|
On December 08 2011 04:35 BestZergOnEast wrote:
That protest was about an illegal, immoral war of aggression, not about a bunch of yuppies whining about how tuition costs are too high.
You can disagree with a cause without committing a hasty_generalization by labeling everyone involved with some derogatory label.
In regards to your previous post, if protesters redirected violence away from others and to themselves instead, that sounds if any thing selfless and honorable (Not that I think they actually do that or are capable of doing that).
|
On December 08 2011 04:35 BestZergOnEast wrote:
Except the protest movement in the 60's was against the war in vietnam in which 6 million innocent men and women were slaughtered for no reason, in which bombs rained down upon Cambodia and Laos. That protest was about an illegal, immoral war of aggression, not about a bunch of yuppies whining about how tuition costs are too high.
Except the protests of the 60's I'm talking about are the ones for civil rights for blacks. Of course, they were just a bunch of yuppies that were complaining about having to use separate bathrooms and restaurants.
|
Being selfless isn't honorable. It's perverse. No one is actually selfless anyway, people just preach selflessness in order to exploit you. That is to say sacrificing for someone you love is noble, but sacrificing for a stranger or an enemy is stupid and perverse. It's not noble to be a victim of violence. Really it's just cowardly to not fight back against aggression.
|
On December 08 2011 03:13 natebreen wrote:
It's incredibly disingenuous to make a thread on this issue and not post the full video.
I'm sure this has been addressed in this 32 page thread, but I want to make sure this point is heard:
Police have very stringent procedural instructions and training.
When they are in a protest environment, there is a reason they are in riot gear and have shields.
Yes, the protest was "non-violent," but a protest is not fixed entity that will remain in one state. Hence, the need for protection. It is an inflammatory situation with many people with many motivations.
The facts as I see them:
Police were instructed to enter and remove the tents. They did so after issuing 3-4 verbal warnings over a loudspeaker.
Several students attempted to prevent them from removing the tents. These students were arrested.
Upon attempting to leave with the students in a circle per procedure, the police were surrounded by people chanting and screaming at them. 10-20 students formed a human line sitting on their exit path.
Police issued these students several formal warnings informing them they would be removed from their position and would be subject to arrest/force. The force continuum is very clear in this regard, and "soft force" such as pepper spray is clearly identified as the proper response.
The students persisted. They were pepper sprayed.
Then, the world reports the issue as a group of nonviolent, peaceful protestors being maliciously assaulted by police officers.
Not the case.
Maybe if these protests utilized media to make accurate representations of their demands and purpose, and stopped focusing so much on baiting police into action so that they can cry brutality (see OWS videos from NYC) then the cause would be a lot more respected by the mainstream populace.
Watch the whole video, it's very telling.
The most significant part for me was a student dressed in all black running through the center of the circle/video frame stomping the ground and waving his hands as if to incite more people to become unruly and angry.
And you wonder why the police were interested in exiting through their pre-determined route instead of being forced to turn and walk through a horde of students and protestors with their arrestees.
Exactly my thoughts on the whole issue. This is a story that indeed has two sides to it, one side unfortunately is practically ignored making this whole ordeal seem like a much bigger deal than it actually is. After watching the videos in the OP as well as a few others it's pretty clear to me that the police acted in a way that was appropriate. This wasn't a bunch of students sitting in a circle holding hands singing Kumbaya and then were all of the sudden pepper sprayed for no reason. There are videos posted of these police officers individually coming up to each of the kids in that line and asking them if they understand what can happen to them if they don't move. These kids made it as difficult as possible for the police to do their job. They stopped protesting for tuition or war or w/e their original cause was when they formed that line to specifically not allow the police to escort the students they arrested off the campus.
|
Except your entire argument rests on the thesis that people should be arrested for protesting. Personally I am in favour of the 1st Amendment but I guess you're right it is silly and outdated. Bring on the police state!
|
The whole thing is just very unfortunate. There's virtually nothing the students can do about the rising tuition costs other than write angry letters. Yes, the police's actions were constituted, so I'm not going to badmouth them, but most of the students looked like they felt they had no choice. I'm in the "getting an education shouldn't be a debt sentence" pool, so this just sucks :/
|
On December 08 2011 04:42 Galactus52 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 04:35 BestZergOnEast wrote:
Except the protest movement in the 60's was against the war in vietnam in which 6 million innocent men and women were slaughtered for no reason, in which bombs rained down upon Cambodia and Laos. That protest was about an illegal, immoral war of aggression, not about a bunch of yuppies whining about how tuition costs are too high. Except the protests of the 60's I'm talking about are the ones for civil rights for blacks. Of course, they were just a bunch of yuppies that were complaining about having to use separate bathrooms and restaurants.
Oh yeah, because I bet the black people back then were screaming fuck the police and directly disobeying the police right before resisting arrest. If that happened, then you could call the police response there, police brutality.
Let's take Rosa Parks for example. She said no, she would not move. The police took her away. What didn't happen was:
Rosa resisting arrest
Black people crowding around the police and blocking their path
Now let's see how that worked out. Rosa became one of the most important figures in the protest movement. Nuff said
|
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/07/occupy-dc-protesters-k-street-arrested_n_1135084.html
A couple quotes from the article:
Lasting more than an hour, a standoff between Occupy Wall Street protesters and D.C.'s Metropolitan Police Department resulted in at least three dozen arrests near Franklin Square at 14th and K Streets NW. Police used horses for crowd control, and picked apart protesters who linked arms and went limp with their bodies.
Protesters decided to link arms and were arrested without major conflict.
And they said it couldn't be done.
|
Updated the OP with some more information. Please let me know if I'm leaving out important opinions on either side of the argument.
|
On December 08 2011 08:23 Dark_Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 04:42 Galactus52 wrote:On December 08 2011 04:35 BestZergOnEast wrote:
Except the protest movement in the 60's was against the war in vietnam in which 6 million innocent men and women were slaughtered for no reason, in which bombs rained down upon Cambodia and Laos. That protest was about an illegal, immoral war of aggression, not about a bunch of yuppies whining about how tuition costs are too high. Except the protests of the 60's I'm talking about are the ones for civil rights for blacks. Of course, they were just a bunch of yuppies that were complaining about having to use separate bathrooms and restaurants. Oh yeah, because I bet the black people back then were screaming fuck the police and directly disobeying the police right before resisting arrest. If that happened, then you could call the police response there, police brutality. Let's take Rosa Parks for example. She said no, she would not move. The police took her away. What didn't happen was: Rosa resisting arrest Black people crowding around the police and blocking their path Now let's see how that worked out. Rosa became one of the most important figures in the protest movement. Nuff said
She wasn't beaten or sprayed with toxic chemicals either, what is your point? The students obviously decided that protesting was their best way of getting their message across. Just because they refused to come meekly means they were wrong to protest? Or that the police action was justified? There are arguments that support that point of view but the one you are trying to provide is weak at best.
Rosa Parks has nothing to do with this, except that a peaceful demonstration has gained national (and international) attention.
|
On December 08 2011 13:17 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 08:23 Dark_Chill wrote:On December 08 2011 04:42 Galactus52 wrote:On December 08 2011 04:35 BestZergOnEast wrote:
Except the protest movement in the 60's was against the war in vietnam in which 6 million innocent men and women were slaughtered for no reason, in which bombs rained down upon Cambodia and Laos. That protest was about an illegal, immoral war of aggression, not about a bunch of yuppies whining about how tuition costs are too high. Except the protests of the 60's I'm talking about are the ones for civil rights for blacks. Of course, they were just a bunch of yuppies that were complaining about having to use separate bathrooms and restaurants. Oh yeah, because I bet the black people back then were screaming fuck the police and directly disobeying the police right before resisting arrest. If that happened, then you could call the police response there, police brutality. Let's take Rosa Parks for example. She said no, she would not move. The police took her away. What didn't happen was: Rosa resisting arrest Black people crowding around the police and blocking their path Now let's see how that worked out. Rosa became one of the most important figures in the protest movement. Nuff said She wasn't beaten or sprayed with toxic chemicals either, what is your point? The students obviously decided that protesting was their best way of getting their message across. Just because they refused to come meekly means they were wrong to protest? Or that the police action was justified? There are arguments that support that point of view but the one you are trying to provide is weak at best. Rosa Parks has nothing to do with this, except that a peaceful demonstration has gained national (and international) attention.
1) The previous comment talked about the black rights movement, hence why I used Rosa Parks as an example.
2) No chemicals or over-violent action was taken against her because she went along quietly after making her point.
3) I never said the police action was justified. If you had read my comments before, you'd know that I believe both sides were in the wrong
|
On December 08 2011 13:34 Dark_Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 13:17 Probulous wrote:On December 08 2011 08:23 Dark_Chill wrote:On December 08 2011 04:42 Galactus52 wrote:On December 08 2011 04:35 BestZergOnEast wrote:
Except the protest movement in the 60's was against the war in vietnam in which 6 million innocent men and women were slaughtered for no reason, in which bombs rained down upon Cambodia and Laos. That protest was about an illegal, immoral war of aggression, not about a bunch of yuppies whining about how tuition costs are too high. Except the protests of the 60's I'm talking about are the ones for civil rights for blacks. Of course, they were just a bunch of yuppies that were complaining about having to use separate bathrooms and restaurants. Oh yeah, because I bet the black people back then were screaming fuck the police and directly disobeying the police right before resisting arrest. If that happened, then you could call the police response there, police brutality. Let's take Rosa Parks for example. She said no, she would not move. The police took her away. What didn't happen was: Rosa resisting arrest Black people crowding around the police and blocking their path Now let's see how that worked out. Rosa became one of the most important figures in the protest movement. Nuff said She wasn't beaten or sprayed with toxic chemicals either, what is your point? The students obviously decided that protesting was their best way of getting their message across. Just because they refused to come meekly means they were wrong to protest? Or that the police action was justified? There are arguments that support that point of view but the one you are trying to provide is weak at best. Rosa Parks has nothing to do with this, except that a peaceful demonstration has gained national (and international) attention. 1) The previous comment talked about the black rights movement, hence why I used Rosa Parks as an example. 2) No chemicals or over-violent action was taken against her because she went along quietly after making her point. 3) I never said the police action was justified. If you had read my comments before, you'd know that I believe both sides were in the wrong
The civil rights movement would have been nothing without the brutality by the police against peaceful civil disobedient americans.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/G9XNy.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YJUw8.jpg)
you miss the intended example
pepper spray was not used during the civil rights movement simply becuase it did not exist but tear gas was extensively used simply put more chemical agents would have been used if they were available, not becuase they are the right device but becuase of hate. It was not the things like the bus strike which caught national attention although in retrospect it's those things which people wish to remember it was the unquestioned brutality used that caught national attention.
|
Good point, the situation there was incredibly different. I should have used a better analogy. My main point however, was that you could still make your point without threatening the police and resisting, which I believe still stands. She was fully aware of what would happen to her, took the consequences of her actions, yet still made an impact. All I am saying is if these people want to model themselves after well known revolutionary figures, then they should follow that model completely.
|
Who they model after such figures? We only speculate that they do. In truth actions of non violence stand on their own merits and to say to not resist the police goes against peaceful political movements the only way to protest unjust things peacefully is to disobey the police else you'll never get any attention and traction, the point is to inconvenience the officer and inconvenience the system. You say they were threating the police, which they were, they were threating the police with captivity not with violence that they could leave but they cannot take those who they arrested with them. But you say threat under the premise of threat of violence which never was the case. Also to say that the whole has to emulate a figure who is remembered for their virtues rather then their faults is too high of an expectation, in reality it's that they try to follow to their interpretation of core principles of non violent resistance which is arguable to what is acceptable based on culture.
|
On December 08 2011 05:10 Treva wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 03:13 natebreen wrote:
It's incredibly disingenuous to make a thread on this issue and not post the full video.
I'm sure this has been addressed in this 32 page thread, but I want to make sure this point is heard:
Police have very stringent procedural instructions and training.
When they are in a protest environment, there is a reason they are in riot gear and have shields.
Yes, the protest was "non-violent," but a protest is not fixed entity that will remain in one state. Hence, the need for protection. It is an inflammatory situation with many people with many motivations.
The facts as I see them:
Police were instructed to enter and remove the tents. They did so after issuing 3-4 verbal warnings over a loudspeaker.
Several students attempted to prevent them from removing the tents. These students were arrested.
Upon attempting to leave with the students in a circle per procedure, the police were surrounded by people chanting and screaming at them. 10-20 students formed a human line sitting on their exit path.
Police issued these students several formal warnings informing them they would be removed from their position and would be subject to arrest/force. The force continuum is very clear in this regard, and "soft force" such as pepper spray is clearly identified as the proper response.
The students persisted. They were pepper sprayed.
Then, the world reports the issue as a group of nonviolent, peaceful protestors being maliciously assaulted by police officers.
Not the case.
Maybe if these protests utilized media to make accurate representations of their demands and purpose, and stopped focusing so much on baiting police into action so that they can cry brutality (see OWS videos from NYC) then the cause would be a lot more respected by the mainstream populace.
Watch the whole video, it's very telling.
The most significant part for me was a student dressed in all black running through the center of the circle/video frame stomping the ground and waving his hands as if to incite more people to become unruly and angry.
And you wonder why the police were interested in exiting through their pre-determined route instead of being forced to turn and walk through a horde of students and protestors with their arrestees. Exactly my thoughts on the whole issue. This is a story that indeed has two sides to it, one side unfortunately is practically ignored making this whole ordeal seem like a much bigger deal than it actually is. After watching the videos in the OP as well as a few others it's pretty clear to me that the police acted in a way that was appropriate. This wasn't a bunch of students sitting in a circle holding hands singing Kumbaya and then were all of the sudden pepper sprayed for no reason. There are videos posted of these police officers individually coming up to each of the kids in that line and asking them if they understand what can happen to them if they don't move. These kids made it as difficult as possible for the police to do their job. They stopped protesting for tuition or war or w/e their original cause was when they formed that line to specifically not allow the police to escort the students they arrested off the campus.
The job of the police is not to use deadly force (as legally defined) in response to a non-deadly level of violence, much less no violence whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
