[MikeCF]

(10-18-2011 04:45 PM)endobendo Wrote:  

(10-18-2011 04:23 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

A logical and intellectually honestly person would say: "Since cameras aren't everywhere, and since police have been caught on video abusing people, it's likely that police abuse is far more prevalent than the videos show."

In this day and age at a large gathering? It's probably just the opposite. i would think that cameras are everywhere at OWS protests

Shitty hand held smart phones held in no organized way by protesters?

That's nice, but not going to catch even most everything.

[MikeCF]

(10-18-2011 04:49 PM)canucktraveller Wrote:  

But what is necessary force when you are greatly outnumbered by young, angry protestors?

So you're saying a greater show of force is needed to terrify the other protesters - even when those protesters haven't broken any laws?

I'd rather live in a society where pre-emptive violence against citizens was discouraged.

Do you disagree? IF so, what's your vision for a just society?

Or should NYPD go Kent State on these hipster scum?

Incidentally, excessive force more often escalates crowd violence. Me? I'd love to see some protesters shot. It'd do far more for the movement than a few cases of excessive force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_heard_..._the_world

[Aliblahba]

An unarmed protester is a lamb to the slaughter.

[G.L.Piggy]

Mike,

The entire jumping off point for me in this discussion (and if you read my first post I say that I did see one video of a chick getting pepper sprayed for pretty much no reason) is that this guy was being melodramatic about the level of police brutality at OWS. Also, he is not alpha for screaming at cops while wearing his fatigues while 50 cameras are around him, but that has become a side argument now.

Anyway, he yammers about police brutality as if it is rampant in OWS...he makes the assertion. He yells at a group of nearby cops "Why are y'all treating people like this?" Like what, I'd ask. You're a lawyer, right? If someone makes an assertion isn't it on them to prove their case? It is not on me to say that X number of video incidents of police brutality means that too much police brutality is taking place. I think that there is a certain ebb and flow between the protestors and the cops, with many instances of cooperation and many instances of protestors pushing boundaries to see what they can get away with. Remember, these protests are taking place in a city full of businesses and homes. The police have a duty to protect the city and the private property in that city. So even while I haven't seen an absolutely high number of incidents of police brutality, I fully expect there to be some static between the two groups.

But Marine shouts from the rooftops acting as if this is all a great surprise to him. And you are acting like this is fascism writ large. Bullshit. The OWS movement will be *sustained* by brutality. You completey undermine your argument and help prove my point by your last comment there about hoping that the cops kill a few protestors in order to bolster the cause. Do you not see that your sentiment is shared by the protestors who are actually out there on the street? Very likely, a goodly portion of those protestors want action much more than you. It would probaby be no coincidence that those are the same guys forcing cops' hands. It is the desire for action and a desire to provoke the cops that fuels other a protest in which police brutality is taking place.

You write:

There is simply no logical argument in support of what's happening at OWS - unless you start from the first premise that dirty unemployed people "get whatever's coming to them." In which case, enjoy the tyranny. Remember, though: It's far more likely you'll have the boot on your neck than you'll be wearing the boot.

What exactly is "happening" at OWS? Are people being murdered? Or has one person been lightly scuffed up by police? Of course, what is "happening" lies on the spectrum in between those two posts, but you, like the Marine, talk about stuff "happening" and "brutality" and "fascism" and mean to imply that something bad or heavy-handed is taking place. This is hysterical talk, especially if you don't lay out what the boundaries of brutal versus non-brutal, fascist versus non-fascist, or a happening versus a non-happening are. So you're using the loaded language here; you need to back it up.

And then you go on to say something about the argument being premised on "dirty hippies getting what is coming to them." Funny. Your *entire* argument is based on the premise that a bunch of hunkered down citizens are politely protesting wealthy banksters. I mean, is that what *all* of them are doing now?