Occupy Wall Street. Police vs people in NY.

Stengah wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Stengah wrote:
Malor wrote:

Threatening family is hyper-super-mega uncool. But honestly, I think a fair bit of harassment of the officer himself is justified, considering both the video evidence and the likelihood that he skates without repercussions. I don't mean death threats, but surprise pepper-sprayings at random intervals would strike me as highly appropriate.

Surprise pepper-sprayings would also be inappropriate (it was wrong when he did, why would it be right when someone else does it to him?)

Because it's not that pepper-sprayings are always and in all circumstances wrong, it's that he pepper-sprayed people who didn't *deserve* to be pepper-sprayed.

I don't think he does either, but probably more out of a fear of slippery slopes than anything else.

Right, that's why I said surprise pepper-sprayings were wrong, the surprise part would indicate he wasn't doing anything at the time that called for it.

I think the argument is he would deserve it as retribution and the deterrence message it would send would result in him deserving it, not that there's a need for incapacitation.

To me it would be highly appropriate, and I would take not-guilty-at-all pleasure in hearing about it, but I just worry if a culture of this sort of thing were to spring up. It could get out of hand very quickly, and next time it's a cop who is doing her job that winds up the victim of one of these campaigns.

CheezePavilion wrote:

I think the argument is he would deserve it as retribution and the deterrence message it would send would result in him deserving it, not that there's a need for incapacitation.

To me it would be highly appropriate, and I would take not-guilty-at-all pleasure in hearing about it, but I just worry if a culture of this sort of thing were to spring up. It could get out of hand very quickly, and next time it's a cop who is doing her job that winds up the victim of one of these campaigns.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"

If you want a deterrence, there are less vindictive things you can do.

Stengah wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I think the argument is he would deserve it as retribution and the deterrence message it would send would result in him deserving it, not that there's a need for incapacitation.

To me it would be highly appropriate, and I would take not-guilty-at-all pleasure in hearing about it, but I just worry if a culture of this sort of thing were to spring up. It could get out of hand very quickly, and next time it's a cop who is doing her job that winds up the victim of one of these campaigns.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"

If you want a deterrence, there are less vindictive things you can do.

I am not debating the merits of such a stance (edit: I'm wary of any vindictiveness at all given how easily I could see this getting out of hand and eventually innocent cops getting victimized) just pointing out the logic of the argument.

...and the irony considering we're talking about pepper spray : D

CheezePavilion wrote:
Stengah wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I think the argument is he would deserve it as retribution and the deterrence message it would send would result in him deserving it, not that there's a need for incapacitation.

To me it would be highly appropriate, and I would take not-guilty-at-all pleasure in hearing about it, but I just worry if a culture of this sort of thing were to spring up. It could get out of hand very quickly, and next time it's a cop who is doing her job that winds up the victim of one of these campaigns.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"

If you want a deterrence, there are less vindictive things you can do.

I am not debating the merits of such a stance, just pointing out the logic of the argument.

If the stance is not yours, why are you arguing it?
Pepper spray isn't the most dangerous thing in the world, but it's not exactly a picnic either.

Stengah wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Stengah wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I think the argument is he would deserve it as retribution and the deterrence message it would send would result in him deserving it, not that there's a need for incapacitation.

To me it would be highly appropriate, and I would take not-guilty-at-all pleasure in hearing about it, but I just worry if a culture of this sort of thing were to spring up. It could get out of hand very quickly, and next time it's a cop who is doing her job that winds up the victim of one of these campaigns.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"

If you want a deterrence, there are less vindictive things you can do.

I am not debating the merits of such a stance, just pointing out the logic of the argument.

If the stance is not yours, why are you arguing it?
Pepper spray isn't the most dangerous thing in the world, but it's not exactly a picnic either.

I hate seeing two people argue over a misunderstanding. It's a hard habit to break, but maybe I should.

CheezePavilion wrote:

I think the argument is he would deserve it as retribution and the deterrence message it would send would result in him deserving it, not that there's a need for incapacitation.

To me it would be highly appropriate, and I would take not-guilty-at-all pleasure in hearing about it, but I just worry if a culture of this sort of thing were to spring up. It could get out of hand very quickly, and next time it's a cop who is doing her job that winds up the victim of one of these campaigns.

Bolded the part that reads like you support the vigilante use of pepper spray on Deputy Inspector Bologna.

In response to MattDaddy's question: I don't support death threats against anyone. Deputy Inspector Bologna should be appropriately disciplined by the NYPD, and could face civil charges from the innocent folks he chose to mace.

I've been reading through this thread now for a while and i'm just wondering on something: How does being arrested like this affect you and your life?

I mean, in theory, you're only arrested if breaking a law that is punishable in some way. So, do these people get charged as well or are they just kept in the cells to cool down for a few hours and then released?

Really, i have no idea about this sort of stuff... Even trying to read up on the subject hasn't actually cleared anything up for me as i'm looking at the literature and it's telling me that people can't be arrested like this.

Not to derail the thread but does anyone else find it strange that this whole discussion centers around the actions of a cop named "Tony Bologna" or as I read it "Tony Baloney"

I would imagine that a guy with a name like that would have a lot of pent of anger.

Duoae wrote:

I've been reading through this thread now for a while and i'm just wondering on something: How does being arrested like this affect you and your life?

I mean, in theory, you're only arrested if breaking a law that is punishable in some way. So, do these people get charged as well or are they just kept in the cells to cool down for a few hours and then released?

Really, i have no idea about this sort of stuff... Even trying to read up on the subject hasn't actually cleared anything up for me as i'm looking at the literature and it's telling me that people can't be arrested like this.

I figure most of the people will have the charges against them dropped. Maybe a small fine, but nothing will go on the records of those who didn't do anything.

MattDaddy wrote:
Duoae wrote:

I've been reading through this thread now for a while and i'm just wondering on something: How does being arrested like this affect you and your life?

I mean, in theory, you're only arrested if breaking a law that is punishable in some way. So, do these people get charged as well or are they just kept in the cells to cool down for a few hours and then released?

Really, i have no idea about this sort of stuff... Even trying to read up on the subject hasn't actually cleared anything up for me as i'm looking at the literature and it's telling me that people can't be arrested like this.

I figure most of the people will have the charges against them dropped. Maybe a small fine, but nothing will go on the records of those who didn't do anything.

So... Why are the police wasting their own time, the protestors' time and the taxpayers' money?

Duoae wrote:

So... Why are the police wasting their own time, the protestors' time and the taxpayers' money?

Because Mr. Treehorn Goldman-Sachs draws a lot of water in this town. You don't draw sh*t, Lebowski. protesters.

Duoae wrote:
MattDaddy wrote:
Duoae wrote:

I've been reading through this thread now for a while and i'm just wondering on something: How does being arrested like this affect you and your life?

I mean, in theory, you're only arrested if breaking a law that is punishable in some way. So, do these people get charged as well or are they just kept in the cells to cool down for a few hours and then released?

Really, i have no idea about this sort of stuff... Even trying to read up on the subject hasn't actually cleared anything up for me as i'm looking at the literature and it's telling me that people can't be arrested like this.

I figure most of the people will have the charges against them dropped. Maybe a small fine, but nothing will go on the records of those who didn't do anything.

So... Why are the police wasting their own time, the protestors' time and the taxpayers' money?

Keep the plebs away from Radiohead?

MattDaddy wrote:
Duoae wrote:

I've been reading through this thread now for a while and i'm just wondering on something: How does being arrested like this affect you and your life?

I mean, in theory, you're only arrested if breaking a law that is punishable in some way. So, do these people get charged as well or are they just kept in the cells to cool down for a few hours and then released?

Really, i have no idea about this sort of stuff... Even trying to read up on the subject hasn't actually cleared anything up for me as i'm looking at the literature and it's telling me that people can't be arrested like this.

I figure most of the people will have the charges against them dropped. Maybe a small fine, but nothing will go on the records of those who didn't do anything.

This is normally the way it goes. They arrest them, maybe hold them overnight, then drop any charges and release them. The only people who would get held are people that fought back, which is justified since it's resisting arrest. Generally speaking, the cops just want to remove some of the protesters, and make it seem in the press like they're all just a bunch of anarchists or rabble rousers (because normal people protest respectfully and don't do anything that would get them arrested). The cops are seen as "doing something" or "keeping the peace," and the protesters are made a little bit easier to ignore or write off as angry/entitled rich kids. The courts don't want to deal with these people, it's a waste of time and money to hold hearings for jaywalking, and many of the protesters would see fighting the charges as a continuation of their protest.

I thought this was funny.

IMAGE(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/291932_2215236294367_1051375221_32128229_407335972_n.jpg)

Looks like Cornel West has joined the protests.

IMAGE(http://gothamist.com/upload/2011/09/092711west1.jpg?493)

West, a professor at Princeton, recently said on MSNBC, "The top 10 percent got 100 percent of income growth. That's pathological. You can't sustain a democracy when you have that kind of wealth inequality."

Business Insiders:

Occupy Wall Street has been picking up some decent support from unions in the past few days. Yesterday we reported that the Teamsters Union declared their support for protestors, and we also found out that the United Pilots Union had members at the protest demonstrating in uniform. Today we learned the Industrial Workers of the World put a message of support on their website as well.

The New York Transit Workers Union (TWU) has over 200,000 members.

Some pictures from the protests. The level of derp is strong with these protesters.

I like the signs, such gems as:

"This financial district is responsible for most of the poverty and suffering on this planet".
"Top 1% why you no pay taxes?"
"Smash capitalism, liberate the planet"

bandit0013 wrote:

Some pictures from the protests. The level of derp is strong with these protesters.

I like the signs, such gems as:

"This financial district is responsible for most of the poverty and suffering on this planet".
"Top 1% why you no pay taxes?"
"Smash capitalism, liberate the planet"

The irony of that is amazing. Better than a poster of corporatist Obama with a Hitler mustache that says something about him being a socialist or worse.

One of my favorite political podcasters Dan Carlin suggested that the Wall Street protesters reach out to the Tea Party about having a joint rally to protest the government bailouts of bad banks and all the trillions of liabilities taxpayers are now on the hook for.

http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/cs...

Crain's New York Business, New York Magazine, and The Village Voice are reporting that a "a loose coalition of labor and community groups" have pledged solidarity with the protests at Zuccotti Park in New York's financial district and are organizing a march for next Wednesday, October 5.

The list of labor groups involved in Wednesday's planned march include: The United Federation of Teachers; 32BJ SEIU & 1199 SEIU; Workers United; and Transport Workers Union Local 100, which has 38,000 members.

Additionally, Working Families Party, Moveon.org, Make the Road New York, the Coalition for the Homeless, the Alliance for Quality Education, Community Voices Heard, United New York and Strong Economy For All are involved in the organization of the march.

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/...

So far these look to be peaceful protests, a reminder that "we are here and we're unhappy" sort of thing. Given the numbers put forth in Edwin's quote that's a lot of people joining the cause. This makes me curious - is the American public (or at least those involved in this thing) frustrated enough to transform a protest into a riot (ala Egypt and other countries of late)? I suppose if they did the American military would just stomp them out but then that action would also be a political nightmare.

krev82 wrote:

So far these look to be peaceful protests, a reminder that "we are here and we're unhappy" sort of thing. Given the numbers put forth in Edwin's quote that's a lot of people joining the cause. This makes me curious - is the American public (or at least those involved in this thing) frustrated enough to transform a protest into a riot (ala Egypt and other countries of late)? I suppose if they did the American military would just stomp them out but then that action would also be a political nightmare.

It would most likely not be the US military. That would be a step too far and signify to mainstreet America that the problem is larger than most are willing to acknowledge.

The far more likely scenario is that riots would be put down with either police forces or privately funded paramilitary groups like Blackwater and the like -- possibly even with foreign contractors.

I would welcome a riot on wall st - our DR site is much closer to my house!

No personal attacks. - Certis

So, going through the signs and reading the list of "demands" are we able to call a spade a spade? These leftist kids are not going to get anywhere and what makes these people any different from the trade protestors of the 90's and early 2000's? I know leftist kiddies would much rather have a Republican in the white house but this is vanity like all of hipsternomics. These people deserve the tea party because they have no solutions. No real policy alternatives. Just empty leftist platitudes presented by economic illiterate useful idiots. You want to make a real change? How about electing someone who will and when he says he'll do certain things and doesn't, not voting for his reelection.

Ulairi wrote:

How about electing someone who will and when he says he'll do certain things and doesn't, not voting for his reelection.

I'd like to agree with that last bit, but no such candidate ever makes it to the ballot.

DsGamer, can the sarcasm please. The rhetoric and pundit-like debate tactics going on in various threads is starting to get out of hand.

krev82 wrote:

So far these look to be peaceful protests, a reminder that "we are here and we're unhappy" sort of thing. Given the numbers put forth in Edwin's quote that's a lot of people joining the cause. This makes me curious - is the American public (or at least those involved in this thing) frustrated enough to transform a protest into a riot (ala Egypt and other countries of late)? I suppose if they did the American military would just stomp them out but then that action would also be a political nightmare.

I don't see the American public being even close to riot-level frustration. While frustration exists, the vast majority of the public can still buy their groceries, watch cable tv, and play video games. As long as they are living fairly comfortable existences, riots on a large scale won't happen. I've heard lots of people complain about Wall Street, but I've heard few, if any, of those complainers ever mention violence as a possibility to change things.

Wasting our time mixing in personal attacks. Focus on the argument, not the person making it. - Certis

Crispus wrote:
krev82 wrote:

So far these look to be peaceful protests, a reminder that "we are here and we're unhappy" sort of thing. Given the numbers put forth in Edwin's quote that's a lot of people joining the cause. This makes me curious - is the American public (or at least those involved in this thing) frustrated enough to transform a protest into a riot (ala Egypt and other countries of late)? I suppose if they did the American military would just stomp them out but then that action would also be a political nightmare.

I don't see the American public being even close to riot-level frustration. While frustration exists, the vast majority of the public can still buy their groceries, watch cable tv, and play video games. As long as they are living fairly comfortable existences, riots on a large scale won't happen. I've heard lots of people complain about Wall Street, but I've heard few, if any, of those complainers ever mention violence as a possibility to change things.

There are concerns. Mayor Bloomberg of New York City was predicting political strife and violence before these protests, for example, citing the rising income inequality and extremely high unemployment.

Personally, I think you're over-estimating the "contentment" levels in this nation. There's a lot of people on the edge right now, and as you are probably aware, a lot of economists are worried about a 2012 "double dip" to the current recession we are in. With the push to strip away the social programs to help the working class and unemployed weather the proverbial storm, it could lead to a feeling of abandonment by society by a large segment of people, particularly young men, and that's *never* a good recipe for stability.

krev82 wrote:

So far these look to be peaceful protests, a reminder that "we are here and we're unhappy" sort of thing. Given the numbers put forth in Edwin's quote that's a lot of people joining the cause. This makes me curious - is the American public (or at least those involved in this thing) frustrated enough to transform a protest into a riot (ala Egypt and other countries of late)? I suppose if they did the American military would just stomp them out but then that action would also be a political nightmare.

I have a lot of trouble comparing oppressed youth who live in relative poverty under a military regime to these protesters with their designer jeans, iphones, and who even if they are out of work know where their next meal is coming from.

So no, I don't see any chance of significant rioting. If it happened, police force would be enough to put it down.

Ulairi wrote:

So, going through the signs and reading the list of "demands" are we able to call a spade a spade? These leftist kids are not going to get anywhere and what makes these people any different from the trade protestors of the 90's and early 2000's? I know leftist kiddies would much rather have a Republican in the white house but this is vanity like all of hipsternomics. These people deserve the tea party because they have no solutions. No real policy alternatives. Just empty leftist platitudes presented by economic illiterate useful idiots. You want to make a real change? How about electing someone who will and when he says he'll do certain things and doesn't, not voting for his reelection.

Joe Stiglitz came to educate them. He is not an economic illiterate but a Nobel prize winner in economics.