the rich could afford to protect their wealth and property with or without a strong police force.

  • ||

    and in fact, we spend the majority of our time and a disproportionate amount of resources dealing with crime against the "less fortunate" because it is stastically more common.

    in fact, when one accounts for racial/income disparity in crime victimization, as evidenced by NCVS data (iow by crime VICTIMS) there is absolutely no evidnece of "racial profiling" etc.

  • Juice||

    "when people get victimized they call us"

    and then you proceed to do jack shit, especially on a burglary case like you describe

  • ||

    most burglaries go unsolved. we are so fucking understaffed, they don't get a lot of priority.

    them's the facts. we've cannibalized the burg/larceny unit due to staffing issues.

  • ||

    and like i said, i worked (been working detectives recently due to injury) a burg case the other day where we cauvght the guys got their stuff back and it was good work all the way around

    limited resources.

    if we can get rid of this stupid fucking war on drugs, we'd have more resources for that stuff

  • Coeus||

    if we can get rid of this stupid fucking war on drugs, we'd have more resources for that stuff

    Agreed. It's painfully obvious. So why aren't your unions pushing for it?

  • ||

    my union doesn't push for anything of that nature, because they feel it's not their place to politic for policy stuff like that , since it divides the membership, etc.

    they advocate generally for stuff that directly affects the membership, etc. but not stuff like drug laws, or frankly any type of laws.

    some police unions may get involved in that kind of stuff. mine, fortunately, does not

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The whole civil-disobedience dynamic makes sense if you're a disenfranchised population - Indians in British India or black people in the Jim Crow South. If you can't vote against the policies you don't like, then the social contract is frayed.

    But these folks can vote. They are bypassing the avenues of persuasion and voting in order to break the law and, if we infer intent from the forseeable consequences of their actions, they are trying to provoke a crackdown from the cops so they can make themselves victims.

    Then they remodel themselves as martyrs to the corrupt establishment, and there's a new thing to protest. Then the break the law again and get knocked on the head again, and bingo! A new outrage against which to protest. Lather, rinse, repeat.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    I'm enjoying the message shift here. No longer is the discussion surrounding OWS about corporate greed or whatever the substantive issue they're protesting is. The OWS protests are now about... the right to have OWS protests. It's protesting for the sake of protesting. The actual message has been swallowed up by fights over whether hippies get to live in disease and squalor in public parks. That's not a fight they're going to win.

  • ||

    I think they are just protesting against reality at this point. They are pissed about their shitty educations, the bad economy, and the fact that nobody wants to pay them not to work.

  • ||

    That is exactly right. What is the end game here? Things like strikes and mass protests work in geniunely authoritarian places. There a big demonstration shows everyone that they are not alone in hating the government. And more and more people join in until the whole system collapses.

    But that is not going to happen here. Cops aren't going to walk off of their beats and join. Millions of suburban New Yorkers aren't going to stay home from their jobs and join the march. It is not going to spread.

    The whole thing is just an excuse for these people to be assholes and get their 60s on. What is really pathetic about it is they are whining about being arrested when that is the whole fucking point of civil disobedience. They are as I said above just the trophy generation. They really think they should be allowed to run around and tear shit up and protest with absolutely no downside or personal sacrifice.

  • ||

    It's always about The Sixties(tm) to aging baby boomer idiots and their hanger ons.

  • ||

    Exactly. And that is who the OWS crowd is; a bunch of aging boomer idiots and the hanger on younger generation trying to relive a 1960s that never really happened.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    The responses of police departments and Democrat-run municipalities is causing a much needed paradigm shift.

    [citation needed]

    Look, I'm not a big fan of the po-po, and I'm certainly open to the idea that there may be some excessive force here and there, until you show me otherwise, I'm not going to believe that seeing some filthy hippies getting the ol' wood shampoo will change anyone's mind about police practices.

  • ||

    and being libertarian doesn't and shouldn't mean that one doesn't support the right of the state to stop wanton lawbreaking, which is what is happening here.

    sure, there has been some police overreaction

    but overwhelmingly the police response has been restrained in the face of massive provocation

    what does riggs etc. think would happen if the police just went "fuck it" and didn;' show up? well, we know what happened in oakland when the mayor incentivized lawlessness by NOT sending in the cops? millions of lost revenue - port of oakland shut down, storefronts smashed, etc.

    how would riggs disperse a crowd that had been given ample warning to disperse, and that GREATLY outnumbered his police force? would he get on a PA and start quoting ayn rand? yea, that would great!

  • ||

    should be "authority of the state" not right of the state

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    If the example of the Sixties is anything to go by, a few, but very few people will become libertarian after this encounter with government. Others will outgrow their behavior and become police-supporters or even conservative in general. Others will retain their vague authoritarian politics and vote for Democrats except when the Democrats are too conservative.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    If the sixties are anything to go by, the actual protestors themselves will be astonishing ineffectual. How long did the Vietnam War go on once the anti-war movement really got going? Six, seven years?

  • ||

    And those Civil Rights protests sure never did anything, either. Totally ineffective.

  • ||

    Actually they really didn't. What did anything was the civil rights act, the creation of the EEOC and the willingness of Eisenhower and Kennedy to use federal forces to enforce court decisions.

    Thurgood Marshall is a civil rights hero. And he didn't become one by protesting. He became one by suing.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    The important civil rights protests - the ones that got legislation passed - took place before the hippies got involved. It wasn't flower children in the audience at the "I Have a Dream" speech.

  • ||

    Don't confuse him with facts. The civil rights act was passed in 1964. Brown v. Board of Education was in 1954. The Little Rock High School integration 1957. The boomers weren't even out of grade school then.

  • jtuf||

    The Boomers did make a mark on history. They were the only generation in American history to loose a war. It never happened before them, and it never happened since. Vietnam fell, then Cambodia, then Iran, then Saudi Arabia caved when terrorists held Mecca, then Lebanon (which used to be the Paris of the Middle East) fell, ect. Thanks, mom and dad!

  • Get out||

    You conservatives are unbelievable. Every war is always Vietnam -- within our ability to WIN if we only muster up the National Will. Every political opponent is always the hippies -- a bunch of America-hating pothead communist sympathizers. And somehow, everything always ties in with the USA not being bellicose enough to keep the Muslims down.

    Did Pajamas Media link to this post or something? Christ.

  • Bradley||

    The important civil rights protests - the ones that got legislation passed

    If you think the civil rights struggle was about getting the CRA passed, you've thoroughly missed the point. But don't worry, liberals often make this mistake.

  • Sparky||

    This poor woman goes V for Vendetta defending the occupiers. Although I think she might be working with some incorrect information.

  • ||

    Well now,What do we have here?The writter is correct,this is the first time for many in the OWS movement to be in confrontation with the police.Most of them come from nice ,White suburban homes and probably do have a favorable view of the expanded role of government and the expanded role of the criminal justice system.Let me get to the point:If you got beat down by a cop at a OWS protest and you are White,You now are officially a "n@#$r".That is the Black experience with protesting injustice!

  • ||

    Naomi Klein had a great statement on OWS:

    I love you.

    And I didn’t just say that so that hundreds of you would shout “I love you” back, though that is obviously a bonus feature of the human microphone. Say unto others what you would have them say unto you, only way louder.

    Yesterday, one of the speakers at the labor rally said: “We found each other.” That sentiment captures the beauty of what is being created here. A wide-open space (as well as an idea so big it can’t be contained by any space) for all the people who want a better world to find each other. We are so grateful.

    If there is one thing I know, it is that the 1 percent loves a crisis. When people are panicked and desperate and no one seems to know what to do, that is the ideal time to push through their wish list of pro-corporate policies: privatizing education and social security, slashing public services, getting rid of the last constraints on corporate power. Amidst the economic crisis, this is happening the world over.

    And there is only one thing that can block this tactic, and fortunately, it’s a very big thing: the 99 percent. And that 99 percent is taking to the streets from Madison to Madrid to say “No. We will not pay for your crisis.”

    That slogan began in Italy in 2008. It ricocheted to Greece and France and Ireland and finally it has made its way to the square mile where the crisis began.

    “Why are they protesting?” ask the baffled pundits on TV. Meanwhile, the rest of the world asks: “What took you so long?” “We’ve been wondering when you were going to show up.” And most of all: “Welcome.”

    Many people have drawn parallels between Occupy Wall Street and the so-called anti-globalization protests that came to world attention in Seattle in 1999. That was the last time a global, youth-led, decentralized movement took direct aim at corporate power. And I am proud to have been part of what we called “the movement of movements.”

    But there are important differences too. For instance, we chose summits as our targets: the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the G8. Summits are transient by their nature, they only last a week. That made us transient too. We’d appear, grab world headlines, then disappear. And in the frenzy of hyper patriotism and militarism that followed the 9/11 attacks, it was easy to sweep us away completely, at least in North America.

    Occupy Wall Street, on the other hand, has chosen a fixed target. And you have put no end date on your presence here. This is wise. Only when you stay put can you grow roots. This is crucial. It is a fact of the information age that too many movements spring up like beautiful flowers but quickly die off. It’s because they don’t have roots. And they don’t have long term plans for how they are going to sustain themselves. So when storms come, they get washed away.

    Being horizontal and deeply democratic is wonderful. But these principles are compatible with the hard work of building structures and institutions that are sturdy enough to weather the storms ahead. I have great faith that this will happen.

    Something else this movement is doing right: You have committed yourselves to non-violence. You have refused to give the media the images of broken windows and street fights it craves so desperately. And that tremendous discipline has meant that, again and again, the story has been the disgraceful and unprovoked police brutality. Which we saw more of just last night. Meanwhile, support for this movement grows and grows. More wisdom.

    But the biggest difference a decade makes is that in 1999, we were taking on capitalism at the peak of a frenzied economic boom. Unemployment was low, stock portfolios were bulging. The media was drunk on easy money. Back then it was all about start-ups, not shutdowns.

    We pointed out that the deregulation behind the frenzy came at a price. It was damaging to labor standards. It was damaging to environmental standards. Corporations were becoming more powerful than governments and that was damaging to our democracies. But to be honest with you, while the good times rolled, taking on an economic system based on greed was a tough sell, at least in rich countries.

    Ten years later, it seems as if there aren’t any more rich countries. Just a whole lot of rich people. People who got rich looting the public wealth and exhausting natural resources around the world.

    The point is, today everyone can see that the system is deeply unjust and careening out of control. Unfettered greed has trashed the global economy. And it is trashing the natural world as well. We are overfishing our oceans, polluting our water with fracking and deepwater drilling, turning to the dirtiest forms of energy on the planet, like the Alberta tar sands. And the atmosphere cannot absorb the amount of carbon we are putting into it, creating dangerous warming. The new normal is serial disasters: economic and ecological.

    These are the facts on the ground. They are so blatant, so obvious, that it is a lot easier to connect with the public than it was in 1999, and to build the movement quickly.

    We all know, or at least sense, that the world is upside down: we act as if there is no end to what is actually finite—fossil fuels and the atmospheric space to absorb their emissions. And we act as if there are strict and immovable limits to what is actually bountiful—the financial resources to build the kind of society we need.

    The task of our time is to turn this around: to challenge this false scarcity. To insist that we can afford to build a decent, inclusive society—while at the same time, respect the real limits to what the earth can take.

    What climate change means is that we have to do this on a deadline. This time our movement cannot get distracted, divided, burned out or swept away by events. This time we have to succeed. And I’m not talking about regulating the banks and increasing taxes on the rich, though that’s important.

    I am talking about changing the underlying values that govern our society. That is hard to fit into a single media-friendly demand, and it’s also hard to figure out how to do it. But it is no less urgent for being difficult.

    That is what I see happening in this square. In the way you are feeding each other, keeping each other warm, sharing information freely and proving health care, meditation classes and empowerment training. My favorite sign here says, “I care about you.” In a culture that trains people to avoid each other’s gaze, to say, “Let them die,” that is a deeply radical statement.

    A few final thoughts. In this great struggle, here are some things that don’t matter.

    § What we wear.

    § Whether we shake our fists or make peace signs.

    § Whether we can fit our dreams for a better world into a media soundbite.

    And here are a few things that do matter.

    § Our courage.

    § Our moral compass.

    § How we treat each other.

    We have picked a fight with the most powerful economic and political forces on the planet. That’s frightening. And as this movement grows from strength to strength, it will get more frightening. Always be aware that there will be a temptation to shift to smaller targets—like, say, the person sitting next to you at this meeting. After all, that is a battle that’s easier to win.

    Don’t give in to the temptation. I’m not saying don’t call each other on shit. But this time, let’s treat each other as if we plan to work side by side in struggle for many, many years to come. Because the task before will demand nothing less.

    Let’s treat this beautiful movement as if it is most important thing in the world. Because it is. It really is.
  • ||

    LOL. God that is comedy gold. Best and funniest thing I have read on here in weeks.

  • ||

    Petulant and content-free. I doubt you even read it, otherwise you'd actually respond.

  • ||

    Oh I read it. And it is so stupid that it is hard to even know where to begin. Every single word in that wall of text is either meaningless drivel or a complete lie or both. And that includes "and" and "the".

  • ||

    Well then, why not begin and make a point instead of just saying "LOL ITZ STUPID LOL

  • ||

    Normally that is necessary. But what you posted is so self evidently rediculous, it is not necessary in this case. Also, it is so long and so profoundly stupid, the wall of text it would take to fully explain how stupid it is would waste endless collumn inches explaining the obvious and further messing up the thread.

  • ||

    IOW you can't respond except by engaging in some petulant hippie-punching. Typical.

    Also hilarious that someone who thinks a crackpot Jewish carpenter bodily rose from the dead 2,000 years ago is calling ANYTHING "ridiculous" or "stupid".

  • ||

    You just want me to respond point by point so you can further fuck up the thread and the conversation. It is called trolling. We are all familiar with it. And besides, most of it doesnt' even make an argument and is just a bunch of platitudes.

  • KDN||

    Also hilarious that someone who thinks a crackpot Jewish carpenter bodily rose from the dead 2,000 years ago is calling ANYTHING "ridiculous" or "stupid".

    Am I the only irreligious person that finds militant atheists more annoying than their churchy counterparts?

    Related: South Park's invention of agnostic fundamentalism was hilarious. A believer being smarter than you, on the other hand, is merely unremarkable.

  • ||

    And here are a few things that do matter.

    . . . .

    § How we treat each other.

    I agree. And how you treat each other can be pretty terrible, what with the rapes and the disease and the assault and the theft and all. Defining "each other" to mean ordinary folks not trying occupy anything, well, there you get trespass, vandalism, more theft, and general interference with their daily lives.

    So, yeah, it does matter. You might try acting like it does.

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon||

    ooh, a Noami Klein wall of text. Your dumb factor just increased by 1000.

    IOW, tl;dr. Into the filter with you.

  • ||

    Who is Naomi Klein?

  • Zeb||

    She's the one who somehow managed to convince people that Milton Friedman was an evil person.

  • ||

    She missed me.

  • chris||

    Funny I should find you here making this remark, Zeb, given the Klein you pulled on me below.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    Let’s treat this beautiful movement as if it is most important thing in the world. Because it is. It really is

    Derp.

  • Naomi Klein||

    Let’s treat this beautiful movement as if it is most important thing in the world

    "... and, remember, fellow female-bodied OWSers: it's your solemn, revolutionary duty to 'take one for the team,' rape-wise, if necessary! UP TWINKLES, SISTERS -- !!!"

  • Librarian||

    Female-bodied bitchez gotta know their places, yo.

  • Roman Polanski||

    At long, long last: my time has finally COME -- !!!

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Didn't even bother reading that load of 888.

  • Ben||

    @John, Librarian--

    The civil rights protests were effective. But the civil rights activists were very different from OWS or the 1999 Seattle WTO or the Vietnam War protests.

    Civil rights protesters showed up dressed in neat suits,ties, and dresses. They were bathed and respectable. They held up neatly lettered, conventional signs with a clear message. They didn't destroy anyone's property. There were no giant puppets, no "performance art", no drum circles, no "teachin-ins". Just normal looking middle class people showing up in their Sunday best only to get blasted with firehoses and attacked by police dogs.

    Notice the difference between that and the Vietnam War protests and their successors.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    You'd have to admit, though, that had there been drum circles at the civil rights protests, the quality of the rhythm would have been much better.

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon||

    white stoner-hippie drummers do not have better rhythm than black people. come now.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    What I meant was, if said black people had been drumming at the March on Washington in 1964, the drumming would have been AWESOME.

  • ||

    Very true. But the protests you are talking about were in the 50s and early 60s and not the product of boomers. And those protests had a specific goal and agenda.

    The difference is the hard left took over the Vietnam War protests. And while the Vietnam War was unpopular, the protestors themselves were hated.

  • ||

    You want an agenda?

    It is time to TAX THE RICH

    It is time to END THE WARS

    It is time to restore Glass-Steagal

    It is time to repeal Citizens United

    It is time to get the money OUT OF POLITICS

    It is time to invest in infrastructure and education

    It is time to STOP busting labor unions, whether private or public

    It is time to defend Medicare and Social Security tooth and nail from phony reforms or baloney cuts

    It is time to STOP the spending cuts and start investing in America, and if we have to raise taxes on the rich and corporations in order to force them to invest in America, then so be it.

    It is time to STOP the racist and discriminatory practice of "Stop and Frisk" and other tactics of racial profiling

    It is time for civil rights for ALL, and that means equal rights for LGBT Americans to serve our military and marry whom ever they will

    It is time for ACCOUNTABILITY for the men who lied us into war and crashed our economy

    It is time for immigration reform that does not punish workers, but provides a clear pathway to citizenship for everyone

    It is time for investigations that lead to prosecutions on Wall Street in response to the crimes that have been committed in the last decade.

    It is time for a serious discussion about the Federal Reserve and it's role in this economic disaster

    It is time for universal health care that everyone can afford. It is time to talk about Single Payer Health Care.

    It is time for alternative green energy instead of Oil and Coal.

    It is time to protect our civil liberties and our constitution.

    It is time for a discussion about free trade and how it has undermined the working class while enriching only the wealthiest among us.

    It is time to end corporate personhood.

  • Shorter Librarian||

    It is time to TAX THE RICH

    It is time to STOP the spending cuts and start investing in America, and if we have to raise taxes on the rich and corporations in order to force them to invest in America, then so be it.

    It is time for universal health care that everyone can afford. It is time to talk about Single Payer Health Care.

    "GimmeGimmeGimme MINEMINEMIIIIIIINNNNNNNNE -- !!!"

  • ||

    half of that stuff is self contradictory. How do you save medicare from cuts and also impliment a single payer system? How do you protect our civil liberties but then deprive people of their free speech via corporations? And you want to investigate the crimes on Wall Street? Like you could even articulate what they are, lets start at the top and go after Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. But interestingly I dont' see anyone marching on West Boston to confront Frank about his crimes.

    Invest in infrastructure and education? Are you fucking kidding? We spend more money on education than any country in the world. And good luck fixing the education system while "protecting unions".

    And Green energy? We just handed out billions to Obama's cronies and have nothing to show for it. And how does raising everyone's heating bills and gas prices help the 99%?

    End the wars? Sure. But if you meant that you would be marching on the White House where the guy who actually can end those wars lives. Since I don't see you doing that, I assume you don't mean a word of that.

    yeah, you are as stupid and incoherent as everyone thinks you are. Thanks for playing.

  • ||

    How do you protect our civil liberties but then deprive people of their free speech via corporations?

    Corporations should not have rights only people should.

    End the wars? Sure. But if you meant that you would be marching on the White House where the guy who actually can end those wars lives. Since I don't see you doing that, I assume you don't mean a word of that.

    Obama is a war criminal and imperialist, no doubt about that. He even assassinates American citizens.

    The interests of teacher's unions and children are the same. Teachers want smaller class sizes, better facilities, etc, this also benefits students.

    Blah blah blah Frank and Dodd...care to tell me what they actually did? They did pass an ineffective and toothless reform that does nothing to reign in corporate greed, but that's not a crime.

    We need Holder to investigate Wall St. All the Banksters, all the corporate crooks and chronies, clean the fucking house and throw these assholes in jail for crashing our economy.

  • ||

    The interests of teacher's unions and children are the same.

    The teachers wouldn't want higher pay for doing less and to make it harder to fire incompetant teachers or anything. I fee sorry for you that you are that stupid.

    And Frank and Dodd both took payoffs from the sub prime mortgage industry to ensure that nothing was done to reign them in during the 00s. IN addition, Frank's old boyfriend was President of Fannie Mae and Frank spent the entire decade of the 00s ensuring that nothing was done to keep fannie from pumping up the housing bubble or anyting about what we now know was total fraudulent accounting by Fannie and Freddie. They are both criminals.

    And are you going to have Holder investigate Wall Street before or after he gets done flooding Mexico with American guns?

    I feel sorry for you. I don't think you are a troll. You are just so stupid and uninformed you can't help yourself. You don't even know enough to understand where you are wrong. You are like a fat guy who hasn't run in so long he can't even run far enough to begin to get into shape.

  • Destrudo||

    She's a true believer. It's people like her that make me question my libertarianism. I can't help but wish for death for anyone who so totally would enslave people.

  • ||

    ""We need Holder to investigate Wall St. All the Banksters, all the corporate crooks and chronies, clean the fucking house and throw these assholes in jail for crashing our economy.""

    You're asking crooks and chronies to investigate crooks and chronies. Are you friggin kidding?

  • KDN||

    The interests of teacher's unions and children are the same.

    THIS IS WHAT OCCUPY WALL STREET ACTUALLY BELIEVES.

    We need Holder to investigate ... all the chronies

    I agree. Time travelers have an unfair advantage in the futures market.

  • Juice||

    The interests of teacher's unions and children are the same.

    "When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of schoolchildren." - Albert Shanker, President of the United Federation of Teachers (1964-1984), President of the American Federation of Teachers (1974-1997)

  • jtuf||

    It is time to END THE WARS

    Sorry, but no. The second paragraph of the posted Good Neighbor Policy of OWS sates that "OWS has zero tolerance for drugs or alcohol anywhere in Liberty Square." ( http://www.intercourseandconce.....log/?p=617 ) They may never give up on taking other people's money through taxes, but they signed up for enforcing the War on Drugs rather quickly.

  • Bradley||

    They may never give up on taking other people's money through taxes, but they signed up for enforcing the War on Drugs rather quickly.

    While I'm disappointed that OWS hasn't come out more strongly against the Drug War, I see this rule as mostly pragmatic. Don't give the cops an excuse to crack down on you, and don't come off as a bunch of stoners to the general public.

  • jtuf||

    It is time to end corporate personhood.

    Not quite. OWS recently incorporated a nonprofit called Friends of Liberty Plaza to collect funds for their activities. The funds get managed by a select few of the OWS members rather than going directly to individuals.

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon||

    John, don't respond to it.

  • Ben||

    Shit, even fucking Malcom X wore a suit, tie, and glasses with a conventional haircut! All the "counterculture" nonsense does is detract from any message they may have.

  • ||

    I think the "skinny intellectual" thing is more telling than you guys realize. That's a comment made by someone who believes he should be treated differently from everyone else. He's not angry that he's arrested, he's angry that he's arrested like a common criminal when obviously he's a skinny intellectual! Basically, the guy is shocked to discover that's he's not part of the in group after all.

  • ||

    ^^This^^ These people think they are special.

  • ||

    i've heard this from libtards before

    i arrest the average gangbanger, i don't hear "you don't need to handcuff me"

    but when it's some UW grad student in crotch sniffing semiotics, i sometimes get that exact kind of statement ... "are these handcuffs really necessary? it's not like i'm some common criminal, etc."

    the condenscending, sneering liberal disgust is palpable.

  • Coeus||

    i've heard this from libtards before

    And that very attitude is responsible for those police positive polls you always like to go on about. They love the cops, because they think that the cops would deferr to them if they ever interacted with them.

  • ||

    it can be quite useful in interrogations, etc.

    iow, the average libtard thinks he is SO much smarter than a cop he will often talk himself into a hole.

    it's quite satisfying, from a game theory/psychology standpoint to interact with people who think they are much smarter than you.

    it is a huge tactical advantage, psychologically speaking.

  • jtuf||

    + 20 to Mad Scientist

  • Shepherd||

    I read every day and never comment, but a friend sent me this and I think some of you guys might dig it. Polish protestor has a drone to monitor police.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/201.....on-police/

    ...I bet it was built for less than half a million bucks too.

  • ||

    Huh. I wonder if you could do that here? If it flies low enough, no FAA restrictions, I assume. The taping itself is legal if restricted to public places.

  • Juice||

    Those cops are blocking traffic. Should drivers run them over?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Only if they can use the hippies as meat shields.

  • Not an Economist||

    All it was a radio-controlled model airplane. Been around for years. Nothing special.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    I am going to go ahead and post this so that it may continue:

    dunphy|11.16.11 @ 3:40PM|#

    the "pigs' acted appropriately in enforcing (in this case valid) law. i fail to see how they were acting as "pigs"
    ...
    Colonel_Angus|11.16.11 @ 5:25PM|#

    The cops were fucking people up, unprovoked.
    Herding around media, and arresting them, just to prove "cops are in charge!".
    The law can be enforced professionally, and it wasn't.
    And, in general, the standard method cops use of approaching crowds sucks. Its done to show a presence of force, which creates a reason confrontation and invites reactions.
    All crowds that turn in to riots, always happen because the po-lice show up and act like dicks.
    ThatSkepticGuy|11.16.11 @ 6:31PM|#

    "All crowds that turn in to riots, always happen because the po-lice show up and act like dicks."

    What an asinine example of putting the cart before the mule.
    Colonel_Angus|11.16.11 @ 7:23PM|#

    I have witnessed it happen on a regular infrequent basis in the small city where I reside. Some circumstances will lead to a large amount of people, up to several thousand, gathering in an area for some reason. It could be a power outage. It could be Obama winning or losing an election. It could be a sports thing or Halloween. Then the town operators panic and send in the authoritahs to jerk people around, instead of monitoring things low key. Most of the cops are young jockish pricks (who have shaved heads and wear Oakley sunglasses), or are middle aged women who think they have something to prove. The old dudes seem to keep cool. They bring with them mace, tear gas, and riot shit. They line up and block public right of ways and herd people around. "Go here, go there, go back inside", that kind of shit. People get tossed around because they want to cross the street or go somewhere where the cops don't want them. So you have a bunch of people who may be a little hyper and then a few cops start acting like dicks. Some of the people will feel like reacting, and it will be easier to create a ruckus because of the volume.

  • OWS Protester||

    They wont no what hit them, Thursday! You're burning to the ground Macey's!

  • ||

    "There is only one way to fulfill the vital police function, the only way that works: the public announcement--backed by willingness to enforce it--made by the late Mayor Richard Daley in the Chicago riots of the 1960s--ordering the police to shoot to kill any looters, rioters, arsonists, or muggers they might find. That very announcement was enough to induce the rioters to pocket their "rage" and go back to their peaceful pursuits."

    - Murray N. Rothbard

  • Reginald Denny||

    Could have used someone like Rothbard in the command of the LA Police force back then.

  • Juice||

    All police chiefs should be anarchists like Rothbard!

    (Jesus, what a fucking hypocrite that fuck was.)

  • ||

    "I'd encourage all of you in OWS...to think about the politicians you elect, and all the ways you've helped increase the size and scope of the state because you couldn't imagine it shoving a boot up your white, well-behaved ass."

    People who are cheering the cops on should take notice of something too, which is the fact that violating people's rights--radicalizes them.

    This is how the Baader-Meinhoff group got started. This is how the Weather Underground got started. This is how the Muslim Brotherhood got started.

    You start off with some idealistic kids who want to innocently oppose whatever they think is evil in the world--send in some cops to beat the shit out of them...and viola!

    Radicals.

    Works every time. Everywhere in the world.

    Nothing turns idealistic youth into radicals like ignoring or violating their rights.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    Okay. But usually nothing comes of it. When was the last time you heard from the Weather Underground?

  • ||

    They got a president elected.

  • ||

    That was 40 years ago!

    Point is, if you don't want to make more extreme radicals, there are certain things you can do to minimize that--and certain things you can do to maximize that.

    Sending cops to beat the shit out of them? Maximizes that.

    And asking our cops NOT to beat the shit out of peaceful protestors really shouldn't be too much to ask.

    The Muslim Brotherhood, the Baader-Meinhoff gang--and plenty of others--caused plenty of damage over the decades.

    Maybe one of the reasons we haven't seen their like here in the U.S. for a long time is because we've regularly refrained from sending the cops in to beat the shit out of the mixed-up little idealists and violate their rights.

  • chris||

    Some people are not getting this from a libertarian vantage point, the initiation of force began the moment they occupied the parks, and escalated to intolerable levels when they attempt to prevent people from using the subways in the streets. They are already radicalized. Two months of being in the hive has already insured they are a cadre.

  • chris||

    subways and the streets

  • ||

    They are already radicalized.

    Yeah, well, protests are supposed to be inconvenient. Respecting people's rights is inconvenient.

    And a society where everyone's free to do as they please--so long as it doesn't inconvenience anybody else? Is not a free society.

    Oh, and if your definition of radical is camping in a park without a permit? Then you haven't seen radical yet.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baader_meinhoff

    Actually, this is how just about every communist revolutionary group that ever got any traction anywhere got started.

    Take a look at this one...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlatelolco_massacre

    That's where Subcomandante Marcos got his start. He was just a peaceful OWS protestor back then--look at him now!

  • chris||

    Radical, criminal filth, I don't care what they are called. They are a problem that wont go away by allowing petty transgressions as well as the ones Ice Cream Bunny pwned you with below.

    You forget, Pinochet was very effective. After eradicating the radicals in Chile, political violence was a mere fraction of what the rest of the region suffered through for the next twenty years when the Soviets were funding Marxist elsewhere but effectively stopped there.

  • ||

    I've actually defended--to some extent--our engagement with Pinochet during the Cold War.

    If he hadn't been so worried about what the U.S. thought, he probably wouldn't have called elections or respected the results.

    But even I wouldn't ever defend Pinochet! You seem to be letting your distaste for the OWS movement radicalize you.

    Anyway, Pinochet had to fight every day he was in office from 1973 to 1990. If you think this demonstrates that police brutality is the remedy for radicalism, I don't know what to say.

    The same thing happened elsewhere in South America and Central America. The Dirty War in Argentina? Hell, in Columbia? All those narco-trafficers that still control most of Columbia outside the major cities?

    They all started out as brutalized communist idealists.

    Brutalizing idealists isn't about to accomplish anything--but it can make things a whole lot worse. History demonstrates this over and over and over...

  • chris||

    I didn't defend Pinochet. I just pointed out the ugly truth. The ugly truth is something you have a problem grasping. The OWS said Thursday was the day they were taking down New York City, so don't blame the cops if they came to the fight better prepared.

  • Zeb||

    If you are suggesting that Pinochet's example should be followed, you aren't going to make a lot of friends.

  • chris||

    So Schultz can point out a successful revolutionary and no one suggests he is advancing a Marxist agenda, and I point out a successful counter-revolutionary, and you automatically go with guilt by association. Gotcha.

  • ||

    "So Schultz can point out a successful revolutionary and no one suggests he is advancing a Marxist agenda, and I point out a successful counter-revolutionary, and you automatically go with guilt by association. Gotcha."

    I wasn't advancing a Marxist agenda. I was pointing to a causal relationship.

    If police brutality radicalizes idealists, whether I think the results are good isn't even under consideration.

    Just because I point out that hitting our thumbs with hammers is gonna cause a lot of pain, that doesn't mean I think we should all smash our thumbs with hammers.

    You did seem to suggest that a vicious dictator like Pinochet was an effective solution to communist idealists. After what you wrote in this last comment, I don't think that's what you meant.

    In other words, I don't think you were advocating vicious dictatorship as a solution to something like OWS. I think you were trying to point to an example of police brutality not radicalizing idealists.

    Like I said, I think Pinochet is a poor example for your case--that was a horrible war on his own people that lasted for 17 years. That can't be a good example of what you're trying to say.

    If you wanted a better counter-example, you might look to Tienanmen Square. Not that I or you or anybody else is suggesting that's a good idea either! But even if you cited that as an example, I'm not saying that all idealists are always radicalized by brutality--only that it's the overwhelming trend.

    There probably is a point at which totalitarianism is a coldly effective means to control dissenting idealists--but, as we both seem to agree, who the hell wants to advocate totalitarianism?

    ...which is a model China was still close to back in the '80s and like North Korea still is today.

    P.S. There's no "c" in Shultz.

  • chris||

    I wasn't advancing a Marxist agenda. I was pointing to a causal relationship.

    Didn't say you were. In context that would be the guilt by association I mentioned. Almost depressing that it is necessary to point this out.

  • Ice Cream Bunny||

    And a society where everyone's free to do as they please--so long as it doesn't inconvenience anybody else? Is not a free society [...] I'm a real live libertarian, damn it

    Uh-huh.

  • ||

    I should just let you go on, but yer makin' a fool of yerself.

  • chris||

    Projection, Schultz, pure projection.

  • ||

    Whose libertarianism did I question?

  • ||

    40 years ago?
    Bill Ayers, weatherman member and ghost writer of Obama's book, which played a role in his election? That was 40 years ago?

  • ||

    As terrifying as someone writing a glowing book about Obama might be to me, it doesn't really qualify as radical terrorism.

    They set off bombs, you know?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....an_actions

  • ||

    Yes, they set off bombs. Like, you know, Bill Ayers did?

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    I also reject the assumption that these youth are "idealistic." They don't have "ideals" per se. They're just interested in getting overpaid at an easy job as soon as they graduate from college after fucking around for five years getting a degree in Laconian Semiotics (minor in Puppetry), and they're pissed that it didn't pan out. Idealism implies at least some motivation. These douches are shiftless and lazy, with enormous senses of entitlement.

  • ||

    except OWS'ers rights AREn't being violated, generally speaking

    in fact, if anything, they are being in many cases incentivized to break the law (see mayor quan in oakland).

    being arrested for committing a crime is not a violation of rights.

    the cops are being very restrained. sure, there have been incidents of excessive force, but in general, the rights of the OWS'ers are being treated respectfully

    the OWS'ers otoh, are selfishly ignoring the rights of others, by blocking streets during rush hour, committing vandalism, assault, sexual assault, etc.

    they are showing solidarity with a guy who shot at the fucking white house in one case, for example

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    (see mayor quan in oakland)

    Occupying Oakland to protest corporate greed is like occupying Branson to protest misogynist lyrics in gangsta rap.

  • ||

    lol. nice

  • Juice||

    Right. The thing to protest in Oakland is police brutality.

  • ||

    "except OWS'ers rights AREn't being violated, generally speaking"

    From the Riggs' post above:

    Harmless, if obnoxious people, are getting the crap kicked out of them by cops at Occupy protests across the country. In Berkeley, one officer beat a young female student in the stomach completely unprovoked. In Seattle, police sprayed an inch-thick stream of pepper spray into a crowd, hitting an 86-year-old woman and an expectant mother, among others, square in their faces. Journalists who have never covered protests before, much less spent time on a police beat, are getting clubbed, gassed, and cuffed alongside their unwashed and unruly story subjects.

    ----

    He didn't mention the vet that took that shot to the head in Oakland.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT2KvJNfbSw

    Obviously, if they're not doing it to everyone, then there's nothing to worry about--is that what I'm supposed to think?

    I'm a real live libertarian, damn it, and that means I don't sit on my hands and breathe through my nose when the cops beat the shit out of peaceful protestors--certainly not just because I don't like the protestors.

  • ||

    and i've already addressed that. for example, his seattle example... the cops were entirely justified in pepper spraying

    but again, with scores of thousands of protesters we WILL see SOME incidents of excessive force

    riggs apparently can't find enough of those, so he brings up JUSTIFIED force and makes it sounds bad because gosh...an EXPECTANT MOTHER got pepper sprayed!!!

  • ||

    Nothing turns idealistic youth into radicals like ignoring or violating their rights.

    There's some truth to that, but I can't see any upside in indulging their violations of other people's rights, either.

  • ||

    From Riggs' post above:

    "Harmless, if obnoxious people, are getting the crap kicked out of them by cops at Occupy protests across the country. In Berkeley, one officer beat a young female student in the stomach completely unprovoked. In Seattle, police sprayed an inch-thick stream of pepper spray into a crowd, hitting an 86-year-old woman and an expectant mother, among others, square in their faces. Journalists who have never covered protests before, much less spent time on a police beat, are getting clubbed, gassed, and cuffed alongside their unwashed and unruly story subjects.

    Whose rights were those protestors violating?

    Oh, and you already know that people's rights often overlap and conflict with each other.

    You also know that even if they were criminals--that wouldn't make it okay for the cops to arbitrarily beat the shit out of people.

    Just because I despise the OWS movement doesn't mean I have to ignore their rights. It certainly doesn't mean I have to cheer on the cops for violating their rights.

    Hell, I stood up for the right of terrorists not to be tortured--why would I think the OWS movement is worse than that?

  • chris||

    Whose rights were those protestors violating?

    Try this on for size.

    4:25 PMAnjali MullanyKerry Burke reports a standoff at 14th and 5th, where over 1,000 protesters are at a standstill. Cops in riot gear have mobilized, and are lined up four rows thick. There are rows of police scooters present, and an ESU vehicle.

    The crowd is shouting "We are the 99%". Many protesters are standing on vehicles, screaming and holding signs.

    No arrests at this location so far.

    http://live.nydailynews.com/Ev.....z1e08RbTTD

  • ||

    Art, where do you get the idea that I approved of every single thing the police have done?

    My point is that protestors whose purpose is to disrupt the daily functioning of the city by blocking streets, appropriating public spaces for their own exclusive use, and generally giving aid and comfort to criminals (by policy, since they insist that all crimes committed within their protest be reported only to the Security Working Group) are, in fact, violating other people's rights.

    And that, if we indulge those violations, we can expect more of them.

    Not indulging the violations includes, for example, giving clear warning that the street or park or whatever will be cleared, and those who refuse or resist will be arrested.

    You got a problem with that? Are specific police actions over the line? I wouldn't be surprised. But that isn't any reason to throw up your hands and give these crypto-Marxist grievance mongers and their useful idiots the key to the city, either.

  • ||

    I'm not giving them the keys to the city.

    I'm denouncing police brutality.

  • ||

    as we all are. WHEN it's police brutality.

    the case of the old woman and expectant mother WERE not

    if brutality is so fucking rare, that riggs has to cite instances of obviously justified force and claim they were brutality, that;'s fucking sad

  • ||

    I'm not giving them the keys to the city.

    I misunderstood then.

    What enforcement action would you permit then? Do you imagine that its possible to clear a street or a park over the resistance of a mob without anyone getting an owwie?

    Can the cops go too far? Of course. But when you are dealing with a mob, the mace, pepper spray, and general riot policing necessary to disperse the mob is not police abuse or brutality.

    And if you aren't willing to forcibly disperse the mob, then you are giving them the keys to the city.

  • ||

    Some of the examples Riggs gave are examples that I've seen on YouTube.

    I saw the cops at Berkeley attack those students on YouTube.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_f06VQOkI4

    In that video, I see cops beating the crap out of peaceful protestors on a university campus!

    That video we saw of the Iraq War vet getting shot in the face in Oakland--that was done on purpose at close range. We all saw that video here at Hit & Run.

    This can't go on, or things are gonna get a lot worse. I think if libertarians are going to show some kind of response to this, it's important that we aren't seen as being on the side of the cops in all this. ...especially when the cops are brutalizing people.

    This may get a lot worse, and if we're seen as ignoring these protestors' rights, or, God forbid applauding the violation of their individual rights, then I think that's gonna be really bad news for the champions of capitalism in the future.

    We are STILL paying the price, politically, for some of the brutality perpetrated against protestors back in the 1960s and '70s.

    From the attacks on civil rights marches to the shootings at Kent State and the brutality directed against the demonstrators at Democratic Convention in Chicago--that's the sort of thing that turns people against capitalism, politically, for their whole damn lives.

    When we see cops using force to clear a park somewhere, our emphasis should be on watching for the cops to brutalize somebody--and complaining like hell about it. ...our emphasis should not be hating on the protestors and saying they got what they deserved.

    And, really, it's important to remember too that protestors really do have a right to protest. And if their right to protest conflicts with someone else's rights, that may mean the cops have to do something, but it doesn't mean that protestors don't have any rights or that their rights should be ignored.

  • jtuf||

    This may get a lot worse, and if we're seen as ignoring these protestors' rights, or, God forbid applauding the violation of their individual rights, then I think that's gonna be really bad news for the champions of capitalism in the future.

    Ken, down the road from Wall Street is Bellevue Hospital. There, it's standard procedure to push psych patients go don't run to their rooms quickly enough during medication time. Patients can be locked up against their will for months without ever having charges pressed against them. They experience forced medication and solitary confinement at a doctor's whim. The response of the psych community is a rather mild call for outreach and protest ( http://www.mindfreedom.org ). We should respect everyone's rights as a mater of principle, but I challenge your belief that clearing roads and sidewalks will lead to terrorism.

  • ||

    "I challenge your belief that clearing roads and sidewalks will lead to terrorism."

    What I said was that ignoring or violating the rights of idealists tends to radicalize them.

    I said that modern history demonstrates that police brutality against such idealists tends to radicalize them.

    Again, I'm criticizing the police brutality here.

  • cynical||

    Distinguish between coercion and brutality. All police work comes down to coercion or the promise thereof in the end. So long as the law enforced is just, and the coercion applied is proportionate, there's no problem, and certainly no brutality.

  • ||

    Using clubs on peaceful protestors on the UC Berkeley campus is brutality.

    Macing an 86 year old woman in the face is police brutality.

    Shooting a peaceful protesting Iraq War veteran in the face in Oakland? Is brutality.

    How many times have I listed all of those in this thread now? I've even linked to some of the videos so you can see them for yourself--that's what, three posts above this one?

  • ||

    sorry, the OC and the old woman was NOT brutality

    all riggs did is a digest. he didn't actually INVESTIGATE. he just put some links in. the only one of those that i am very familiar with (the seattle case) is clearly NOT brutality.

    sorry, but his work is shoddy here

    sure, it looks bad that an old lady was pepper sprayed. but it was not brutality and it was justified.

    that's why, apart from the IMAGE of it, there is no "there there" to borrow a clintonism

    it's emotion and appearance over actual substance

  • ||

    riggs is just piling on. but when you actually look at the FACTS, his arguments fall apart...

    e.g. "In Seattle, police sprayed an inch-thick stream of pepper spray into a crowd, hitting an 86-year-old woman and an expectant mother, among others, square in their faces. "

    like this is some outrage. omg. an 86 yr old woman!!!! an expectant MOTHER!!! oh, feel the gender and ageism!

    the facts he is leaving out include that these people were in a crowd of protesters who started blocking downtown seattle street during rush hour, were given multiple orders to disperse, refused to do so, were given warnings, refused to move, and so the cops pepper sprayed the crowd to disperse it

    BIG FUCKING DEAL

  • ||

    "as we all are. WHEN it's police brutality."

    "BIG FUCKING DEAL"

    I'm trying to reconcile those two statements.

    Havin' a hard time, but you can explain that to me better, right?

  • ||

    it's quite simple. the seattle incident was not police brutality.

    when you pepper spray a crowd of people who decide to plop right down in the middle of a busy seattle street during rush hour and when you have given ample warnings to disperse etc. "or else", it aint brutality

    it is entirely justified.

    and no, being pepper sprayed is NOT a big deal, in general. it stings. it doesn't feel good. but it causes no injury, and it's safe.

    i've been sprayed 3 times. again. big fucking deal

  • ||

    If they had just arrested those people and taken them into custody? That would have been fine. NYC arrested 99 protestors yesterday for being in the street. Doesn't require randomly pepper spraying people in the face.

    Watch it for yourself!

    Oh, and the mayor of Seattle apologized for the police and is investigating the incident:

    Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn has issued an apology to people who were pepper sprayed at an Occupy Seattle demonstration on Tuesday evening.
    McGinn personally apologized to an 84-year-old woman who was sprayed in the face. He called Dorli Rainey afer images of her being sprayed went viral.

    "I feel terrible," said McGinn. "I did apologize to Dorli because nobody likes to see this happen to someone who speaks for the protest line."

    Watch the video for yourself.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTi-t4Jcgso

    So, where you say "BFD", the mayor apologizes.

    Civil disobedience doesn't necessitate police brutality.

  • ||

    "the seattle incident wasn't an outlier. it was entirely justified"

    What you call justified, the mayor of Seattle has already apologized for.

  • ||

    So what.? He is a fucking idiot. He's pandering because an old lady got pepper sprayed. So what ?

  • jtuf||

    Ken, you're looking at the outlier incidents. Cases of police brutality should be brought to court. In OWS in New York City, most of the event today was protesters standing there chanting and police standing there watching.

  • ||

    The outliers seem to be piling up.

  • ||

    the seattle incident wasn't an outlier. it was entirely justified

    and they aren't piling up. you have had hundreds (if not thousands ) of arrests at this point, 10's of thousands of cops involved, scores of thousands of protesters, etc. etc.

    and a scant few OBVIOUS cases of brutality

    despite the fact that there are a metric assloads of video cameras everywhere

    again, the cops are looking great

    OWS... not so much

  • Art Vandelay||

    You start off with some idealistic kids who want to innocently oppose whatever they think is evil in the world--send in some cops to beat the shit out of them...and viola!

    #OWS Website: “N17″ Chosen Because It Represents a Marxist Terrorist Organization

    Fuck you. Seriously.

  • ||

    By saying that you can radicalize peaceful idealists by ignoring or violating their rights, did you think I was saying that radicals don't already exist?

    Try to keep up with the conversation.

    Fuck you. Seriously.

    If you're hatred of OWS is so deep that you can't think of anything more to say than that, then that's really pathetic.

    If you cheer the cops on for ignoring and violating people's rights, just because you hate those people?

    That's worse than pathetic.

    I hope you don't tell anyone you're a libertarian. Please, tell them you're a Baptist!

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Oh, dear. One of those I-Am-The-True-Living-Avatar-Of-All-That-Is-Righteously-Libertarian-And-You're-Not types, eh?

    Sad.

  • ||

    If you can come up with a more reasonable response to "Fuck you", I'd love to see it.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    WILLOW: "He started it!"

    BUFFY: "Yeah. That defense only works in six-year-old court, Will."

  • jtuf||

    You are sort of right, Ken. Terrorism peaks in countries that are partially free. In free countries, people don't have a reason to get upset. In dictatorships, people just swallow their anger. When Singapore decided that it would not permit an Occupy Singapore rally, only 20 people showed up.

    We're currently free, so oppression would increase terrorism. This is a dilemma. How do you deal with people who think they have the right to block the rest of the city from using sidewalks and roads?

  • Ice Cream Bunny||

  • ||

    You know, the political intentions of this are going to backfire in a major way, as they are having the effect of giving the Tea Party more credibility.

  • Mr. OWS||

    Chairman Mao!
    He taught me how...
    To entertain the masses
    We shit upon the street, we do
    But the rash does burn our asses...

  • Mark West||

    Police across the country seem to be out of control. Arresting disabled, pulling people from wheelchairs - sickening http://occupyamericamovement.c.....ntext=user

  • Ice Cream Bunny||

    Cleveland: 10/18/2011 — ‘Occupy Cleveland’ Protester Alleges She Was Raped

    Seattle: 10/18/2011 — Man Accused of Exposing Self to Children Arrested

    New York: 10/9/2011 — ‘Occupy Wallstreet’ Protesters Steal from Local Businesses

    New York: 10/25/2011 — Three Men Threatened to Kill 24-Year-Old Occupy Wall Street Protester for Reporting Rape

    Baltimore: 10/18/2011 — #OccupyBaltimore Discourages Sexual Assault Victims from Contacting Police

    Cleveland: 10/29/2011 — Rape Reported at Occupy Cleveland

    Dallas: 10/24/2011 — Police Investigating Possible Sexual Assault Of Teen At Occupy Dallas

    Glasgow: 10/26/2011 — Woman Gang-Raped

    Lawrence, KS: 10/25/2011 — Sexual Assault Reported at Occupy Camp

    Phoenix, AZ: 10/27/2011 — Neo-Nazis Patrol “Occupy Phoenix” With AR-15′s

    Manchester, NH: 10/28/2011 — Woman charged with pimping teen recruited at Occupy NH rally

    NY: 10/30/2011 — Woman Assaulted in Her tent

    Baltimore: 10/31/2011 — Woman Claims She was Raped at #OccupyBaltimore

    Ottawa: 10/31/2011 — #OccupyOttawa Violent & Sexual Assaults Not Reported to Police

    Dallas, TX: 1v1/1/2011: Man Arrested for Child Sex assault at Occupy Dallas Camp

    Wash. DC: 11/5/2011 — Rampaging Occupiers Attack 78 Year-Old Woman

    Portland, OR: 10/27/2011 — Sexual Assault: ‘nobody should contact the police’

    Austin, TX: 11/15/2011 — Occupier Accused of Masturbating in Front of 16 Year-old Girl

    Philadelphia, PA: 11/15/2011 — Occupier Arrested for Assaulting Woman

    Chicago, IL: 11/16/2011 — Occupier Arrested for Child Porn

    Los Angeles, CA: 11/15/2011 – Occupier Charged With Masturbating In Front of Children

    KEN SHULTZ, 11/17/2001 - "[S]ome idealistic kids who want to innocently oppose whatever they think is evil in the world [...]"

  • ||

    You lie down with dogs. . . .

  • ||

    Which one of those was perpetrated by the 86 year old woman and the expectant mother?

    ...both of whom the cops pepper sprayed in the face.

    Are you one of those group/collective rights people?

    You want the cops to arrest criminals and charge them with a crime? Be my guest.

  • Ice Cream Bunny||

    Are you one of those group/collective rights people?

    I'm not the one c-o-l-l-e-c-t-i-v-e-l-y identifying them, one and all, as "innocent, idealistic kids," now, am I...? Derp.

  • ||

    and the cops were ENTIRELY justified in pepper spraying the CROWD they were in

    you know... the one that was blocking the street in downtown seattle during rush hour, that was given numerousorders to disperse, didnt do so, and were given warnings before they were sprayed

  • Art Vandelay||

    Does actively preventing rape victims from reporting said violent sexual assaults to the police qualify more as "innocent," or "idealistic?" I forget.

  • ||

    So you're saying that some people (according to you) preventing victims from talking to the police...somehow justifies the police pepper spraying an 86 year old woman and an expectant mother--who weren't involved?!

    You are one of those collective rights people--aren't you?

  • Art Vandelay||

    some people (according to you) preventing victims from talking to the police

    Not "according to me," no; according to videos of actual rape victims, accompanying the cites linked at Bunny's post. Which, plainly, you didn't bother to watch before shooting your mouth off about them. Oopsie.

    So you're saying [...] somehow justifies the police pepper spraying

    From exactly which part, specifically, of Does actively preventing rape victims from reporting said violent sexual assaults to the police qualify more as "innocent," or "idealistic?" I forget. are you frantically yanking the makings of that inept little straw man, in particular? And do try answering my previous question, please, while you're art it.

  • ||

    One group of people raping somebody--doesn't justify pepper spraying third parties.

    I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand either.

  • ||

    Your whole spiel seems to be all about how much you dislike the OWS people.

    An individual's right not to be brutalized by the police? Isn't a popularity contest...justifiable if you don't like who they associate with?

    Murders have the right not be brutalized by the police. ...even if you don't like them. You understand that much, right?

  • ||

    OWSers are not being (in general) being brutalized by the police. They are being treated respectfully and fairly. Many OWSers are trying as hard as possible to provoke police, but the police ain't bitin '.

    Here's an example being touted on DU etc as BRUTALITY.

    What it is, is police being exceptionally restrained. Arguably too much so. But either way it ain't. Brutality

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded 

  • Art Vandelay||

    Me: "From exactly which part, specifically, of Does actively preventing rape victims from reporting said violent sexual assaults to the police qualify more as "innocent," or "idealistic?" I forget. are you frantically yanking the makings of that inept little straw man, in particular? And do try answering my previous question, please, while you're art it."

    Dishonest Response: "One group of people raping somebody--doesn't justify pepper spraying third parties."

    Dishonest Response (Translated): "No, obviously, you never actually said what I accused you of saying, but I'll be good and goddamned if I'm actually going to admit that."

    Weakest. Dodge. Ever. HAH!!!

  • Art Vandelay||

    You understand that much, right?

    I "understand" that you baldly (and ineptly) attempted to jam words of your own construction into my mouth, above.

    I "understand" that I busted you -- righteously and (better yet) publicly, just now.

    I "understand," therefore, how desperately it must suck to be you, right now.

    "Understand"...?

  • ||

    the seattle pepper spraying was justified. you can wank all you want

  • Ice Cream Bunny||

    You're really so heavily invested in the wonderfulness of this whole OWS thing -- all hasty, de rigueur denials notwithstanding -- that you're actually willing to smear the veracity of multiple rape victims -- ???

    Wow.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Co-signed. And it makes all of Shultz's poor-poor-downtrodden-waifs snuffling, above, ring especially hollowly.

  • Ice Cream Bunny||

    What? No response to a simple, straightforward one-sentence question, yet again?

    My, my. They certainly aren't making "real, live libertarians" the way they used to, are they...?

  • ||

    "You're really so heavily invested in the wonderfulness of this whole OWS thing -- all hasty, de rigueur denials notwithstanding -- that you're actually willing to smear the veracity of multiple rape victims -- ???"

    No, I've seen so much obsessive hatred coming from the likes of you?

    That I'm willing to openly question the veracity of you.

  • ||

    "So you're saying that some people (according to you) preventing victims from talking to the police...somehow justifies the police pepper spraying an 86 year old woman and an expectant mother--who weren't involved?!"

    ----Ken Shultz

    Where did I question the veracity of rape victims?

    I questioned the veracity of you.

  • Ice Cream Bunny||

    No, I've seen so much obsessive hatred coming from the likes of you?

    That I'm willing to openly question the veracity of you.

    Is this glossolalia? It doesn't even begin to respond to the question put to you. You're either wriggling, or weak-kneed.

    "[...] some people (according to you) preventing victims from talking to the police..." was your direct response to another poster, previously. Either the codicil "according to you" is a bucktoothed attempt at discrediting the testimony of multiple sexually assaulted women, or else you're simply incoherent. At this point, the bet is an even money one.

  • ||

    Sorry, all the police brutality apologists are all starting to sound alike.

    "So you're saying that some people (according to you) preventing victims from talking to the police...somehow justifies the police pepper spraying an 86 year old woman and an expectant mother--who weren't involved?!"

    I didn't say "according to the rape victims"; I said "according to you".

    I questioned the veracity of "you".

    Does that make it any clearer?

    Regardless, rape victims being intimidated by some people--doesn't justify police brutality directed at third parties.

    If Jack raped Jill, that doesn't justify the police macing an 80 something year-old woman named Dorli in the face.

  • Ice Cream Bunny||

    Does that make it any clearer?

    If, by "it," you mean your evident confusion... then: sadly, yes.

    THIS:

    police pepper spraying an 86 year old woman and an expectant mother

    ... has nothing whatsoever with the question put to you. It has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I have posted. Please stop attempting to deflect with it; it's both obvious and ineffectual.

    THIS:

    I didn't say "according to the rape victims"; I said "according to you".

    ... is simply burbling: no more, no less. "I" asserted nothing; I did, however, reference multiple testimonials (ON!! VIDEO!!) from violently assaulted women, as well as your snide dismissal of same. Your repeated attempts, for whatever reason, to (somehow) make all of this really about your feelings towards me -- whatever those may be, in the Gacy-esque crawlspace of your imagination -- are noted, and dismissed as another failed distraction.

    Incidentally: steadfastly squirming away from all requests to answer a question IS answering a question, ultimately. Thank you for the confirmation, however grudging and unintentional.

  • JoJo Zeke||

  • ||

    "...has nothing whatsoever with the question put to you. It has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I have posted."

    So in your world, Ken Shultz isn't allowed to talk about things--unless it has to do with whatever you're talking about?

    Everything I've written in this thread is a condemnation of police brutality.

    If your response to my condemnation of police brutality--is that the brutalized protestors got what they deserved because some third party somewhere raped somebody?

    Then it isn't me that's changing the subject.

    If that isn't your position; if you're not saying that the instances of police brutality I'm condemning are justified because some third party somewhere raped somebody--then why bring it up in response to me?

    If your observations about rape don't have anything to do with my condemnations of police brutality--then why bring it up?

    People's rights don't go away just because we don't like them. If you're trying to smear the whole movement as a bunch of rapists and protectors of rapists? ...as a means to justify brutality against them?

    I don't understand that argument at all.

    Don't think I ever said people shouldn't be arrested for civil disobedience. Most of what you're responding to seems to be in your head.

  • Ice Cream Bunny||

    I don't understand

    Condensed for brevity, while retaining all content genuinely relevant to actual topic at hand.

    Dismissed.

  • ||

    the pepper spraying was justified.

    i know you're all butthurt about it and who gives a flying fuck about the EXPECTANT mother? are cops supposed to scan a crowd for baby bumps before pepper spraying

    for fuck's sake, this dog won't hunt

    let it go

  • Cliché Bandit||

    For the record i believe that OWS got its very first serious (if any at all) coverage as a direct result of police brutality (those chicks that were maced by that douche). My how we forget so soon.

  • Punchbowl Turd||

    Gotta love it: Dirty hippies (libertarians hate 'em!) rounded up by "pigs" (libertarians hate 'em!).

    It's the perfect storm! WWLD?*

    *What Would Libertarians Do?**

    **Chatter in a pointless chat room till dinner-time.
    Rinse, repeat, ad infinitum.

  • Juice||

    For the record, I don't hate dirty hippies.

  • ||

    generally speaking, it is not the hippies that are the problem at these protests. it is the anarchists, and the hardline communists, etc.

    hippies are generally harmless, and generally protest peacefully.

    at WTO, the hippies i saw (that you could identify by their garb etc.) were fucking outraged at the anarchist nimrods.

  • ||

    And you read it because you love it.

  • ||

    And comments because he cares.

  • ||

    If they screw with the trains at rush hour in NYC, they will need the cops for protection.

    I'd bet most of them would complain if you blocked their driveway for a day.

  • chris||

    Schultz says freedom and liberty means you need to learned to accept being inconvenienced, collectively speaking.

  • alienrants||

    'Occupy The Subway' In All 5 NYC Boroughs

    So... then: the Owwies get to fuck up the work, school and transportation schedules of an entire city, with (as per Schultz) absolute impunity... and the only "right" possessed by said city denizens, in turn, is Grab Your Ankles and TAKE It?!?

    Bull. SHIT.

  • chris||

    Yep, read it for yourself:

    Yeah, well, protests are supposed to be inconvenient. Respecting people's rights is inconvenient.

    And a society where everyone's free to do as they please--so long as it doesn't inconvenience anybody else? Is not a free society.

    According to him, liberty is a right only in the collectivist sense, not in the individual sense.

  • Art Vandelay||

    According to him, liberty is a right only in the collectivist sense

    ... rendering all his monotonous, parrot-like squawkings of "Awwwwwwwk! Collectivist! COLLECTIVIST!" all the more amusing.

    In... you know... a bleak, hopeless sort of way, I mean. ;)

  • ||

    Respecting individual rights is massively inconvenient.

    Eminent domain abuse? Now that's convenient! Putting people in prison without a jury trial? Now that's convenient!

    Respecting my individual rights?

    Naw--nothin' convenient about that.

    Respecting people's individual rights isn't convenient--and my rights don't exist for the convenience of other people.

    No one should get to ignore other people's individual rights just because they're inconvenient.

    It doesn't matter whether my individual rights are inconvenient for the group--I still have them anyway.

    Why is that so hard to understand? And how could that possibly be seen as being in favor of collective rights?

  • chris||

    You describe the protesters trampling own others as a mere inconvenience to those people. You have described OWS right to protest as a right of greater weight than that of those who want to use the subways or the roadways without being harassed, or blocked from the lawful use of those necessities. How is that not favoring a collective right over individual rights?

  • Art Vandelay||

    OWS Protesters Chant ‘Follow Those Kids!’ As Small Children Try To Go To School On Wall Street

    Tiny Tots, Some As Young As 4, Overwhelmed By Hostility, Crush Of Humanity

    Only worthless chickenshits pick on small, defenseless children.

  • OWS Occutard||

    They're all just, like, little Eichmanns, mannnnnnn!

  • ||

    You have described OWS right to protest as a right of greater weight than that of those who want to use the subways or the roadways without being harassed, or blocked from the lawful use of those necessities."

    I've said that protestors have a right to protest--even if their right is inconvenient for other people. The rest of that's a voice in your head.

    I'm not saying one is necessarily bigger than the other. People have a right to use the sidewalk even if it's inconvenient for the protestors too.

    I don't oppose arresting people for civil disobedience.

    I do oppose police brutality.

    Civil disobedience doesn't necessitate police brutality.

    My argument is that police brutality tends to radicalize idealists--and that libertarians should condemn every act of police brutality we see.

    You seem to be suggesting that the right of people to use public property is more important than the right of protestors not to be victims of police brutality.

    Once again, convicted murderers have a right not to be subjected to police brutality. Why would occupying public spaces be worse than that?

    Some people here are willing to justify anything so long as they don't like the victims.

    I won't do that.

    I invoked the right of terrorists not be tortured--even though I despise terrorists. Why would I try to justify police brutality--just because I don't like OWS?

    Not this kid.

  • cynical||

    "Respecting individual rights is massively inconvenient."

    There is no right to shut down public infrastructure to extort money out of the city because you're too lazy and entitled to do hard, moderately paying work.

  • Ice Cream Bunny||

    +1

  • ||

    I've said on H&R many times that freedom is about annoying and being annoyed. So I would agree with Schultz. Of course, I'm not in line with most of America or NYC.

    If you are protesting wall street, stay focused. Disrupting subway service is protesting something else. If they want to inconvience me, I get to inconvience them. We can call that reciprocity of freedom.

  • chris||

    Sorry about the 'c', Ken. I just now noticed it wasn't properly entered in my auto correct that now includes your name. Hope it wasn't an inconvience.

  • ||

    I don't support OWS or their delusional, socialist demands. But, the US government's policy since 2008 has basically been: "The banks don't have to pay their debts, in fact, we'll paper them over and bail them out. But mortgagors, student loan borrowers, people in over their heads with credit card debt. You'll pay every goddamn penny back to those same banks, and like it."

    Now, clearly the problem here is the government and OWS is pretty stupid for not focusing 90% of their ire on it. But anyone who was expecting these policies to yield anything but riots and class warfare is totally ignorant of history. And this sort of thing is never a rational process. Hemming and hawing about about how misdirected and irrational OWS is ... it's not wrong, it's just kind of missing the point.

  • ||

    But anyone who was expecting these policies to yield anything but riots and class warfare is totally ignorant of history.

    No. There is a special kind of stupidity here. You see the natural response to injustice is to correct it. The OWSers response is that the injustice is OK so long as they are the ones getting the good end of the stick.

    Normal person - "Stop giving away money to failed banks"

    OWSer - "Give me that money instead...well OK give it to the banks and to me and then I am cool with it all."

  • ||

    So what is the normal person supposed to do when Congress gets flooded with letters and emails which are 99% opposed to bailouts, and passes them anyway? Vote for the Republocrat challenger in some meaningless congressional race?

    Again, not saying that OWS is *right* here, but "stop giving away money to failed banks" has been tried and found wanting.

  • Coeus||

    You really think that anyone elected by the Tea Party would vote for another bailout?

  • ||

    A lot of them are rooting for Herman Cain, who definitely would, the guy is a former Fed lackey. Rand Paul won't, but Scott Brown -- who, it could be argued, is the quintessential Tea Party candidate -- very well might.

    And all the beltway Republicans who are now pandering to the Tea Party because it's convenient and helps them grab power -- the John Boehners and his ilk -- will definitely be voting for the next round.

  • Coeus||

    So you're saying that people they may vote for in the future (and Scott Brown) might vote for another bailout? You realize that they would be voted out in the next cycle if they did that, right? No more bailouts and no new taxes was their entire mandate.

  • ||

    You seem to think that majority of Congressmen actually give a fuck what their "mandate" is. The opposition to the original bailouts in 2008 could not have been more unanimous and vocal, yet they were still brought into line and made to vote for them. So what good does replacing Congress with a new crop of scoundrels every 4-5 years actually accomplish in terms of stopping bailouts?

  • Coeus||

    You seem to think that majority of Congressmen actually give a fuck what their "mandate" is.

    No. I think that those elected under the "Tea Party" banner do. And they are definitely not a majority of congressmen.

  • cynical||

    "So what is the normal person supposed to do when Congress gets flooded with letters and emails which are 99% opposed to bailouts, and passes them anyway?"

    Vote for the party that split 50-50 on the issue in Congress, instead of the party that went 75-25 in favor?

  • ||

    Vote for the party that split 50-50 on the issue in Congress, instead of the party that went 75-25 in favor?

    Classic, we'll have this problem licked in no time!

  • chris||

    You are right up to the missing the point. The OWS have become a separate problem, one that we will feel the reverberations from for years to come, to the problem of crony bailouts that spawned them.

  • jtuf||

    Great article, Riggs.

    I was at OWS today taking video from 7 am to 10 am and then again from around 1:30 pm to 3 pm. It will take a week to process it. The vast majority of the protesters were just chanting, and the vast majority of the police were just watching them. A handful of protesters tried to block the sidewalk so that office workers could not get to work. The police cleared them from the sidewalk by pushing. I got pushed too too, since I was between the police and the protesters at the time, but the pushing wasn't hard enough to injure anyone.

    Every so often, there were sudden circles forming with all cameras facing the center. They were too far and started too quickly for me to verify what caused them. The protests spanned a few blocks, so I'm wouldn't be surprised to learn that I missed some incidents.

    The one police violation of rights that I could verify was the police closing the entrance to Zuccatti Park for 10 to 30 minutes, which prevented people from entering or leaving the park. An officer later explained that they had closed it in response to "an incident".

  • We Can All Agree||

    If the cops are going to kick, beat, pepper spray and brutalize journalists I wish they would concentrate their efforts on "Occupy Missoula".

  • ||

    In many ways the conservative (john, Dunnphy) glee in all this is as repulsive as the OWSers complete lack of self awareness.

    All things being equal Epi is this thread's winner.

  • chris||

    Just to point out, I agree with Dunnphy that this is boost their cred, but I'm not at all happy about that. It makes it harder to cut their pay, and cap benefits if the public is backing them.

  • chris||

    this is a boost to their cred

  • ||

    Not a conservative. Sorry. Libertarian. Hth

  • Punchbowl Turd||

    I float.
    I am!

  • jtuf||

    CNN posted its report of today's protests ( http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11.....s-roundup/ )


    Hours later, a high-ranking New York police department official said that 99 more people had been arrested. Occupy Wall Street organizers had said that 99 people were prepared to be sit down in a street and be arrested -- a symbolic number, as the activists purport to represent the interests of 99% of the nation's population, as opposed to the wealthiest 1%.

    Five police officers were injured when a liquid was thrown on their faces during confrontations with with protesters, Kelly said. The officers felt burning in their faces, but were able to wash off the unknown substance at a nearby hospital.

    In addition, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said a 24-year-old police officer was injured when a star-shaped glass object was thrown at him. Speaking from Bellevue Hospital Center, he said "some protesters today deliberately pursued violence,' but added that most were peaceful and have "caused minimal disruptions to our city."

    If terrorist attacks are the likely outcome of protesters getting their rights violated, should we expect terrorist attacks from police that get injured by the protests? I think both sides will calm down by January. The violent incidents were the exceptions in NYC, not the rule.

  • ||

    This is like the worst chat room ever.

    Oink!

  • FedUp||

    Welcome to the Police State 2011. What goes around comes around and when these pigs(cops)kick in your door, it will be too late.

  • ||

    Most people want the cops to beat the crap out of the OWS - especially if theyre making them late for work or are crapping on sidewalks.

  • ||

    That is one huge leap for the author to make. Does he somehow imagine that if a private contractor like Blackwater were managing the situation that somehow it would have been roses? Ask some of Blackwater's victims in Iraq. "For profit police departments", there's a great idea. Of course, in the author's ideal world there is no such thing as public property so there is no protest to begin with, only acquiescence to power.

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