amazing news, after innocent iraq vet gets hurt by riot police, vet groups vow help

[Oldstyle]

However, we are talking about a collective...not an individual. Furthermore, we are talking about a situation that has become more political than anything else. Every move made by the police force is scrutinized and criticized.

Sure, being pro-active is the best action to take.

So what could they have done? Forbid the protest? Keep them in a contained area? What if they trampled over the barricades? Give them all the slack they needed? What oif they overstepped their boundaries?

I dont believe what you say is as easily acheived as you say.

It's like flying; if it was easy, everyone would be doing it. Running a city isn't easy. Neither is running a police force.

In this case, I'd take a chapter out of history, specifically the 1960s, and inserted both informants and undercover police into the group the moment I noticed that it might become a problem. I'd have any agitators, leaders, troublemakers or other people of interest identified. With all the tech we have today, it should be easy to watch those identified from the surrounding buildings. Once identified, they could be either approached or drawn to an area where they could be more easily handled, quarantined or warned.

Likewise, I'd also identify the people who could be most helpful in keeping the peace in the crowd and seek their assistance in doing so. Part of this would undoubtedly involve listening to their concerns and providing them a forum to do so such as a joint news conference or a meeting.

Our city leaders need to get wise and starting considering that this movement isn't going to go away unless the problems giving rise to it are addressed. They need to get ahead of the problem, not just lag behind and react to a mob with tear gas or, if this continues, snipers.

With all due respect, Divine? You think the leaders of the protest are going allow themselves to be "drawn to an area where they could be more easily handled"? That idea borders on the absurd. First of all, I don't think it's the leaders of these protest that are the ones advocating throwing rocks and bottles at the police...so what would you use against them for your "quarantine"? (Can't bring yourself to say arrest?) You can't hold leaders of a march responsible for the actions of people in the crowd UNLESS they are calling for violence and I seriously doubt any of them are stupid enough to do that.

 

[Jarhead]

However, we are talking about a collective...not an individual. Furthermore, we are talking about a situation that has become more political than anything else. Every move made by the police force is scrutinized and criticized.

Sure, being pro-active is the best action to take.

So what could they have done? Forbid the protest? Keep them in a contained area? What if they trampled over the barricades? Give them all the slack they needed? What oif they overstepped their boundaries?

I dont believe what you say is as easily acheived as you say.

It's like flying; if it was easy, everyone would be doing it. Running a city isn't easy. Neither is running a police force.

In this case, I'd take a chapter out of history, specifically the 1960s, and inserted both informants and undercover police into the group the moment I noticed that it might become a problem. I'd have any agitators, leaders, troublemakers or other people of interest identified. With all the tech we have today, it should be easy to watch those identified from the surrounding buildings. Once identified, they could be either approached or drawn to an area where they could be more easily handled, quarantined or warned.

Likewise, I'd also identify the people who could be most helpful in keeping the peace in the crowd and seek their assistance in doing so. Part of this would undoubtedly involve listening to their concerns and providing them a forum to do so such as a joint news conference or a meeting.

Our city leaders need to get wise and starting considering that this movement isn't going to go away unless the problems giving rise to it are addressed. They need to get ahead of the problem, not just lag behind and react to a mob with tear gas or, if this continues, snipers.

Interesting.

I admire your thought process.

No sarcasm...I am impressed.

Sadly...it isnt even rocket science...it is basic humanity...and not letting ones own personal sentiments get in the way of making decisions for ALL of the people.

 

[earlycuyler]

OK, then what should the city have done to avoid the situation? Saying the city should have used superior judgement is a wonderful sentiment, Divine but unworkable when you are facing protesters who are determined to provoke a response by police. Just as the police in NYC were forced by protesters to make arrests...the police in Oakland were forced by protesters to use tear gas. Please tell us all what you would have done differently if "you" were the Mayor of Oakland?

See my previous post. Yes, the city should have used superior judgment and not have let the situation deteriorate to the point where they " were forced by protesters to use tear gas."

Like the Kent State shootings, are we going to justify the killing or maiming of innocent bystanders in the near future if the police end up firing into a crowd by saying "well, the protesters forced them to shoot and it was just bad luck than an innocent kid a block away was killed on the way to the Chuckie Cheese"? City and Law Enforcement officials need to get a handle on this because it's their responsibility to do so. That's why tax payers pay them to do it. If they can't, then they should be replaced.

There were NO innocent bystanders. All the peaceful protestors had moved on, or submitted to arrest. There were even protestors pointing out agitators to the police. The cop's did not just jump out of cars and start busting heads. This was planned out on both sides over a period of days.

 

[Divine Wind]

With all due respect, Divine? You think the leaders of the protest are going allow themselves to be "drawn to an area where they could be more easily handled"? That idea borders on the absurd. First of all, I don't think it's the leaders of these protest that are the ones advocating throwing rocks and bottles at the police...so what would you use against them for your "quarantine"? (Can't bring yourself to say arrest?) You can't hold leaders of a march responsible for the actions of people in the crowd UNLESS they are calling for violence and I seriously doubt any of them are stupid enough to do that.

You make several incorrect assumptions.

1. Don't equate the "leaders of the protest" with "leaders of agitators". They aren't necessarily the same thing.

2. Yes, people can be drawn to areas, but one have to be smart about it. Even people who are wary can be ambushed. It can be something simple like a Port-O-Potty setup or a "free" soup line. Anything to draw the crowd into a manageable size and formation. A line of people is much easier to handle than a mass of them. Some cunning and patience is essential when hunting.

3. There is a difference between quarantine and arrest. Holding someone isn't the same as arrest either. If these folks are identified and watched, even arresting them for public urination or littering is effective enough to pull them away.

4. You are correct that leaders of a protest can't always be held accountable for the actions of others in the crowd. However, agitators who deliberately provoke others can be held for the consequences of their actions.

Work smarter, not harder.

 

[Oldstyle]

OK, then what should the city have done to avoid the situation? Saying the city should have used superior judgement is a wonderful sentiment, Divine but unworkable when you are facing protesters who are determined to provoke a response by police. Just as the police in NYC were forced by protesters to make arrests...the police in Oakland were forced by protesters to use tear gas. Please tell us all what you would have done differently if "you" were the Mayor of Oakland?

See my previous post. Yes, the city should have used superior judgment and not have let the situation deteriorate to the point where they " were forced by protesters to use tear gas."

Like the Kent State shootings, are we going to justify the killing or maiming of innocent bystanders in the near future if the police end up firing into a crowd by saying "well, the protesters forced them to shoot and it was just bad luck than an innocent kid a block away was killed on the way to the Chuckie Cheese"? City and Law Enforcement officials need to get a handle on this because it's their responsibility to do so. That's why tax payers pay them to do it. If they can't, then they should be replaced.

What the Kent State shooting illustrated quite horribly, Divine...is that people will be killed if the level of confrontation in a demonstration is allowed to continue to escalate...and chances are that some of those people WILL be innocent bystanders.

There has been a pattern of escalation in the OWS demonstrations because without the conflict between police and the demonstrators they wouldn't have gotten media coverage. The protesters in NYC understood that completely. It's why they forced the police to arrest them. It's why they video taped constantly looking for something to use as examples of "police brutality".

You say that city and law enforcement officials need to "get a handle on this" but then you criticize them when they TRY to get a handle on it. I'm sorry but the only way this issue is resolved is if the rules of conduct already established for demonstrations are enforced by the police and people like you stop demonizing them for doing their jobs. Failing to do so will bring about another Kent State.

 

[Divine Wind]

There were NO innocent bystanders. All the peaceful protestors had moved on, or submitted to arrest. There were even protestors pointing out agitators to the police. The cop's did not just jump out of cars and start busting heads. This was planned out on both sides over a period of days.

You know this how? So people living near-by can't come out and go to work, to the movies or shopping? It's a public place. Are you saying the police blocked it off and prevented anyone from entering or exiting??

This was planned out on both sides over a period of days.

If true, then the city really screwed up since they obviously had the time to be smarter about their reaction.

The investigation of this will take several weeks or even months, but I'm guessing most city officials are going to view this incident as a learning tool of what not to do.

 

[Oldstyle]

With all due respect, Divine? You think the leaders of the protest are going allow themselves to be "drawn to an area where they could be more easily handled"? That idea borders on the absurd. First of all, I don't think it's the leaders of these protest that are the ones advocating throwing rocks and bottles at the police...so what would you use against them for your "quarantine"? (Can't bring yourself to say arrest?) You can't hold leaders of a march responsible for the actions of people in the crowd UNLESS they are calling for violence and I seriously doubt any of them are stupid enough to do that.

You make several incorrect assumptions.

1. Don't equate the "leaders of the protest" with "leaders of agitators". They aren't necessarily the same thing.

2. Yes, people can be drawn to areas, but one have to be smart about it. Even people who are wary can be ambushed. It can be something simple like a Port-O-Potty setup or a "free" soup line. Anything to draw the crowd into a manageable size and formation. A line of people is much easier to handle than a mass of them. Some cunning and patience is essential when hunting.

3. There is a difference between quarantine and arrest. Holding someone isn't the same as arrest either. If these folks are identified and watched, even arresting them for public urination or littering is effective enough to pull them away.

4. You are correct that leaders of a protest can't always be held accountable for the actions of others in the crowd. However, agitators who deliberately provoke others can be held for the consequences of their actions.

Work smarter, not harder.

Kindly explain the difference between "quarantine" and arrest, Divine. How exactly is it that you "quarantine" someone who doesn't wish to BE quarantined? You say you can just "hold them"? On what grounds?

 

[Divine Wind]

You say that city and law enforcement officials need to "get a handle on this" but then you criticize them when they TRY to get a handle on it. I'm sorry but the only way this issue is resolved is if the rules of conduct are already established for demonstrations are enforced by the police and people like you stop demonizing them for doing their jobs. Failing to do so will bring about another Kent State.

I criticize the city for 1) letting the situation escalate to the point where they were reactive, not proactive and 2) that they didn't take the time to plan this out more thoroughly and smartly.

Your Kent State comment seems to be a set up to justify in advance shooting down American citizens. Is that what we've become? Just another Third World nation which cracks down on its citizen like Syria's Bashar al-Assad? I'm sure he's using the same line of logic.

 

[Divine Wind]

Kindly explain the difference between "quarantine" and arrest, Divine. How exactly is it that you "quarantine" someone who doesn't wish to BE quarantined? You say you can just "hold them"? On what grounds?

Hold works too. I see no need to quibble about semantics. The goal is to legally isolate the agitator(s) for a day or two while the remaining protesters are allowed to cool down.

 

[earlycuyler]

There were NO innocent bystanders. All the peaceful protestors had moved on, or submitted to arrest. There were even protestors pointing out agitators to the police. The cop's did not just jump out of cars and start busting heads. This was planned out on both sides over a period of days.

You know this how? So people living near-by can't come out and go to work, to the movies or shopping? It's a public place. Are you saying the police blocked it off and prevented anyone from entering or exiting??

This was planned out on both sides over a period of days.

If true, then the city really screwed up since they obviously had the time to be smarter about their reaction.

The investigation of this will take several weeks or even months, but I'm guessing most city officials are going to view this incident as a learning tool of what not to do.

First thing I did was read about it on the OWS website. Something that few if anyone here has done. Second, I am reading the live blog of a reporter for the Bay Area Citizen, a local news paper that documented the whole thing. Even the aftermath where the non violent protesters and business owners cleaned up after the agitators scurried off back under there rocks. There is also commentary from other protestors complaining about out of town agitators. U posted all the links to all my statements in another thread where the OP was proven a liar. All that's posted here is opinion. If you like, I can link you to the paper.

 

[Oldstyle]

Kindly explain the difference between "quarantine" and arrest, Divine. How exactly is it that you "quarantine" someone who doesn't wish to BE quarantined? You say you can just "hold them"? On what grounds?

Hold works too. I see no need to quibble about semantics. The goal is to legally isolate the agitator(s) for a day or two while the remaining protesters are allowed to cool down.

First of all I'm not sure what legal right you think the authorities have to "hold" the leaders of a protest that are not advocating anything illegal. As for doing so "cooling down" the remaining protesters? I would strongly suggest that the rock and bottle throwers are not the "leaders" of any of these protests...they are in fact unaffiliated anarchists taking advantage of the unrest to destroy things. Isolating the "leaders" of the protest will only take away the people most likely to control the anarchists.

And the "quibbling" I'm doing is going to also be done in a court of law when the lawyers representing people you've "held" or "quarantined" sue you and your city, Mr. Mayor.

 

[G.T.]

Cops do need to disband people throwing bottles and piss.

They don't need to stand and watch as a man is on the ground critically wounded and when a group comes to help, flash bang them again.

Stop.

You have exactly zero evidence to support the notion that the last flash-bang was aimed at that group of folks coming to the aid of the wounded man.

It was an on-going situation and, as it turns out, flash bangs tend to bounce and roll. It could have been simply thrown in pretty much at random and, by happenstance, landed near the group assisting the injured guy.

The fact of the matter is: you don't know and you can't show differently.

Umm, there's video of a cop tossing one, 5 feet..(the cop is literally 5 feet away who tossed it)...into the center of the group as they're helping to remove the man who was critically injured. I think you didn't see the video.

 

[earlycuyler]

Just because the retard was a veteran makes no difference.

He was breaking the law and if he got hurt it was his own fault.

btw Lee Harvey Oswald was a vet.

peaceful protest is protected by a certain document that starts with a C. you should read it

there were no peaceful protesters. Say, why did you change the title of your post ? where you said the cops killed a Marine Corps veteran ? And the protest was not peaceful. They were throwing stuff at the cops.

 

[Divine Wind]

there were no peaceful protesters.

Disagreed. Ever seen a Tea Party rally?

Also, while a few/some/all of the protesters that night may have been or not been peaceful, there were likely to have been innocent bystanders either watching or transiting through the area. Not everyone drives a block to pick up groceries. Many city dwellers don't even have cars.

 

[blu]

the mods changed my title

 

[Divine Wind]

And the "quibbling" I'm doing is going to also be done in a court of law when the lawyers representing people you've "held" or "quarantined" sue you and your city, Mr. Mayor.

Then let them quibble away in court.

As for detaining/quarantining/holding/arresting agitators, if the police are looking to do it, they can hold anyone for a certain amount of time. If they have evidence of actual wrongdoing, such as public urination, littering or throwing rocks at people, they can be arrested.

 

[earlycuyler]

there were no peaceful protesters.

Disagreed. Ever seen a Tea Party rally?

Also, while a few/some/all of the protesters that night may have been or not been peaceful, there were likely to have been innocent bystanders either watching or transiting through the area. Not everyone drives a block to pick up groceries. Many city dwellers don't even have cars.

Do you know what time this happened ? And no one was driveing anywhere. Go read up about it. Have you gotten any input from anyone other then those posting in this thread ?

 

[BDBoop]

OK, then what should the city have done to avoid the situation? Saying the city should have used superior judgement is a wonderful sentiment, Divine but unworkable when you are facing protesters who are determined to provoke a response by police. Just as the police in NYC were forced by protesters to make arrests...the police in Oakland were forced by protesters to use tear gas. Please tell us all what you would have done differently if "you" were the Mayor of Oakland?

See my previous post. Yes, the city should have used superior judgment and not have let the situation deteriorate to the point where they " were forced by protesters to use tear gas."

Like the Kent State shootings, are we going to justify the killing or maiming of innocent bystanders in the near future if the police end up firing into a crowd by saying "well, the protesters forced them to shoot and it was just bad luck than an innocent kid a block away was killed on the way to the Chuckie Cheese"? City and Law Enforcement officials need to get a handle on this because it's their responsibility to do so. That's why tax payers pay them to do it. If they can't, then they should be replaced.

There were NO innocent bystanders. All the peaceful protestors had moved on, or submitted to arrest. There were even protestors pointing out agitators to the police. The cop's did not just jump out of cars and start busting heads. This was planned out on both sides over a period of days.

IF (HUGE 'if') I agree that everybody there was Bad and Wrong, the cops still went way-the-fuck over the top in their response. It was like a bunch of rookies in their first action. They should all go to remedial "I know how to comport myself" school.

 

[earlycuyler]

Here is some stuff.
start the discussion

Lost in last night's coverage of #OccupyOakland was the first tear gas incident of the evening. At around 6 p.m. a group of protesters circled several police officers and pelted them with blue paint, which the police departmen had some chemicals mixed in. A troop of police officers came to the rescue and released the tear gas.

The First Tear Gas Incident at #OccupyOakland - Frequencies - The Bay Citizen

The blogger works for NPR, and has submitted video. I know its a blog, but its from a blogger that was there, and considering all the evidence of the accusation of brutality was from a blogger then this ought to do.

 

[Jarhead]

See my previous post. Yes, the city should have used superior judgment and not have let the situation deteriorate to the point where they " were forced by protesters to use tear gas."

Like the Kent State shootings, are we going to justify the killing or maiming of innocent bystanders in the near future if the police end up firing into a crowd by saying "well, the protesters forced them to shoot and it was just bad luck than an innocent kid a block away was killed on the way to the Chuckie Cheese"? City and Law Enforcement officials need to get a handle on this because it's their responsibility to do so. That's why tax payers pay them to do it. If they can't, then they should be replaced.

There were NO innocent bystanders. All the peaceful protestors had moved on, or submitted to arrest. There were even protestors pointing out agitators to the police. The cop's did not just jump out of cars and start busting heads. This was planned out on both sides over a period of days.

IF (HUGE 'if') I agree that everybody there was Bad and Wrong, the cops still went way-the-fuck over the top in their response. It was like a bunch of rookies in their first action. They should all go to remedial "I know how to comport myself" school.

how do you know they went over the top?

You believe the Boston police went over the top, too, I assume with the "acted stupidly" incident...am I correct?