This could be bad

[racrguy]

Play with fire you could get burned. Just like anything you take a risk it could back fire. I'm not dumb enough to get gassed and shot though, regroup and pick up else where.

I get what you're saying, but you seem to be of the opinion that they're ALLOWED to do this kind of thing to you.

Francis Ford Herpola

[YALE]

These Occupy Everything articles read like news articles from Thatcher era England.

[Forever_frost]

So, the police using force, and potentially murdering someone in what, by all appearances, is a non-violent protest in attempt to get a governmental redress of grievances is acceptable?

So much for the First Amendment.

From what I read, he was hit in the head with a CS grenade. It wasn't deadly force, it was expressly LESS THAN LETHAL weapons used. They could have just opened fire, but they have shown remarkable restraint. And it's not non violent. Have you not been paying attention to the rapes, robberies, burglary, destruction of private and public property these animals have been engaged in?

[Forever_frost]

What the hell is a baton round?

[YALE]

What the hell is a baton round?

It's a less lethal round, like a bean bag or a rubber bullet.

[Maddhattter]

From what I read, he was hit in the head with a CS grenade. It wasn't deadly force, it was expressly LESS THAN LETHAL weapons used. They could have just opened fire, but they have shown remarkable restraint.

That doesn't change the fact that outright stated that you supported an officer killing a man for participating in what, by all appearances, was a nonviolent protest.

You explicitly stated

I think they're justified on this one. Dude shouldn't have been there adn they have been holding cities hostage

after jknobles made comment to the police getting away with murder.

And it's not non violent. Have you not been paying attention to the rapes, robberies, burglary, destruction of private and public property these animals have been engaged in?

Funny how quick you are to condemn an entire group of people based on the minority.

Did those things happen? I've not denied that, but given the number of people involved in this protests, if it were a violent protest, there would be much more damage than there is.

Doesn't change the facts or your statements. You supported the killing of a man, accident or not, due to his participation in a non-violent protest.

Sorry, I just expect the military and police organizations in America to honor the Constitution by following the damn thing, regardless of their "policy (military) on protestors".

[onemeangixxer7502]

That doesn't change the fact that outright stated that you supported an officer killing a man for participating in what, by all appearances, was a nonviolent protest.

You explicitly stated



after jknobles made comment to the police getting away with murder.



Funny how quick you are to condemn an entire group of people based on the minority.

Did those things happen? I've not denied that, but given the number of people involved in this protests, if it were a violent protest, there would be much more damage than there is.

Doesn't change the facts or your statements. You supported the killing of a man, accident or not, due to his participation in a non-violent protest.

Sorry, I just expect the military and police organizations in America to honor the Constitution by following the damn thing, regardless of their "policy (military) on protestors".

Fairly pot and kettle with the police statement is it not? They were doing what they were told.

[Forever_frost]

They were honoring it. They were protecting the city, they were protecting private and public property and the OWS idiots refused to disperse. What would you have them do? Ask nicely and when they're told to fuck off, shake their finger and threaten to tell their mothers?

They followed the escalation of use of force rules that I'm familiar with.

[Maddhattter]

Fairly pot and kettle with the police statement is it not? They were doing what they were told.

Never have I seen any police or military statement that justifies the killing of a man for executing his constitutional rights.

I see no distinction between doing what they were told, or not, as violating a persons rights in such a way is illegal. If they were told to fire into a group of non-violent protestors, they broke the law following that order. If they were not told to fire into a group of non-violent protestors, they broke the law by firing into a group of non-violent protestors.

While I agree with jknobles06 statement that nothing will likely come of it, Forever_frost's endorsement of killing someone for doing what they choose in accordance with the Constitution is reprehensible at best.

[Forever_frost]

I didn't justify killing someone. I justified the use of less than lethal force on a crowd who refuses to obey lawful orders.

[racrguy]

I didn't justify killing someone. I justified the use of less than lethal force on a crowd who refuses to obey lawful orders.

I think they're justified on this one. Dude shouldn't have been there adn they have been holding cities hostage

wut?

[onemeangixxer7502]

I didn't justify killing someone. I justified the use of less than lethal force on a crowd who refuses to obey lawful orders.

Kind of how I see it, they're breaking other laws as the protest. Break the law the police come. When the police show up do what you're told or expect some sort of force to be used. These people aren't worth the rubber bullets wasted on them though. Case and point

or this

Shall I keep going? I don't get the entitlement thing with people these days, everyone wants something for nothing.

[Machx2]

Never have I seen any police or military statement that justifies the killing of a man for executing his constitutional rights.

I see no distinction between doing what they were told, or not, as violating a persons rights in such a way is illegal. If they were told to fire into a group of non-violent protestors, they broke the law following that order. If they were not told to fire into a group of non-violent protestors, they broke the law by firing into a group of non-violent protestors.

While I agree with jknobles06 statement that nothing will likely come of it, Forever_frost's endorsement of killing someone for doing what they choose in accordance with the Constitution is reprehensible at best.

For what its worth, Forever_Frost is usually a ftp kind of guy. Honestly mad, it is like you are ignoring what half the people are telling you. The police did not use deadly force, it was not intended to kill someone. If you would pay attention to these protest you would know that they have been trespassing, blocking building entrances and refusing to leave these areas. That is a crime, but when you have thousands of people doing it at once, what do you suggest to do? I would love to hear how you would get a crowd of people trespassing off the property. They are not dispersing the crowd to stop the protests as you seem to believe. They have been allowing them to protest, as it is anyones right. They are doing it to get the people off of someones property that doesn't want them there. Get it yet?

[racrguy]

For what its worth, Forever_Frost is usually a ftp kind of guy. Honestly mad, it is like you are ignoring what half the people are telling you. The police did not use deadly force, it was not intended to kill someone. If you would pay attention to these protest you would know that they have been trespassing, blocking building entrances and refusing to leave these areas. That is a crime, but when you have thousands of people doing it at once, what do you suggest to do? I would love to hear how you would get a crowd of people trespassing off the property. They are not dispersing the crowd to stop the protests as you seem to believe. They have been allowing them to protest, as it is anyones right. They are doing it to get the people off of someones property that doesn't want them there. Get it yet?

It reads like public property to me

camp in front of City Hall

[Machx2]

It reads like public property to me

POST Wednesday, 1:18 p.m.: Oakland was shrouded in a tear gas haze Wednesday morning after a night of clashes between police and Occupy protesters.



The confrontations started about 12 hours after police cleared out an encampment in a plaza that demonstrators had been using for two weeks, the Oakland Tribune reports. While only about 300 people had been in the encampment when police raided it early Tuesday, more than 1,000 took to the streets Tuesday evening to “reclaim” the plaza.



A YouTube video (see below) shows smoke billowing and flash grenades popping on a downtown street as authorities tried to disperse the demonstrators and keep them from re-occupying the park. An Associated Press video shows some of the clashes up-close, including one in which police throw a young woman to the ground. The New York Times’ blog The Lede has even more footage of the chaos, which lasted for some six hours. Over 100 people were arrested in the course of the day, most in the pre-dawn raid. It’s not yet known how many were injured.



Oakland’s acting police chief said his officers had no choice but to use force and tear gas. Officers said demonstrators were throwing bottles, rocks and even dishware at them.



The flare-up in Oakland, a city all too familiar with violent confrontations between protesters and police, was one of the most dramatic so far in the national Occupy movement. But the city is just one of several where authorities’ attempts to break up demonstrations have led to arrests in recent days. Atlanta, Sacramento, Tucson, and Albuquerque are among the cities that have seen arrests this week.

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/10/26/occupy_oakland_police_use_tear_gas_on_ows_protesters_100_arreste.html