Law Enforcement Attacks on Protesters

[pcw27]

I've been following development of the Occupy Movement and in the last few weeks several incidents of alleged police brutality have surfaced on the news and internet. I like to hear both sides of everything so I'm curious what fellow law enforcement officers feel about these incidents.

[retdetsgt]

It's like football, the guy throwing the second punch that gets the penalty.

My experience with protests are that about 10% are there for the ideals, another 10% are pseudo-intellectuals who think they know why they're there, the rest are "there for the party" and street thugs. And the press loves to show the police in a bad light. It sells papers and gets viewership.

[Cat_Doc]

It's like football, the guy throwing the second punch that gets the penalty.

Yep.

A recent video I saw of the protestors refusing to obey orders in Portland clearly showed an object being thrown at the police, flying by in the lower right hand corner, just before a female protester was pepper sprayed. The media made no comment about someone throwing objects at the police, but, Oh My God, how dare they spray a protestor.

It was also at Portland where a protester is clearly observed throwing a elbow jab at the side of the face of a mounted officer's horse. No protest from PETA was forthcoming.

Those police that the protesters hate so much are actually a well disciplined blessing in disguise.

I wonder what the occupy crowd would think if the Hell's Angels were contracted to conduct crowd control?

My guess is they would rather have the police there.

[retdetsgt]

That picture of the woman getting pepper sprayed should get a Pulitzer Prize. The paper did a followup on her, she's 20 years old and doesn't even live in Portland. She came here from Arkansas to be in the protest. She also said that was the worst thing she ever experienced and she's done protesting. That contingent was protesting a Chase bank. They were unruly, destroying bank property etc. Another group, protesting at B of A was respectful, orderly, made their point and left the bank. No one was hurt, no one was sprayed.

Even the liberals in Portland are getting sick of their BS. So far, they've cost the city close to a million bucks just in police OT, not to mention about $30K in damage to a couple of city parks where the soil will have to be taken to a haz mat facility because of the damage and chemicals the protesters used, not the police. That means a lot of tax payers will do without services because of these morons.

Even the anti war demonstrators in the late 60's and 70's didn't try to camp on public property and they didn't protest every damn day.

[Samuel]

IF protesters would obey the law, the police would not have to take action. IF suspects would obey orders from the police, there would be no uses of force. Simple.

And since you used "attacks on protesters" in your title - I can pretty much tell what side of the fence you stand on and how open your mind really is...

[retdetsgt]

The up side is that because of these idiots, a lot of cops' families here will have a very Merry Christmas!

[pcw27]

IF protesters would obey the law, the police would not have to take action. IF suspects would obey orders from the police, there would be no uses of force. Simple.

And since you used "attacks on protesters" in your title - I can pretty much tell what side of the fence you stand on and how open your mind really is...

I think you'd be surprised. The reason I'm interested is I'm from Philadelphia and our branch of the Occupy Movement actually has an excellent track record of cooperation with Law Enforcement. We made it very clear from the start that lawbreaking would not be tolerated at the camp. I'd like to know why it isn't working out in these other cities so we can better understand how to prevent incidents like this.

Further more I want to be able to put incidents like this in context for people so we don't loose that spirit of cooperation.

For the longest time I've been assuming that a lot of these incidents were taken out of context and were cleverly cut to leave out protesters acting aggressive and disorderly. But after examining some of the incidents in detail I didn't see any such thing.

It's like football, the guy throwing the second punch that gets the penalty.

Can that really account for all the incidents?

Up here in Philly we've had roughly two dozen people arrested for civil disobedience. No one was maced, beaten, tazed or otherwise hurt.

Why didn't it work out that way in all these other cities? If anyone here is in the PPD I'd appreciate if they'd chime in.

My experience with protests are that about 10% are there for the ideals, another 10% are pseudo-intellectuals who think they know why they're there, the rest are "there for the party" and street thugs. And the press loves to show the police in a bad light. It sells papers and gets viewership.

Having visited Occupy Philly and frequented their facebook page, it's my perception that more like 50% were there for ideals, 40% were more or less spectating 9% were ignoramuses who want to feel good about themselves by shouting out nonsensical politics and 1% where hooligans and homeless people.

That's actually one advantage of the movement's technique. You don't get many people willing to sleep on concrete in the middle of November for weeks on end unless they believe in what they're doing.

Even the liberals in Portland are getting sick of their BS. So far, they've cost the city close to a million bucks just in police OT, not to mention about $30K in damage to a couple of city parks where the soil will have to be taken to a haz mat facility because of the damage and chemicals the protesters used, not the police. That means a lot of tax payers will do without services because of these morons.

I'm sorry to hear Portland's branch is so poorly managed. Did they approach the city for information on how to properly sanitize their site?

[retdetsgt]

I'm retired Portland. We've made over 100 arrests with spray only used a couple of times. The problem was they should have never been allowed to camp there to begin with. The mayor allowed and I have no idea what he was thinking. They were there over three weeks and no, they didn't cooperate with the city at all. I guess he thought they would voluntarily leave. After a while, more and more homeless and street thugs moved it and the movement totally lost control. But they still wouldn't give it up without us calling in police from all over the area. But a lot of places are also making arrests without it too. It's just the press like to show it being used.

But Portland is keeping it under control by a huge and continuing police presence that costing tax payers a fortune. The idea they represent the 99% is ridiculous. As I said, Portland is a left wing city and they are sick of these people.

The problem is, there is no end game to this. There is nothing that can happen or that anyone can do that will make them say they have won and discontinue the protest. Banks aren't going to suddenly change and jobs aren't going to appear from no where. The problem is in Washington where all the financial rules and regulations are made.

I think it's funny that they are protesting the bailout of banks, but not that of the UAW and their fat union contracts that brought down the big 3. And the fact the Chrysler used bailout money to build new plants in Canada and Mexico. Probably because unions here are helping to finance it.

[pcw27]

I'm retired Portland. We've made over 100 arrests with spray only used a couple of times. The problem was they should have never been allowed to camp there to begin with. The mayor allowed and I have no idea what he was thinking. They were there over three weeks and no, they didn't cooperate with the city at all. I guess he thought they would voluntarily leave. After a while, more and more homeless and street thugs moved it and the movement totally lost control. But they still wouldn't give it up without us calling in police from all over the area. But a lot of places are also making arrests without it too. It's just the press like to show it being used.

You know some concerns have been raised in Philly about growing numbers of Homeless at City Hall. I've suggested we form a liaison with some local shelters to keep it from turning into a circus.

The problem is, there is no end game to this. There is nothing that can happen or that anyone can do that will make them say they have won and discontinue the protest. Banks aren't going to suddenly change and jobs aren't going to appear from no where.

I disagree that there can't be a conclusion to the movement. It is still disorganized and few specific demands have been made but there is an intelligent rational element within the group that wants to seek realistic policy changes.

If a few of those go into effect I think a lot of people will pack up their tents and head home. As for the banks, part of the movement is to encourage people to put their savings in credit unions instead of banks.

Its true there's also a dim whitted yuppie socialist element to the group as well. Sadly the drum bangers are getting the most media attention. They probably will stick around for a while no matter what but just like the hippy communes of the 60s people will gradually lose interest and give up.

The problem is in Washington where all the financial rules and regulations are made.

Then you'll be happy to know that Occupy groups across the country already have a march on Washington Scheduled. Washinton is actually one of the movement's biggest targets. Many protesters are fed up with corporate influence in government.

I think it's funny that they are protesting the bailout of banks, but not that of the UAW and their fat union contracts that brought down the big 3. And the fact the Chrysler used bailout money to build new plants in Canada and Mexico. Probably because unions here are helping to finance it.

It's not just the bailout of banks. They're opposed to most of the corporate bailouts. Banks are a big target because of the mortgage crisis, not to mention student loan debt.

If you're dissatisfied with the movement's priorities I'd recommend visiting your local General Assembly and voicing your concerns.

[Samuel]

I think you'd be surprised. The reason I'm interested is I'm from Philadelphia and our branch of the Occupy Movement actually has an excellent track record of cooperation with Law Enforcement.

Oh, NOW the truth comes out... First, you were "following development of the OM" and NOW you're PART of the OM... figures...

We made it very clear from the start that lawbreaking would not be tolerated at the camp. I'd like to know why it isn't working out in these other cities so we can better understand how to prevent incidents like this.

Maybe you're a little hard of reading - lemme try again: "IF protesters would obey the law, the police would not have to take action. IF suspects would obey orders from the police, there would be no uses of force. Simple." You can't prevent what you don't have control over. Just make sure you and your people are obeying the law and lawful orders of LE personnel and you will be ok.

Further more I want to be able to put incidents like this in context for people so we don't loose that spirit of cooperation.

"In context" for WHOM?

For the longest time I've been assuming that a lot of these incidents were taken out of context and were cleverly cut to leave out protesters acting aggressive and disorderly. But after examining some of the incidents in detail I didn't see any such thing.

You weren't there so any "examinations" you supposedly made were NOT in any kind of "detail".

Can that really account for all the incidents?

Up here in Philly we've had roughly two dozen people arrested for civil disobedience. No one was maced, beaten, tazed or otherwise hurt.

Good for you. Keep it that way.

Why didn't it work out that way in all these other cities? If anyone here is in the PPD I'd appreciate if they'd chime in.

Why do you think?

Having visited Occupy Philly and frequented their facebook page, it's my perception that more like 50% were there for ideals, 40% were more or less spectating 9% were ignoramuses who want to feel good about themselves by shouting out nonsensical politics and 1% where hooligans and homeless people.

Once the people turn into suspects (i.e. break the law), it doesn't really matter what the "breakdown"/percentages are/were...

[retdetsgt]

I disagree that there can't be a conclusion to the movement. It is still disorganized and few specific demands have been made but there is an intelligent rational element within the group that wants to seek realistic policy changes.

If a few of those go into effect I think a lot of people will pack up their tents and head home. As for the banks, part of the movement is to encourage people to put their savings in credit unions instead of banks.

That's the problem, there are few specific demands and those demands are being made to the thin air. Do you really think the banks are going to change policies or that the corporate bailouts will be reversed by marching, camping, etc.? The only demands they seem to be making is that they are mad that other people have more than they do. While I agree that changes need to be made, being a pain to everyone else doesn't accomplish it. It's a form of masturbation, it feels good to the participants, but accomplishes nothing outside the little community.

You can move money out of banks without disrupting the average American's ability to conduct business and costing the real taxpayers a fortune. I've changed banks several times in my lifetime and I have never had to make a scene to do it. Besides, most of the fees and charges are around bounced checks, etc. Utilize your third grade math skills and that doesn't happen. I've had B of A for 25 years and never paid them a dime in any fees that whole time.

The greed is all over, not just the banks. If you're stupid enough to buy a house who's payments are more than 50% of your take home pay, have $20K in credit card debt (the average I read a couple of years ago) and making payments on two cars, who's fault is that that you can't keep up and lose your house?

I predicted this several years ago when I first heard about interest only mortgages. If you can only afford to pay the interest on your house, you're playing a very dangerous game. I remember remarking to my wife that when (not if, when) the housing drops, we're screwed. And I'm just an old retired cop, why didn't the geniuses in government see that? Bush tried to regulate the mortgage industry and the Democrats fought it off successfully. Go to YouTube and search Barney Frank - Fannie Mae.

When the market dropped, first the speculators lost their real estate, then the people who were barely hanging on and then the regular people started losing jobs. And it's because Congress was pushing banks to make loans to low income people so everyone could own a home. The unintended consequence (that's always there) is that people started buying big houses they couldn't afford and they were given the loans.

People run up credit card bills voluntarily that charges 25+ interest so they can buy all the toys they think they deserve and then whine that they can't make it. While I agree that the banks are wrong to raise the interest rates when they are late, they agreed to all that when they took out the card. Just stupid, but heaven forbid we take personal responsibility.

[Samuel]

If you're dissatisfied with the movement's priorities I'd recommend visiting your local General Assembly and voicing your concerns.

EXCERPTED TO CUT TO THE CHASE:

If you're "dissatisfied" with Law Enforcement responses to OM actions, then I'd recommend you either:

1. obey the law and lawful orders of LE personnel AND
2. go visit your local lawmakers and voice your concerns about changing the laws you aren't in agreement with.




Mods: IMnshO, I think this topic is done. I have a feeling it's all downhill from here...

[retdetsgt]

It's not just the bailout of banks. They're opposed to most of the corporate bailouts. Banks are a big target because of the mortgage crisis, not to mention student loan debt.

If you're dissatisfied with the movement's priorities I'd recommend visiting your local General Assembly and voicing your concerns.

Did someone hold a gun to someone else's head and make them take out a student loan? If so, I'll have them arrested. Otherwise, it was a contract voluntarily signed, wasn't it? It's not just corporate influence although I agree it's there. It's also kowtowing to the entitled who believe everyone else owes them something, particularly the government.

It's not the aims of the movement, it's the fact they are mostly a bunch whiners who only think of themselves and are completely out of touch with how a democracy works.

It's odd to me that none of these people can find a job, but the illegal immigrants coming here seem to have no problem at all. I'm sorry they can't get a job with their bachelor's in social science that pays $70K a year where they can sit at a desk and check their Facebook page every thirty minutes and go get a 4 dollar coffee from Starbucks a couple of times a day. But there is a reality out there they don't get.

[retdetsgt]

My oldest daughter pointed out something interesting to me. The people who are arrested are either in their early 20's or old baby boomers. (Old hippies) People in their 30's and 40's, who are actually trying to hack out a living aren't in that mess.

[pcw27]

Oh, NOW the truth comes out... First, you were "following development of the OM" and NOW you're PART of the OM... figures...

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Maybe you're a little hard of reading - lemme try again: "IF protesters would obey the law, the police would not have to take action. IF suspects would obey orders from the police, there would be no uses of force. Simple." You can't prevent what you don't have control over. Just make sure you and your people are obeying the law and lawful orders of LE personnel and you will be ok.

I'm not suggesting people who break the law shouldn't be arrested. I've just seen quite a few images of people being the targets of force when they weren't being violent or posing any threat to law enforcement.

"In context" for WHOM?

Other protesters.

You weren't there so any "examinations" you supposedly made were NOT in any kind of "detail".

What does my being there have to do with understanding the incident. If I see video coverage of the entire dispersal I should have as much information as anyone who was there shouldn't I? If I see video coverage over the same time frame taken by two videographers I actually have more information then any one person who was there.

Up here in Philly we've had roughly two dozen people arrested for civil disobedience. No one was maced, beaten, tazed or otherwise hurt.

Good for you. Keep it that way.

That's really not our decision is it? If the PPD wanted they could turn a fire hose and teargas on the next sit in. I for one think the civil disobedience is uncalled for in this particular movement, but none the less I'd like for people engaged in it to be shown no more force then an ordinary petty criminal.

Why didn't it work out that way in all these other cities? If anyone here is in the PPD I'd appreciate if they'd chime in.

Why do you think?

Well I can't say for sure but I can break it down into a few possibilities.

1. Law enforcement in Philadelphia has a different policy towards civil disobedience and doesn't authorize the use of pepper spray, batons, or tasers.
2. Individual law enforcers in other cities had the same procedures but didn't follow them.

Once the people turn into suspects (i.e. break the law), it doesn't really matter what the "breakdown"/percentages are/were...

Again, I never said people who break the law shouldn't be arrested.