Looks like somone got three stars!

Mayor Quan is really not helping.

Yeah. This is going to get real ugly real fast if they start putting veterans in the ICU on a weekly basis.

Vodka Zombie: Yeah. This is going to get real ugly real fast if they start putting veterans in the ICU on a weekly basis.

It does seem like one of those gang aft agley type of plans, doesn't it?

Somebody needs to tell the police that they're doing it wrong.

ginandbacon [TotalFark]
Vodka Zombie: Yeah. This is going to get real ugly real fast if they start putting veterans in the ICU on a weekly basis.

Doesn't seem to have yet.

Grables'Daughter: Somebody needs to tell the police that they're doing it wrong.

I don't think the OWS kids will, they're digging all the extra media attention this sort of thing brings, clever monkeys.

Generation_D: ginandbacon [TotalFark]
Vodka Zombie: Yeah. This is going to get real ugly real fast if they start putting veterans in the ICU on a weekly basis.

Doesn't seem to have yet.

I'd hate to see your definition of ugly.

Grables'Daughter: Somebody needs to tell the police that they're doing it wrong.

LOL in CA? this is HOW you are supposed to do it!!

but seriously, have you ever noticed how these riots tend to happen only when the police try to break up crowds?

maybe the police need a NEW method for breaking up crowds?

I generally support the OWS movement. And though I am pretty anti-war in general, I am very pro-vet and think they deserve many benefits upon their return. However, the fact that this guy was a vet means nothing to me. Either he was resisting arrest in such a manner that force was necessary, or he wasn't and force shouldn't have been used. In determining whether the cops were justified, it really doesn't matter what his past employment was.

Three Crooked Squirrels: Either he was resisting arrest in such a manner that force was necessary, or he wasn't and force shouldn't have been used. In determining whether the cops were justified, it really doesn't matter what his past employment was.

This - exactly.

there is absolutely no way to put a positive spin on this one.

Something something enemies foreign AND domestic something.......

namatad: maybe the police need a NEW method for breaking up crowds?

Nuke it from orbit?

Three Crooked Squirrels: . Either he was resisting arrest in such a manner that force was necessary, or he wasn't and force shouldn't have been used. In determining whether the cops were justified, it really doesn't matter what his past employment was.

And if he was resisting arrest, then the cops used excessive force to subdue him. c'mon - they beat him so hard that they ruptured his spleen AND he had internal bleeding. that's far and above what's necessary to subdue someone long enough to slap the cuffs on and put him in a jail cell.

there is absolutely no way this is acceptable behavior. And yet....I suspect that once this goes green, our Usual Suspects will jump to protect the Oakland PD yet again.

Weaver95: there is absolutely no way to put a positive spin on this one.

There's happy Republican spin - someone demanding equality got shot. They're happy.

Three Crooked Squirrels: I generally support the OWS movement. And though I am pretty anti-war in general, I am very pro-vet and think they deserve many benefits upon their return. However, the fact that this guy was a vet means nothing to me. Either he was resisting arrest in such a manner that force was necessary, or he wasn't and force shouldn't have been used. In determining whether the cops were justified, it really doesn't matter what his past employment was.

He was beaten so severely his spleen was lacerated. He was then put n a holding cell and denied treatment for 18 hours.

And I disagree with you. He served as a Ranger in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Obviously no citizen should ever face excessive force, but it somehow is worse when it happens to someone who made such a horrible sacrifice in defense of this country to not be able to exercise his rights to free speech and peaceable assembly. I know that's not entirely rational, but it is more wrong. At least to my gut check.

Weaver95: Three Crooked Squirrels: . Either he was resisting arrest in such a manner that force was necessary, or he wasn't and force shouldn't have been used. In determining whether the cops were justified, it really doesn't matter what his past employment was.

And if he was resisting arrest, then the cops used excessive force to subdue him. c'mon - they beat him so hard that they ruptured his spleen AND he had internal bleeding. that's far and above what's necessary to subdue someone long enough to slap the cuffs on and put him in a jail cell.

there is absolutely no way this is acceptable behavior. And yet....I suspect that once this goes green, our Usual Suspects will jump to protect the Oakland PD yet again.

Eh, it depends on what they mean by "resisting". Passive resistance, yeah I would agree with you. But if he was fighting with the cops, he's pretty much lucky that's all he's got. Courts have said time and again that police are entitled to use whatever force is necessary to subdue you; basically as long as you keep fighting, they can keep beating.

Of course, if that was the case, I would expect he'd be looking at some sort of assault charge too.

xanadian: namatad: maybe the police need a NEW method for breaking up crowds?

Nuke it from orbit?

#OCCUPYFALLOUTSHELTER

gilgigamesh: Eh, it depends on what they mean by "resisting"

Are we going with the definition from Nashville? Walk up and say you're resisting arrest? Because if you're taking the word of the police at this point, you're clinically retarded.

GAT_00: gilgigamesh: Eh, it depends on what they mean by "resisting"

Are we going with the definition from Nashville? Walk up and say you're resisting arrest? Because if you're taking the word of the police at this point, you're clinically retarded.

I'm not, at all. I wasn't there, and neither were you.

I was just taking issue with Weaver's assertion that it isn't lawful for the police to beat the tar out of you if you are resisting arrest.

I'd hate to see your definition of ugly.

Not ugly: a handful of arrests, a majority of Americans side with the protesters, and in a year nothing changes. No prosecutions of leaders, no banks held accountable, no changes to financial law. Another bubble on the way, and another round of victims' money being looted by those at the top.

Definition of ugly: change to any of the above.

gilgigamesh:
Eh, it depends on what they mean by "resisting". Passive resistance, yeah I would agree with you. But if he was fighting with the cops, he's pretty much lucky that's all he's got. Courts have said time and again that police are entitled to use whatever force is necessary to subdue you; basically as long as you keep fighting, they can keep beating.

Of course, if that was the case, I would expect he'd be looking at some sort of assault charge too.

and he wasn't hit with an assault charge. NOR was he given immediate medical attention. I gotta say that, based on what's in this article, it sounds like the cops beat the snot outta this guy and then threw him into a cell and ignore signs of serious medical problems. i'm willing to bet that he didn't get a shot at going to the ER until the next shift came in and realized he wasn't faking.

gilgigamesh:
I was just taking issue with Weaver's assertion that it isn't lawful for the police to beat the tar out of you if you are resisting arrest.

the cops are SUPPOSED to have rules of enagement. excessive force is supposed to be the last option on the list...it just seems to me that the Oakland PD put 'excessive force' as option #1. I have to wonder about the stories we're NOT hearing about.

Generation_D: I'd hate to see your definition of ugly.

Not ugly: a handful of arrests, a majority of Americans side with the protesters, and in a year nothing changes. No prosecutions of leaders, no banks held accountable, no changes to financial law. Another bubble on the way, and another round of victims' money being looted by those at the top.

Definition of ugly: change to any of the above.

The way I see it, a year ago many people were predicting the economic instability we were facing would lead to protests, and ultimately riots and civil unrest if it continued. Now we are seeing that. It may not be bad yet, but I think it will inevitably will get worse because the economic situation isn't improving.

Weaver95: I have to wonder about the stories we're NOT hearing about.

^^^^^^^^^So much THIS.

Riots are dangerous. When people are injured in a riot, rioters are to blame. People who support and encourage rioting are also to blame.

Weaver95: and he wasn't hit with an assault charge.

I'll bet he will be, as a CYA measure.

SkinnyHead: Riots are dangerous. When people are injured in a riot, rioters are to blame. People who support and encourage rioting are also to blame.

People don't generally riot for the hell of it. There is usually some socioeconomic injustice -- real or perceived --- that sends people into the streets with the level of anger necessary to break and burn random shiat.

To paraphrase Chris Rock, I'm not saying I condone it, but I understand.

SkinnyHead: Riots are dangerous. When people are injured in a riot, rioters are to blame. People who support and encourage rioting are also to blame.

Also, there is this factor to consider. (new window)

gilgigamesh: The way I see it, a year ago many people were predicting the economic instability we were facing would lead to protests, and ultimately riots and civil unrest if it continued. Now we are seeing that. It may not be bad yet, but I think it will inevitably will get worse because the economic situation isn't improving.

its moving slow...but yeah, we're going to see more and more people protesting. More and more people asking wall street pointed questions.

to be fair, so far only a very few places have been hostile towards the OWS satellite protests. Oakland and Boston seem to the be worst. in most cases the cops and protesters show respect towards one another. The cops set boundaries, and while the OWS protesters might give a speech or three, they respect what the cops ask the protesters to do.

Oakland protests:

cops: 'hey protesters - f*ck yer mother!'
protesters: 'free speech! screw wall street!'
cops: 'that's it...[fires 40mm canister into crowd at head level]. they were coming right at me sarge.'

Most everywhere else:

cops: 'hey guys, keep it on the sidewalks.'
protesters: [moves onto sidewalks] 'we're going to have a three hour speech now.'
cops: 'ok cool, just don't block foot traffic.'
protesters: 'sure thing! wanna join us?'
cops: 'nah, but we're gonna be about 100 feet away just in case.'
protesters: 'rock on. we'll talk loud so you can hear.'

SkinnyHead: Riots are dangerous. When people are injured in a riot, rioters are to blame. People who support and encourage rioting are also to blame.

so people who support police abuse are equally culpable as the cops who commit the abuse?

Weaver95: its moving slow...but yeah, we're going to see more and more people protesting. More and more people asking wall street pointed questions.

Its moving slow because there is still a social safety net. Let the republicans get in power and start taking it apart and things will go downhill quick.

to be fair, so far only a very few places have been hostile towards the OWS satellite protests. Oakland and Boston seem to the be worst. in most cases the cops and protesters show respect towards one another. The cops set boundaries, and while the OWS protesters might give a speech or three, they respect what the cops ask the protesters to do.

Right wing talk radio has been doing its level best to change that part. The local Occupy here in New Orleans has been peaceful and unassuming, but the local fascist radio jocks have been using every propaganda tool in the kit to try and change that.

gilgigamesh: Right wing talk radio has been doing its level best to change that part. The local Occupy here in New Orleans has been peaceful and unassuming, but the local fascist radio jocks have been using every propaganda tool in the kit to try and change that.

talk radio here in central Pa has been mostly mocking the protests. I don't think the right wing radio shills consider them to be a threat to Harrisburg. At least I haven't heard them urging violence anyways, but I don't listen to them very often.

SkinnyHead: Riots are dangerous. When people are injured in a riot, rioters are to blame. People who support and encourage rioting are also to blame.


Which "riot" might you be speaking of, deep thinker?

gilgigamesh: Also, there is this factor to consider. (new window)

First you say that rioters break and burn things because they are consumed with anger over socioeconomic injustice and then you say that rioters are really undercover police agents engaging in purposeful provocation. Which is it?

gilgigamesh [TotalFark]

The way I see it, a year ago many people were predicting the economic instability we were facing would lead to protests, and ultimately riots and civil unrest if it continued. Now we are seeing that. It may not be bad yet, but I think it will inevitably will get worse because the economic situation isn't improving.

Fair. I just see status quo over the long haul. The boys in power have absolutely not been threatened. Two days ago, the head asshat at Chase, the man partly responsible for looting WaMu (and putting 1200 Seattle employees out of work) came out to Seattle and did a nice victory lap/tapdance on the grave of a city he helped make worse.

What happened? Handful of arrests, and a nice puff piece in the Seattle Times on how he felt badly and really thinks of himself as being a victim of the economy too.

The correct/appropriate response would have been he was jailed awaiting trial for fraud and treason. Or at least, facing a nice indictment on fraud.

Not happening kids. Meet the new boss same as the old boss. We've seen this movie before. 1968. 1977. 1999. Its always the same damn thing, a bunch of idealists and fringers thinks they're going to change things, and in the end does absolfarkinglutely nothing but rile a few feathers and get their names in self-congratulatory wiki pages or books. Meanwhile power continues to concentrate, people continue to be marginalized, and eventually you find a way to sort of survive on your own ... til the next bubble or the next upheaval you had no hand in causing yet are being the victim of.

Enjoy your protests, kids.

Real revolution has not started, and from the looks of it as well as from American history, probably won't. I did say probably. But that is still highly unlikely because most Americans remain pretty much incapable of electing anything but another criminal, or in holding accountable any actual responsible party. Or even in agreeing who those responsible parties are.

Nobody is in the 2012 election cycle yet saying they'll hold banks accountable, or change the laws that let banks speculate, or hold any administration people accountable. NOT ONE candidate is even promising that. Its not part of our national dialog. Just the banks suck and the economy sucks and everything sucks. Now what.

Oh, and when I start seeing right wing radio jocks held accountable for their part in the national debt.. when I see FOX held accountable for lying us into a crisis.. then I'll believe anything's changing. Or at least, when I see FOX being ignored by 99% of America. Hasn't happened yet. At all.

DrBenway: SkinnyHead: Riots are dangerous. When people are injured in a riot, rioters are to blame. People who support and encourage rioting are also to blame.


Which "riot" might you be speaking of, deep thinker?

oh, according to the right wing shills - ANY protest or any attempt to actually USE your 1st amendment rights in a way that's not supporting a corporation is automatically considered to be a 'riot'.

so basically this thread is a riot. And not the funny kind either, no matter how much we might laugh at certain comments.

Weaver95: SkinnyHead: Riots are dangerous. When people are injured in a riot, rioters are to blame. People who support and encourage rioting are also to blame.

so people who support police abuse are equally culpable as the cops who commit the abuse?

People who encourage criminal behavior share the blame for the criminal behavior that they encourage.

Generation_D: Oh, and when I start seeing right wing radio jocks held accountable for their part in the national debt.. when I see FOX held accountable for lying us into a crisis.. then I'll believe anything's changing. Or at least, when I see FOX being ignored by 99% of America. Hasn't happened yet. At all.

if none of this matters, then why are we seeing cops putting people into hospital beds...?

Weaver95: gilgigamesh: The way I see it, a year ago many people were predicting the economic instability we were facing would lead to protests, and ultimately riots and civil unrest if it continued. Now we are seeing that. It may not be bad yet, but I think it will inevitably will get worse because the economic situation isn't improving.

its moving slow...but yeah, we're going to see more and more people protesting. More and more people asking wall street pointed questions.

to be fair, so far only a very few places have been hostile towards the OWS satellite protests. Oakland and Boston seem to the be worst. in most cases the cops and protesters show respect towards one another. The cops set boundaries, and while the OWS protesters might give a speech or three, they respect what the cops ask the protesters to do.

Oakland protests:

cops: 'hey protesters - f*ck yer mother!'
protesters: 'free speech! screw wall street!'
cops: 'that's it...[fires 40mm 37mm canister into crowd at head level]. they were coming right at me sarge.'

Most everywhere else:

cops: 'hey guys, keep it on the sidewalks.'
protesters: [moves onto sidewalks] 'we're going to have a three hour speech now.'
cops: 'ok cool, just don't block foot traffic.'
protesters: 'sure thing! wanna join us?'
cops: 'nah, but we're gonna be about 100 feet away just in case.'
protesters: 'rock on. we'll talk loud so you can hear.'

FTFY

SkinnyHead: Weaver95: SkinnyHead: Riots are dangerous. When people are injured in a riot, rioters are to blame. People who support and encourage rioting are also to blame.

so people who support police abuse are equally culpable as the cops who commit the abuse?

People who encourage criminal behavior share the blame for the criminal behavior that they encourage.

so you're basically admitting to commiting a criminal felony? that's an interesting tack....

Weaver95: SkinnyHead: Weaver95: SkinnyHead: Riots are dangerous. When people are injured in a riot, rioters are to blame. People who support and encourage rioting are also to blame.

so people who support police abuse are equally culpable as the cops who commit the abuse?

People who encourage criminal behavior share the blame for the criminal behavior that they encourage.

so you're basically admitting to commiting a criminal felony? that's an interesting tack....


Deep thoughts with SkinnyHead.

A riot is an ugly thingk, undt vonce you get vun shtarted, there is little shance of shtopping it, short of bluudshet. I think, before we go around killing peeple, we had better made DAMN sure of our evidence, undt.... (link goes to film clip)

In all seriousness, OPD is incredibly slow on the uptake. They've already crossed the bloodshed boundary, they fired on a group of people attending to someone who was injured (Scott Olsen) and now they've denied medical care to someone they wounded and the guy, another veteran, ended up in intensive care. How high does the body count need to be before they understand that their tactics are doing more harm than good? We all know it's going to be greater than one.

Weaver95: its moving slow...but yeah, we're going to see more and more people protesting. More and more people asking wall street pointed questions.

to be fair, so far only a very few places have been hostile towards the OWS satellite protests. Oakland and Boston seem to the be worst. in most cases the cops and protesters show respect towards one another. The cops set boundaries, and while the OWS protesters might give a speech or three, they respect what the cops ask the protesters to do.

Here in Eugene, they respect the locals, the cops and government so much they've moved three or four times.

First their location was in the way of a local farmer's market kind of thing. Then they were... well, I'm not sure what the issue at the second location was. Lack of visibility maybe?

Then they moved to the University of Oregon, who asked them to move around a bit more than the City had. Now they're moving or talking about moving to one of the few semi-sheltered outdoor places that homeless people can use; it's highly visible, but pushing the truly homeless out so they can camp there seems kinda wrong.

/If they're occupying, they're either doing it very right - by staying in the news whenever they move - or very wrong - by moving all the farking time.

wont_eat_bugs: How high does the body count need to be before they understand that their tactics are doing more harm than good?

I don't think the cops give a damn.

Weaver95: Three Crooked Squirrels: . Either he was resisting arrest in such a manner that force was necessary, or he wasn't and force shouldn't have been used. In determining whether the cops were justified, it really doesn't matter what his past employment was.

And if he was resisting arrest, then the cops used excessive force to subdue him. c'mon - they beat him so hard that they ruptured his spleen AND he had internal bleeding. that's far and above what's necessary to subdue someone long enough to slap the cuffs on and put him in a jail cell.

there is absolutely no way this is acceptable behavior.

This.

DrBenway: SkinnyHead: Riots are dangerous. When people are injured in a riot, rioters are to blame. People who support and encourage rioting are also to blame.


Which "riot" might you be speaking of, deep thinker?

I'm referring to the Occupy Oakland riots. Isn't that the topic of the thread?

A riot is defined by California law as follows: "Any use of force or violence, disturbing the public peace, or any threat to use force or violence, if accompanied by immediate power of execution, by two or more persons acting together, and without authority of law, is a riot." ~ Penal Code section 404.

When you have several protesters throwing things at police, that's a riot. When police declare an unlawful assembly and orders the crowd to disperse, those who refuse to obey the order are participating in the riot, and the police are entitled to treat them as rioters.

Weaver95: excessive force is supposed to be the last option on the list



Can't be soft on crime now, can we? Right conservatives? That's been your mantra for 40 years.