From what I've heard there have been a decent amount of police clashes similar to Oakland in Occupy Rome. Which is a bit disconcerting if you were hoping these protests would stay peaceful.
Printable View
From what I've heard there have been a decent amount of police clashes similar to Oakland in Occupy Rome. Which is a bit disconcerting if you were hoping these protests would stay peaceful.
Isn't the complaint that they have no message?Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
;)
I hear the message as something like:
1) Wall street ****ed the economy.
2) Both political parties enabled it.
3) That's not very good. Let's not do that again.
I'm guessing 90% of America agrees with that message. I'd be hard pressed to find someone I know who doesn't.
Well, that's blatantly obvious, but then you get into the "who's MOAR at fault" scenarios, which is when the partisan divide happens. And yes, I know I'm part of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clay Dreslough
support for their motive is one thing, blind support for their actions is another. i'm sure most if not all the police agree with their motives....and are not looking for altercations. when they become purposely disruptive or violent....then thats when my support for their actions end. i'm not going to sit here and blindly blame police, politicians, media, whomever for violent altercations that take place. it's very likely that the protestors took it too far which led to that altercation.
And I've seen video of police pepper spraying people who were doing nothing outside of just being there.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
In Occupy Denver the police rallied up in Riot Gear fearing that these people were getting too large and they were going to have to break them up just for that, but the fear of pepper spray lowered the crowd enough the cops didn't show.
Most of these people are not violent social movement type people. Occupy Oakland they marched down streets and were starting to become a disruptive force, thus the Government Action. But that being said, they did shoot pepper balls into crowds of people, some of them weren't doing anything.
Outside of police clashes in Occupy Rome, this hasn't exactly been a violent protest. You got arrests, you got pepper spray, cool. They aren't rising up and burning the banks down...yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Or how about up here during the G-20 last summer when people out walking their dogs in their own neighbourhood on a Sunday night, were among those who got caught up in a lovely little police crowd control technique known as kettling? Everybody that got snared in the trap was held for an hour and a half to two hours without charges in an absolute deluge of rain. It was despicable. They were eventually let go, but that's not really the point is it? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. A billion freaking dollars was spent on this mess. I understand the need for security during these events, but following that weekend I was left to wonder who had run more rampant over my city: the protestors or the police who were supposed to maintain order. Cops have an extremely difficult job to do. I get that. I don't get their need to separate themselves from the swine they disdainfully label as "civilians". What the f*** happened to "To Serve and Protect". More like: "To Detain and Humiliate".Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobie
damn and I saw a mob shutting down the #5 US harbor in oakland yesterday... thus shutting down shipments to hard working store owners who just cant wait to pay more taxes to the freeloaders on unemployment. I saw another store front vandalized with spray paint and windows kicked out ... I heard they stopped when the owner pull out his shot gun.
someone is gonna get killed ... just like at canton ... then will the protesters be happy????
Tea Party is nothing like this messed up bunch of wackos.
oi
its a double edge sword. whenever a large group of "protesters" gather, the police have a responsibility to show a strong presence (which can be a deterrent to violence) and be prepared in the event that violence takes place. This is not only for bystanders, they have a responsibility to all those in that crowd protesting as well. They are there for their safety. It only takes one or two idiots to turn things south quickly (and police can be idiots too). Police aren't going to, and shouldn't put themselves into unnecessary risks by permitting things to get out of hand. When you put a bunch of angry protestors next to a bunch of anxious and cautious armed police officers....its a dangerous situation. If the cops don't make a presence and things get violent, people get hurt or killed...these same people complaining about too much police presence and their actions will be arguing that the police are paid to maintain control and keep riots from occurring and should've been there with more force.Quote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson
If you're involved in a large group of protestors and you notice some are getting unruly...you need to leave. The police have a responsibility to themselves and their families first and foremost...and while their job requires them to try and control the situation they should most definitely use tactics that put themselves in the least amount of risk. Pepper spray and other riot control devices obviously will effect many protestors who were not causing havoc...but those protestors were in a group setting with some that were.
I know Fox News wouldn't tell you, but what has happened has been condemned by Oakland protesters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete4256
Funny thing, I was listening to conservative radio, a local host here was taking calls on what people thought and one person called and said the violence has actually been condemned by Occupy Oakland protesters, and guess what? The host hung up on him.
Lets not pick and choose here. Occupy has made ground on the merits of "we don't need a message, we're protesting the system".....and in that same article you linked that lack of a consistent message appears again. On one hand, yes....one quote condemns it. On another you get this:Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
So it appears some want it to turn violent. Heck, the main quote condemning protests is this:Quote:
Some protesters said violence can bring attention to the cause. "This thing has to escalate so people see the violence and who is protecting the interests of the corporations," said Denver protester Dwayne Hudson, standing next to a grill with logs burning over charcoal to stay warm after a snowstorm.
Nicholson blamed the violence on a small group of young people just there for violence — "Some kids looking to blow off some steam."
That doesn't sound like he's condemning it. What it sounds like is, "Oh, its ok...there are going to be some mistakes...nothing to see here, move along." Or even better...."Lets shut down a port costing the local economy likely hundreds of thousands if not millions, putting people out of work, lets terrorize the hell out of them (ie. agitate) and not expect things to turn violent on their side or ours." Yeah right.Quote:
Bob Norkus at the Occupy Boston camp said the riots didn't represent the broader movement and likely wouldn't have a lasting affect on it, either. The movement is still evolving and mistakes are inevitable, he said.
Occupy movement grows
It "has to be nonviolent, or else it will just end. We won't get the support," he said. "It doesn't mean you can't agitate people. But you can't also be breaking windows and burning."
These are not typical protests. These people are camping out long term purposely trying to agitate and and be disruptive to get noticed. Like wearing a KKK costume through the streets of queens....of course it's going to turn violent. But lets blame the police....
^This sounds like not supporting it to me bro. You even quoted this line too, so I am a bit confused.Quote:
It "has to be nonviolent, or else it will just end. We won't get the support," he said. "It doesn't mean you can't agitate people. But you can't also be breaking windows and burning."