Marines furious over police attack on "brother" at Occupy Oakland

Would one follow their loyalty to their country or to their vow to a government?

The vow is to protect and uphold the US Constitution.

Paying Attention

This should answer your question.

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Im sorry the kid got hurt, but lets be honest, they were breaking the law by not vacating the park. And at this point they dont really know what he got hit with, it could have been a bottle or something thrown by one of the protesters.

So you make an arrest! If you can't affect an arrest then you need to quit the job. This is my humble opinion based on 20yrs of law enforcement experience. And let me say I WAS NOT THERE. I don't know the conditions that prevailed at that moment, but I do know the job.

For your information the cops took a similar version the same oath.

Im sorry the kid got hurt, but lets be honest, they were breaking the law by not vacating the park.

This argument makes me very curious to know if all "conservatives" feel that local ordinances trump the U.S. constitution. I'm inclined to think it's just koch-bloggers trying to influence the discussion, but I've been shocked by the right-wing before.

I was going to bring this very point up on another thread Thinknaboutit. Great minds, you know. :D

Just more liberal excuses, you know they were breaking the law and they knew they were breaking the law, you just dont like the fact that they got their asses kicked for it. And I believe the constitution says "the right to peaceful assembly", throwing bottles at cops isnt peaceful and will get you an asskicking every time.

This argument makes me very curious to know if all "conservatives" feel that local ordinances trump the U.S. constitution. I'm inclined to think it's just koch-bloggers trying to influence the discussion, but I've been shocked by the right-wing before

Who says they cannot protest? They can and have been but how long do we allow it to go on? How long do we allow these people to take over public property? No one is stopping their first amendment rights - They just have protests within the law - simple as that

Steve- You do have proof they were throwing bottles before the police attacked the protesters right? Is it beyond the scope of your intelligence to know that proof>unsubstantiated claims? It is ironic that so many "conservatives" claim to not trust the government, but blindly accept whatever they are told if it fits their political agenda.

BM- I don't recall a time limit on the peacefull assembly clause, perhaps you have an updated version of the constitution you could share with the rest of us? There is no "protest within the law" clause either as I remember, if there were what would stop a tyranical government from writing laws (such as the public space is "closed") to prevent peacefull assembly?

How do you justify arguing against the vision of our founding fathers who repeatedly warned us of the evils of unrestrained corporate greed and erosion of our rights as citizens?

http://occupywallst.org/forum/occupy-oakland-admits-on-msnbc-that-protesters-wer/

Forum Post: Occupy Oakland admits on MSNBC that protesters were throwing bottles and rocks BEFORE police responded

BM- I don't recall a time limit on the peacefull assembly clause, perhaps you have an updated version of the constitution you could share with the rest of us? There is no "protest within the law" clause either as I remember, if there were what would stop a tyranical government from writing laws (such as the public space is "closed") to prevent peacefull assembly?

And i see nothing in the constitution that says i have to get a license to drive - But i have to don't i ?

It is their right to protest as long as they obey the law - Does it say anything in the constitution about a group of protestors throwing rocks at police?

So we have one person saying that "there were some people" throwing bottles at police in riot gear. Arresting the individuals would be prudent, but one agitator in a crowd does not justify this level of force against an entire group of people. Where is the video evidence by the way, every video I've seen shows people throwing back teargas canisters (bottles?) that had been shot indescriminately into the crowd.

You've still failed to prove that these protesters were throwing rocks, one individual does not a group make. What does your PRIVELEDGE to drive have to do with constitutional rights?

thinkabout it

I guess you have proof that the police attacked the protesters dont you. Is it beyond the scope of your intelligence to know that proof>unsubstantiated claims? I do have proof that the "protesters" were in the park in violation of the law, but as usual, libs dont think the laws apply to them. Either way, they fought the law, and the law won.

They were trying to disperse the group - They warned them that they were going to use tear gas - What more do you want them, to do ? Numerous protestors left when they were told to and were warned that tear gas was going to be used -

Ok we all have the right to bear arms right? But we also must get a firearm permit to carry a gun don't we? And we have to adhere to every state's ordinances concerning guns don't we?

The

I guess you have proof that the police attacked the protesters dont you.

So you didn't see the video of the Marine that was shot in the head with a teargas canister lying in the street and the police in full riot gear ignoring him until other protesters came to his aid when they then threw concusion grenades to prevent his getting medical aid?

They were trying to disperse the group

See above...

Ok we all have the right to bear arms right? But we also must get a firearm permit to carry a gun don't we? And we have to adhere to every state's ordinances concerning guns don't we

I dont think permits and ordinances apply when defending constitutional rights, what do you think our founding fathers would have to say about it? I guess if there was a WMD threat in your city you would follow all posted speedlimits and traffic signals while trying to get your family to safety? If someone was chasing you with a gun j-walking would still be out of the question? If you are excercising your right to free speech in a public space you would tuck your tail between your legs and walk away if a cop or city official told you to shut up and go home?

The right to bear arms is a constitutional right is it not - Comparing a protest about corporate greed to a WMD in my city - WOW

You lose all credibility when trying to make those type of bogus comparisons- No one is about to kill those protestors - They could all leave and come back the next morning -

So how much force should be used against unarmed, peaceful protesters?

Why are people being shot at and teargassed over curfew violations?? What's next killing people who double park? Shooting jay walkers? Hanging people who smoke in public?

City and state laws NEVER trump federal laws! There are NO laws that trump our constitution!

How does the city explain to the parents of the injured protester that they thank him for serving our country, but had to shoot and critically injure him because he broke the curfew law?

Scott Olsen went to war to protect our freedom, and was shot and critically injured by the Oakland police for misdemeanor violations. Scott's lawyer will have a field day with this case! That shot cost the city MILLIONS!

Take a second and think about what all of these police abuse court battles are going to cost the cities in a couple years! Break curfew, get shot by police = multi million dollar settlement!

Here is a great example of the terrorists that defend our country!

Thanks, james ca. #1.74

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=nZQMHo4I6xg

All this did was stir up the retired and inactive military people, and hopefully motivated more of them to support the Occupy movement as it did for the man in the video!

WE ARE THE 99%

We grow stronger with each passing day, and the corrupt governments and corporations are getting more and more afraid! This is far from being over!

He was standing on American soil.

That used to mean something.

mountainfirefall - It still means everything to most of us. Those who are willing to surrender their rights in favor of petty laws are definately the minority.

BostonMan-3128434 - are you ignoring my questions even though I've patiently addressed yours, and then trying to attack MY credibility?

I dont think permits and ordinances apply when defending constitutional rights, what do you think our founding fathers would have to say about it?

and

How do you justify arguing against the vision of our founding fathers who repeatedly warned us of the evils of unrestrained corporate greed and erosion of our rights as citizens?

Just more liberal excuses, you know they were breaking the law and they knew they were breaking the law, you just dont like the fact that they got their asses kicked for it

The penalty for disobeying a city ordinance is not being subjected to physical violence. Do you think we live in the 14th century? What should we do to jaywalkers, flog them? A stretch on the rack?

ndeepnow Comment collapsed by the community

These marines should be ashamed of themselves. The one who was injured should be protecting the rest of us from this mob rule mentality. Not joining in. Also what is the marine in the picture going to do? Start fighting police for doing their job?

Sounds more like GANG MEMBERS then MARINES if you ask me.

Wouldn't be the first time a cop got the @!$%# kicked out of him by a Marine and ended up in the hospital. People are sick and tired of people like you and that jack booted thugs that people like you empower.

You son is the Marine and you are....what???? You raised him.

Not sure what he means "all wrong". First, we don't wear ribbons and medals on our cammies (he did that for effect), second, the only way to know if they were all wrong was to compare them to the entries in his SRB (which is confidential).

The only other way of saying they were all wrong would be if he was wearing ribbons for conflicts that he is obviously too young to have served in or for service specific awards that were not Marine/Navy ribbons.

I've heard this nonsense too. From what I understand, he was attached to 2nd Force Recon, If I were to fake being a Marine, 2nd Force Recon would not be the unit I would pick...pretty easy to figure that one out, they are the "Few" of the Few - Marine Corps' equivalent of the Navy Seals, in fact, they often train and operate together.

Sounds more like the Gunny has a political POV to protect...

Correction

Looks like he was with 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion (equivalent to US Army Cavalry units).

Not SOC, but still on the tip of the spear.

You son is the Marine and you are....what????

You don't know jack...my son was raised in his mothers family that shut me out...his political beliefs were formed by people I don't and won't associate with...we have a fantastic relationship and never talk politics face to face...it keeps the peace....so until you know me and my family i will thank you keep you face buttoned...

The kid has been wound tight since he was wounded in Afghanistan...he has a narrow view of the political spectrum....he knows my posistion and knows I won't waiver...I don't try to change his...BTW he did back down about the ribbon thing, but at first he didn't want to believe the guy was a Marine...

Rodney-889389, you can easily tell if ribbons are wrong, there is a hierarchy for them basic stuff to unit awards then the prestigious ones. So no need for srb which isnt confidential. I speak as a Marine who happened to work with srb's. I don't doubt the man stricken is and always is a Marine and it didn' t have to be a Marine to make it worse, he just has to be an American in my book. I'm not sure if guy in pic is one, my discernment tells me that he could just want the spotlight. People that truly have a cause do not takes pics of themself and a typed sign, they act in it hopefully in a leagal way like my Marine brother was doing.

Good to know you raised your son to think for himself and not drink Kool-aid.

We need the National guard called out to protect the citizens from the deranged cops...

Being from Ohio, I'll let you know that doesn't always work out very well.

You son is the Marine and you are....what???? You raised him.

onlyonevoice,

Please try to exercise some tact when you're responding to a fellow viner. You crossed the line.

Being from Ohio, I'll let you know that doesn't always work out very well

smacks himself on the forehead...Kent State is "stuck" in my head also....

Kent State doesn't need to be remembered for what happened on May 4, 1970. Unless of course you are an Anarchist that wishes to relive a mistake and incite a riot.

If Obama had done his job from the beginning and instead of bailing out the Banks, which many in the industry recommended he not do, and focused on Jobs than these protesters might be doing something else.

The national guard unit that fired on unarmed students were anarchist? I did not know that. What was your draft #during that era. I must confess I did not have one, but I did enlist on 17 March 1971. Were you even alive then? Just wondering.

And who do you think ransacked the downtown, and burned down the ROTC building that led to National Card being called in: Monks? Were you at Kent State when this happened and what does my draft# have to do with anything?

Oh I see a ransacked downtown and burned building justifies shooting unarmed kids. As to your draft status, I just wondered if you had put any skin in the game. But based on your logic justifying the use of deadly force against UNARMED students, I hope you were given a pass.

And so you justify burning and ransacking personal or public property to draw attention to your cause? What part of the legal system do you need to understand. Read the Kent State Police Files and you will find out that outsiders were to blame for a lot of the problems. Sounds familiar to today's events.

Regarding the draft in the early 70s, most students were in school purposely and provided they weren't standing before a judge were excluded from joining.

I was a cop for 20yrs and have a degree in Criminal Justice I'm an expert when it comes to the criminal justice system. You shoot an arsonist during the comission of the crime. It's called a forcible felony. You do not shoot an unarmed student after the fact that's called murder. Outside agiators? Who are you Bull Conner?

No one was "excluded" from joining, they were exempt from the draft. Many Real Americans left school and did their part, you know "country first" which side were you on?

You shoot an arsonist during the comissio of the crime.

Bull@!$%#- if no life is in danger, you don't shoot him. The only time lethal force is authorized is when danger of extreme harm or death is present to another person. Lethal force to protect property is NEVER authorized.

That would cover aggravated arson, A building that an arsonist knows is occupied. My bad for not clarifying that point. I'm on your side my friend. Peace

Although, In the context of the late 60's and early 70's some jurisdictions would have shot. Mayor Daley of Chicago ordered police to shoot looters to maim, and to shoot to kill arsonist. This was in response to the riots after the Murder of MLK.

ww, you keep trying to make this a personal debate:

What was your draft #during that era. I must confess I did not have one, but I did enlist on 17 March 1971. Were you even alive then? Just wondering.

As to your draft status, I just wondered if you had put any skin in the game. But based on your logic justifying the use of deadly force against UNARMED students, I hope you were given a pass.

which side were you on?

And thank you for letting us know that you are an expert in the field of criminal justice? Makes me wonder now about the players in the support of these protests. Professional agitators maybe?

FOP members, firefighters, combat vets, nurses and teachers all part of the 99%. People that support the "job creators" by their consumption of goods and services. Once again whose side are you on.

Funny but is there are only a couple thousand people protesting - Lets even say a hundred thousand country wide protesting - Out of a country of 350 million that is not 99% in case you did not know that

and some point, bostonman, you must realize that to continue is to beat your own dead horse.

there is clearly a goal at work in your continued endeavor here.

what is that?

Rodney-889389, you can easily tell if ribbons are wrong, there is a hierarchy for them basic stuff to unit awards then the prestigious ones. So no need for srb which isnt confidential

First, I don't know what Marine Corps you served in, but in the one I served in SRBs are not public record.

...and second, he's not talking about how they are displayed (I assume) he's talking about whether or not he rated them.

Obviously, they are not displayed correctly, he has them pinned to cammies.

BostonMan,

It makes me wonder how the less than 1% of the population feel that they represent 99% of the population. Maybe it is their Master of the Universe Ego getting in the way of reality. Sorta of the Squeaky Hinge syndrome except that bad parts usually fail and get replaced.

FOP members, firefighters, combat vets, nurses and teachers all part of the 99%. People that support the "job creators" by their consumption of goods and services. Once again whose side are you on.

The side that the public workers work for and are expected to provide services for tax dollars paid.

That would include the 99% fair enough.

Rodney all I said is they are not classified, don'over exxagerate and mislead people. There's only one Marine Corps. Never said they were public knowledge but you definitely do not need classified clearance to view them, 0121 was my mos.

Funny but is there are only a couple thousand people protesting - Lets even say a hundred thousand country wide protesting - Out of a country of 350 million that is not 99% in case you did not know that

LOL!!

I think your watching to much main stream media.

for every single individual out in the actual protest there are possibly hundreds behind the scenes.

One cannot be so naive, as to assume this movement is so successful, and only have a few thousand in favor of it.

This is world wide, and the hundred or so thousand you see on the streets are just the visible arm.

There are many who are not out there, but understand the issue with enough educated understanding, and have enough objective observation to apply such understanding to recognize the need for this DEMAND for RESOLUTION and change.

They are NOT just a bunch of liberals and they are not a bunch of unemployed so called loosers.

Your going to eventually understand that this type of stand made against a system as corrupt as ours has become, takes a substantial amount of backing in order to exist at all, much less to make an actual impact upon awakening a population of brainwashed peoples...within the United States as well as the rest of the world.

Suffice it to say, that which you see in the FACE of Society, is but the tip of a HUGE iceberg....the "WORLD WIDE TITANIC " has run aground.

We are going to win this thing, and any who do not jump ship and stand with us, will go down with that they hold.

we are the 99%

The United States ALONE, has the lowest percentage of support..being at the present time, approaching 60%.

Everyone will realize, before this thing is over, that if we do not get Resolution within this country, the rest of the world WILL....and THAT is not a scenario this country can survive....no matter how many BOMBs we have!!!!

What Hyperbole. Do you know why or when he took the picture? As soon as word broke and Anger started to spread in sections of the Vet community, specifically Marines he took the picture to be a symbol of the combined emotion.

Might I add.

Don't take my word for it and don't read second hand accounts of the man.

Watch the only video interview of him before making up your mind about him.

http://rt.com/usa/news/marine-oakland-reddit-olsen-923/

http://rt.com/usa/news/marine-oakland-reddit-olsen-923/

LMFAO The tea prty/republicans gave the city of Richmond Va. a bill that they expect the Occupy Protest to pay!!! ROFLMMFAO!!!

My prayers go out to Scott Olsen and his family. Hopefully he gets well soon!

Now I've heard it all!

Great link Brian84! Keep that one circulating!

I agree wholeheartedly...

Deluded protest? I am sorry don't we have the right to protest and share our Anger. Is that right only for those that Act, look, Behave, and most importantly believe what you believe?

Yeah, This country has a long and rich history of brutally suppressing and murdering citizens who protest...The Boston Massacre, Kent State, Memorial Day massacre of 1937, et al, come to mind.

but aeonpax.....look what we got out of those protests. We got a country that has been the shining light. Too bad those in power (CONGRESS) are intent on dimming that light.....all in the name of the greed of their handlers!

Trust me I know but it doesn't hurt reminding people that the opposition has the same rights. One day the light bulb may click on and things will change.

Yeah I know still have some idealist elements left in me

petridishofideas:

a) I was at the OWS Milwaukee(WI) rally a few weeks ago, which is a 3 hour drive for me. I have nothing but praise for how their police department handled themselves. They were present but not "omnipresent" in a menacing way. Many times law enforcement, like in NYC (and their thoroughly corrupt police) create the problems. Police have often been too quick to use brute force thus amplifying an already tense situation.

b) The way things are headed, there may come a time, when to stand up for ones constitutional rights may entail subjecting one's self to possible harm, jail and even death. I hope not but with all this inhuman right-wing talk about suppressing the so-called "mobs" and "thugs" taking part in the OWS protests, it looks more likely everyday.

What do you think the police are going to do; stand around and let these crazed loons throw fists and bottles at them? No police force worthy of their badges would.

He may not have individually - But he was with a group that were told to leave and they did not - Many did leave - others chose not to after being warned that tear gas was oing to be used -

A man who, as part of the group, 'Iraq veterens against the war' stood silently 'assembled' in a park in Oakland, California, where he lives and works. He stood there as an employed citizen.

He now lies in the ICU.

This is the 42nd day of Occupy Wallstreet. To this day not one protester has violently attacked the police. This is evidenced in the video display that is EVERYWHERE. I HAVE been witness to this and will should i be asked, testify under oath.

Citizen after citizen who has suffered the consequence of physical harm by law enforcement all over this nation has found themselves willing to assemble in the name of peace following each noted incident, remaining peaceful. Each incident has been met by an escalated presence of law enforcement..

if you wish to respond to the facts, the first answer must include WHY.

The only way to find that answer is to answer a few other questions first, WHO gave the orders. Did those orders serve an underlyig purpose.

you may not include 'safety' as a stepping stone as we already know that the citizens assembling have shown 42 days of peaceful intent, that to is evidenced everywhere you look.

any other commentary is diluted by personal position and gain.

He is your neighbor, He is your brother, your son, your grandson... he is you. He stood silently in a park in Oakland, California... and now lies in ICU.

He may never be the man he was at that moment when he stood for peace.

No amount of party politics will change this. The peace continues despite the violence visited on americans on this 42nd day.

To this day not one protester has violently attacked the police.

Forum Post: Occupy Oakland admits on MSNBC that protesters were throwing bottles and rocks BEFORE police responded

http://occupywallst.org/forum/occupy-oakland-admits-on-msnbc-that-protesters-wer/

BostonMan-3128434
The girl in the video said she thinks the police had an "inappropiate response" that was unnecessary and goes on to say she does not think there was a need to use any type of chemical weapons against the protesters.

Had there not been police from 17 different law enforcement agencies there in full riot gear, there would have been no violence at all. Scott Olsen would NOT be in critical condition had there not been 100 police called to a peaceful protest!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZLyUK0t0vQ

Had there not been police from 17 different law enforcement agencies there in full riot gear, there would have been no violence at all. Scott Olsen would NOT be in critical condition had there not been 100 police called to a peaceful protest!

Out of shame the OPD has backed off of the OWS protesters. Last night they marched and retook the encampment in the same peaceful way they've been acting all along. The only differences were that there was no Police presence squaring off with the protesters, and there was no violence - nobody was hurt, no vandalism, no rapes, no pillaging.

Out of shame the OPD has backed off of the OWS protesters.

Shame and fear! The lawyers will eat Oakland alive for what their police has done!

Is the mayor and chief of police guilty of breaking laws??

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights

This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes

Shame and fear! The lawyers will eat Oakland alive for what their police has done!

Nor shame for doing wrong, only for getting caught :(

Nice link: Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights

So, there were 18 PDs involved in this horrible event. No one knows who shot the canister? They can't trace it like the traced the tear gas in Libya?

OPD has been under federal supervision since 2003 when they were found guilty of excessive use of force so many times that they now need to be reviewed all the time. It has been found since 2003 that officers of the OPD have drawn guns at least 30% of the time when it was unnecessary.

Let's see - this was either Ed last night or Keith last night.

Hi, MountainFireFall and Rodney. I thought you two would be lending your intelligent posts on this horrible event. As the OccupyUMC have been saying: Semper Occupare - not quite good Latin, but the sentiment is appreciated. We need all of the vets to get out and protect the protesters.

Warm clothes to those occupying in winter settings would be a good idea, too.

Surprise surprise, OPD is going down big time (for a second time, probably much harder than the first). Of course there is video proof, how could there not be?

From OPD's own bullhorn, OPD announces to the peaceful OWS Oakland Ca protesters that their assembly is being deemed illegal, and that if they do not go home, "chemical agents will be used" to disperse them. There's also a shot in there of what looks like a rubber ball gun (rubber bullets) in an officers hands. OPD then follows though with their stated threats for stated reasons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM3GgZTPYiA

Here is local Oakland news station coverage of the event as it went down, with reports from two different reporters in two different locations among the peaceful protesters along with a telecopter POV from above as the gas, tear gas, flash bangs and rubber bullets were deployed (much of the Police denied they used) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7r2ETi5C1A

• 2

• !

#1.109 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:28 PM PDT

Sammy

The girl on the video says they were throwing rocks and bottles, then she says the police made an inappropriate response. Since when does she get to decide what an appropriate response is? Go throw a rock or bottle at a cop and see how long it takes him to kick your ass and charge you with assault on a police officer. These people wanted a confrontation with the cops, well, they got one.

Steve

The "Ass Kicking" day's are over. If you are a LEO you should know this. If not I suggest you visit Sandstone Federal prison in MN, and talk to convicted cops who policed with this attitude.

Times have changed, I suggest you do the same.

I can see only one thing in this case/and that is we need the Marines/Army/Navy/and Air Force to all come to the aid of protecting the American people/from the continuing rise of police brutality The police are becoming more like a militia group/then Police Peace Officer. I heard this weekend that the police are being trained to be part of the Armed forces/because the Government was anticipating these protests were coming. And they planned on securing these protests/of the American People and the real Armed Services. Looks like they did a good job of training them and if I learned anything from the past that is/this Militia of Police Officer won't stop until they finally kill someone. By accident they will say/accident my ASS!!!!!

When the police told the groups they had to disperse they did not - The protestors threw rocks and bottles at the police - Are you all for allowing any group to just take over parts of cities? Is that what you want? What is to stop a group that you do not approve of from doing the same thing? Would you be as willing to let protestors take over if you did not agree with their message?

maria lyn -- obama told you he want a civilian army as strong as our military. He may have it now or must have it now and that's why these people are coming out.

AIKhidr - In case you didn't notice it was the marine with the busted head being carried off. The other Marine was at least smart enough to stick to holding a piece of paper.

Maybe the Marines need to stick with untrained, malnourished 3rd world soldiers to mess with. Looks like American LE kicked their ass.

LEO's are not in the business of "Kicking ASS" They are PEACE OFFICERS and they are humans, and humans make mistakes. This was a mistake.

Only One Voice

If you actually READ the article, you would realize the injured marine was hit with a canister fired at the crowd.

AIKhidr - I did read the article. Obviously it was fired into the crowd but apparently because it randomly hit a person who was a Marine it turns into something personal for the Marines. This is crazy.

Too be honest I have been baiting people and surprised on how many discussion boards people get drawn into the totally unjustified Marines vs. LE.

This has only gotten traction because some people somewhere want to draw Marines into this to do the fighting for them.

There are people actually wanting the military to step in and fight the LE. This would be a disaster for our country...maybe leading to a civil war and untold misery for a lot of people.....just because some citizens don't like how much money some other citizens are making.

I have lost hope for us to be a united people who see others as individuals instead of groups. Groups that we have to immediately side with or against based on what group we belong to.

Only one voice

If a canister is fired into a crowd of peaceful demonstrators, why was it fired into the face of anyone random or intentionally? It hit him in the head. If you are a sharp shooter (all police have training) and you fire into a crowd head high, you either are stupid or you did it on purpose. Either way it should not have been done. I still think the FBI needs to investigate both the police tactics and also investigate some of the trouble makers in the crowds. Isuspect that there have been instances of instigators making trouble for the peaceful demonstrators. This would not be the first time the right wing did their dirty tricks.

The police used known to be potentially lethal force on peaceful protesters peacefully resisting orders to disperse. The police are at fault period. The police are also responsible for prolonging this story and making it a bigger deal than it is (and it's already a big deal done intentionally or not). OPD had consistently denied using rubber bullets or flash bangs. OPD consistently claims they only shot gas as a direct response to rocks and glass bottles being thrown at their heads. There is video proof that OPD only used gas because the peaceful crowd would not disperse after they were told the assembly was unlawful, and that if they did not go home, "chemical agents WILL be used" said over a @!$%#ing police bullhorn no less!!! Nothing about rocks and bottles. Live coverage form the night has two separate reporters there as the police attack happened agreeing with the police bullhorn chain of events, both say nothing about rocks and bottles. The jig is up, Police lose. Ticket books & a pen are to be used for misdomenors, not rubber bullets, flash bangs and tear gas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM3GgZTPYiA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7r2ETi5C1A

The police certainly made a mistake but you have to understand in the jumble of things someone could have bumped into the guy, etc....

But how does this become a personal attack upon all Marines or even upon a single Marine.

Unless of course you want the Marines to come in and do the fighting that you yourself will not do. This would typify the Occupiers since they seem to be an ungrateful dependant upon others.

But how does this become a personal attack upon all Marines or even upon a single Marine.

From my understanding, war zones create a great bond between soldiers, much as being a Police officer does between officers - only times ten for the war zone bond - it's much more of a minute by minute hour by hour day by day necessity in the battle field than it is being on daily patrol in America, maybe not much more - but more. Beyond that, this isn't about blindly backing someone (Scott Olsen), it's about standing up for someone because they were taken down by the system while not presenting the level of threat required for the type of response he (and other OWS protesters) received. It by default carried the risk of hurting someone as it did, even without the intention of doing so, this is why it was excessive use of force. A pen and a ticket book would have made Olsen pay for his crime much more efficiently and safely with no automatic great chance & likelihood that someone would be seriously injured.

Unless of course you want the Marines to come in and do the fighting that you yourself will not do. This would typify the Occupiers since they seem to be an ungrateful dependant upon others.

lol
I think you will find the occupiers are supporting their own movement, and feeding the poor as well,

Those of us who are VETERANS, just as ALL the military....did swear an oath to protect this country and it's people from all enemies both foreign AND DOMESTIC!!

think about it, son.

This would typify the Occupiers since they seem to be an ungrateful dependant upon others.

You didn't hear that Occupy is now worth over $500,000? They have accountants and lawyers taking care of their affairs so far! They have so much money it is actually becoming a problem of it's own! They have enough supplies in New York to easily last right through the elections next year!

They're giving clothes and food and blankets to the homeless and poor, They are far from being dependant on anyone! They are HELPING people!

Unless of course you want the Marines to come in and do the fighting that you yourself will not do

The Marines joined because one of their own is injured. They are there because they choose to be there! They are there to support their brother, just as they always will be. We are very happy that the Marines have joined the 99% and are voicing their opposition to corruption along with us! We were doing just fine before they joined, but since they joined we have just become that much stronger! We thank them for their service to our nation, and are proud to see they are supporting this movement! There have been many military people with us the whole time, but they are there as individuals. Just as Scott was.

Are you just playing dumb or are you truly that uninformed?

I got it! Faux news! You're a Faux fan aren't you?

Did Rupert send you here to tease the hounds?? LMMFAO!!!

WE ARE ALL SCOTT OLSEN!

WE ARE THE 99%

;-)

1) But these policemen were not targeting Marines. I could see a citizen defending citizen but this was not an attack on a Marine but at best some incompetent cop accidentally hurting a person who is a Marine. At worse a cop intentional hurting a person who is a Marine. I don't think the Marine spirit was meant to be defending fellow Marines like gang members. I could see a group attack on someone who attacked a Marine for being a Marine or for being a soldier or calling him a baby killer but I don't see the Marine connection here. The guy just happened to be a Marine.

I can understand the group attack on the LE because they need to police their own. This took place on their watch.

2) Love it, baby killers and war criminals when Bush is in office....and now war heroes and your convenient defenders.

Comes down to name calling? You, you fox watcher you. Why don't you just call me a racist. That seems to be the default insult now when logic and rhetoric fail.

It's no different than if someone shoots/runs over/ hits an off duty police officer. The police force make it a point to target that person as having attacked one of their own. The perpetrator has no idea that it was a cop, but is prosecuted as if he did. Except that this Marine was in uniform. And it has been my experience that police officers are quite adept at observing such things. I would think that the officers saw that he was in his BDU's and fired in his direction anyway, making it a deliberate assault on a Marine, and therefore the corps.

But these policemen were not targeting Marines.

I never said he was targeted as a Marine. The police probably didn't MEAN to hurt anyone! That is beside the point! They are wrong to be using lethal weapons against peaceful protesters. The police hurt a citizen that happens to be a Marine and that has outraged the Marines and the general public for that matter! They are justified in their rage against the police in the way the police are handling a PEACEFUL PROTEST!

I would imagine the Marines were shocked when they heard the news of what happened in Oakland, but when they found out it was one of their own they came to his aid to support him and his family and his cause! They did that all on their own, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO!

WHY ARE THE POLICE PROMOTING VIOLENCE? Why are the governments and police getting more and more violent in nearly every city towards the Occupy movement?? THESE ARE LEGAL PEACEFUL PROTESTS! There is no reason or need for the government or police to use violence or lethal force against unarmed citizens exercising their constitutional rights.

Why did our government try to keep the video proof off of the internet? They have asked google to remove the videos showing the proof, Google refused their request. I bet faux isn't covering THAT story are they? The government is very afraid of what the people have found out about them! They are again trying to cover their tails and attempting to hide the truth! THEY CAN NO LONGER HIDE THE TRUTH FROM THE PEOPLE!

Q) So why is the government trying to censor the Internet? A) Because they are afraid of the truth!

I called you a faux fan because you sound like one! ...uninformed with a distorted view of the FACTS!

A general strike refers to commerce like, when truck drivers block a highway with their trucks and walk away. Where is the violence in that?

ww

The violence starts when the looters show up.

Looting is a property crime Rookie.

ww

LOL...not the way they do it down here! Doesnt throwing bricks through store windows constitute a certain amount of violence?

You're probably correct, Lynn3765, this was not a specific attack on any one person. It was a broad attack on everyone.

I think that they should take a page from the Tea Party and get strapped.

I remember all of those people at the Tea Party with their guns and rifles maybe that is why they didn't get their heads busted open.

How many arrests were there at the TP protests? And if they have filled out all the proper paperwork and the laws allow people to carry weapons in Oakland then by all means go get your guns - No one was ever shot by a TP member were they ?

You could not be more wrong, only the TEA party has the right to assemble.

Huh ? Who said that ? I do know the Tea Party members had their protests and then left the area as clean as it was when they arrived - I also know there have been hundreds of arrests with the OWS crowds correct? How many drug arrests were there at the TP rallies?

Pair arrested at 'Occupy Boston' for allegedly selling heroin to cop

(CBS/WBZ/AP) BOSTON - A man and woman who have been living in a tent with Occupy Boston protesters have been arrested for allegedly selling heroin to an undercover police officer.

Two Occupy Boston members have been arrested on drug charges, Boston police said yesterday.

Bostonians Isaac Bell, 34, and Charlene Dumont, 31, were both charged with distribution of a class A drug (heroin) and possession with intent to distribute a class A drug within 1,000 feet of a school zone, police say.

The 6-year-old child who was living with them in a tent is now staying with family members, police said.

The arrests were made Friday after police said they received “multiple reports of drug activity in and around” Occupy Boston’s Rose Kennedy Greenway encampment.

Also this weekend, protest-minded vandals made their mark on 21 downtown buildings, police said.

At the Bank of America building at 100 Federal St., vandals spray-painted “Occupy,” “Bad for America” and “Yer building is crowding our skyline,” while the international anarchist symbol was painted on buildings at 100 Summer St., 101 Arch St. and 65 Franklin St.

The words “Burn the Money” was painted on buildings at 99 Bedford St. and 9 East St., and a profanity was painted on a downtown Starbucks.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2011_1023drug_vandalism_arrests_at_occupy_boston

FedUp, I've been to several TEA Party rallies and I NEVER saw any weapons of any kind. Where did you see this?

Maria....I never said the vet did anything wrong. As I DID say, if the police used excess violence without cuase then yes, they need to be called on the carpet.

The point was that the vet that was hit was hit due to the police randomly firing..he was not specifically targeted because he was a marine vet. He wasn't portraying himself as a marine vet which was admitted by his friend who said he was just one of the marchers.

I am retired military myself. Had this been a TARGETED hit, as in done purposely due to the fact the person was a vet, then yes, I would be up in proverbial arms myself.

What happened is no different than a victim being injured during a gathering because they happened to be standing at that spot at that particular moment when someone decided to shoot a gun in the air and the bullet hit the victim.

aqua surf-1123675

FedUp, I've been to several TEA Party rallies and I NEVER saw any weapons of any kind. Where did you see this?

then you must have forgotten about this

http://joshtom.wordpress.com/2010/10/30/tea-party-no-fascist-backlash/
or this

http://okjimmseggrollemporium.blogspot.com/2011/01/we-dont-need-gun-control-maybe-nut.html
or thishttp://obrag.org/?p=19572

Maria

To tell you the truth, the protesters didnt look all that peaceful to me, and who is to say the marine didnt get hit with a bottle or something thrown by one of those peaceful protesters.

LOL, Chucky, those links! The first one shows a man in a dress shirt and pants; he looks more like a private security guard or a cop than a Patriot. The second link shows one picture from a comical leftist blog site! You'll have to do better than this.

AlanA

The difference between the Tea Party and these people is that the Tea Party people would have left when told the park was closing for the night.

Steve, baggers leave when the bus driver says all aboard!

LOL, Yellow! How the heck are ya?

Hello back , RBW, reading the vine, dodging trolls and re-regs best I can. How is it going in Ga?

It's beautiful. Fall brings about so many colors in the trees. A trip to the market is tour through golds and reds and greens that is restful to the soul and the eye.

We have buttons coming out from the Georgia Dems: Obama Y'all I need one really badly!

Engrossed in Occupy, that's for sure! And I'm furious at this escalation by OPD and smirking because they have the Marines ticked off now. How many countries have said "ah, whoops" when they here the Marines are coming! LOL

No steve, the difference here is that the TP was protesting imaginary tax increases. The difference here is that the TP actually threatened violence (second amendment remedies) if they did not get their way in an election, and brought the guns with which to carry out that act. The difference here is that the TP blocked access to and lined the steps to a place of governance, were allowed to use bullhorns and yet still managed to spray an elected official with saliva as he passed.

And the biggest difference here is that, even with the aforementioned transgressions the TP was afforded their "right to peaceful assembly" (look it up, it says nothing about a curfew, but you know what does, the charges against King George III).

The room mate of Scott Olson said something the other night on Olbermann:

“You can’t put business hours on free speech or your right to protest.” No truer words have been spoken on this matter.

AlanA

“You can’t put business hours on free speech or your right to protest.” No truer words have been spoken on this matter.

You appear to be wrong.

According to the Supreme Court, the law closing the park at 11:00 isnt unconstitutional.

My question pertains to city parks. These areas are owned by the city and maintained with taxpayer dollars, making them public places. Do city ordinances setting park hours conflict with the U.S. constitutional right to assemble? It seems to me that a public place should be accessible to the public at all times.

The short answer is that the Constitution guarantees the right to public assembly, but that the government may place reasonable restrictions on the time, place and manner for using a public space.

The text of the amendment states that the government "shall make no law" that abridges free speech and peaceable assembly, so it seems that James is on to something. If the local city government enacts a rule that closes city parks at 10 P.M., this would seem to be a law that abridges free speech and assembly. But, the Supreme Court has interpreted this language to permit the government to place reasonable restrictions on the time, place and manner in which people publicly speak or assemble.

It seems that when the cops say leave because the park is closed, the right to assemble in that particular place goes away.

Supreme Court has interpreted this language to permit the government to place reasonable restrictions on the time, place and manner in which people publicly speak or assemble.

Reasonable or not, a restriction is a restriction. So it would appear that peaceful assembly has been abridged.

So free speech can be limited by the government, per the Supreme Court? Yet free speech in the form of campaign contributions can not be limited, per the Supreme Court (citizens united ruling)? And are the Occupy protestors not a group of citizens, united?

Seems to me the SCOTUS is acting contrary to their own rulings!

What you addressed (4 a.m. leaflet distribution) was what is known as the "right to peaceful enjoyment". Tell me, how is camping out in a public park/square, away from a residential area interfering with anyone's right to get a good night's sleep? And bringing it to this discussion has introduced orange juice into your apple cider.

The courts have supported the Occupy movement in Cleveland and struck down the city and state laws restricting the use of public property.

The supreme courts have also ruled in favor of the protests during the civil rights movement, which is very similar in nature to this movement legally speaking that is.

If they could stop this movement legally they would have done it already!

We are within OUR constitutional rights and these are legal peaceful protests.

Why are the governments using lethal force against unarmed, innocent Americans that are merely exercising their constitutional rights?

Are they still going to shoot jay walkers starting next week?

The Supreme court addressed free speech in the citizens united case. The case was not even about corporations, it was about a movie made about Hillary Clinton. She tried to have the showing of the movie blocked because it was not factual. In the ruling the Chief Justice stated emphatically that free speech can not be limited.

case summarized: Money (donations) is/are speech, freedom of speech can not be limited, therefore donations can not be limited. Oh, and the movie can be shown, regardless of factual content.

And OWS, while it is not an actual "corporation", is a united group of citizens. Brought together for a common cause.

upswing

is still exclusively a determination of the US Supreme Court.

The Supreme courts have ruled, on numerous times, on demonstrations during the civil rights movement. In nearly every case it heard, involving free speech and protesting rights, the courts ruled in favor of the protesters.

The courts have ruled in favor of protests at military funerals, the courts have ruled in favor of armband protests in schools, In most every case the right to protest and the right to free speech is upheld unabridged!

The public spaces that are most open to speech - and where the government has the least amount of power to regulate - are what is known as "traditional public forums." Courts have included public sidewalks, squares and parks within this definition. The government cannot remove the right to free speech in these areas, although we will see below that it may regulate certain aspects of the speech.

******

Conclusion

The United States was founded on the principle that any individual or group could communicate ideas to the rest of the nation, however objectionable those ideas might be to others. In order to keep the peace and provide security for the commonwealth, though, the government can create rules that guide public expression. The government must provide ample alternative channels of communication when regulating speech in public forums, however, but the exact parameters for these alternative channels remains blurry. During contentious political campaigning and demonstrations over highly emotional issues, disputes are bound to arise. http://news.findlaw.com/features/protester-rights.html

In fact I have a hard time finding when the courts have ruled against free speech that was not a threat to public safety at all!

I' am very confident that if given the chance, the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the Occupy Movement. I do not think that any city or state has the finances to fight it that far though!

The rights to free speech and peaceful protests are spelled out pretty clear in our constitution. Do you realize The Constitution contains no explicit provisions for criminal law enforcement?

Do you think that the City of Oakland was justified in trying to close the park?

Do you think that the city of Oakland was justified in using lethal force on peaceful protesters?

The Oakland P.D. and the City of Oakland are wrong in my opinion! Their criminal acts should be punished!

Right now, the City of Oakland is pretty much open to the Occupy Movement, and has reversed their thinking completely! The city has spent way too much trying to stop this, and have got NO results! They gave up! Most cities are doing the same. We cannot be stopped!

Why do we have children going to bed hungry all across America, but suddenly, nearly every major city, has found millions and millions of dollars to pay overtime to police to stop a peaceful protest?

Where are the cities going to find the MILLIONS of dollars they will have to spend on the lawsuits, that are soon to follow, due to the actions of a few city officials, that called in the riot squads, and gave them illegal orders?

The City of Oakland brought this all on to themselves! The taxpayers will be the ones that are forced to suffer.

This also caused the Occupy movement to grow in strength and popularity among all Americans and the world! The harder they try to stop us, the stronger we are getting!

We want the individuals That are responsible for these crimes to be charged and held accountable in a court of law! We are all Scott Olsen! The police brutality needs to stop IMMEDIATELY!

We are peacefully seeking changes in America.

We are the 99%

Why did I provide the information of Citizens United?

Steve made the statement that the SCOTUS has ruled that local govts can put restrictions on time and place for practicing free speech.

When I was writing a court argument against a bank seizing my money, my lawyer kept insisting that I needed to find more recent rulings from higher/other courts. I searched for months, but the most recent one was from 1993. Steve's ruling (which he never actually sited, just made the claim about) was not the most recent. The most recent ruling regarding free speech is The Citizens United case.

If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." He also noted that since there was no way to distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television and blogs.

This is only one small blurb from one justice, Kennedy. Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito contributed various other concurrences and opinions. The summary of which I placed in my previous comment, that speech can not be restricted or limited, regardless of whether it come from one or many.

The only real problem that I have with the decision is that it takes into assumption that all those whom work for or own stock in a corporation do so because they share the same political opinions with the one's making the donation, most often CEOs. I digress. Sorry.

upswingy

sammy sezao:

Thanks for the explanation.

Am I right in thinking that we agree that, even though past rulings suggest that the Supreme Court will say this or that given a particular case, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is and what is not Constitutional? (Which is my main point.)

Thanks.

Yes the U.S. Supreme Court always has the final say. They normally will follow precedent, but do not have to follow precedent! Each case has it's little differences that need to be addressed. Like I said I couldn't find ANY cases they ruled on against free speech and protest that didn't site health and safety as issues, (it is illegal to yell fire in a crowded building, IF it is not true!)

Chances that it would ever be brought before the Supreme Court are small though.

If the lower courts rule in favor of Occupy, like they have been doing, it is up to the city to appeal the ruling. That costs money and the cities are all broke already! They are already spending millions on the O.T. for the police they THINK they need. The cities are just needlessly wasting money! They cannot fight us and win!

Occupy Wall Street has a legal team and a bunch of money to keep the cities tied up in court!

There is no way they can legally stop this movement based on speech or protest rights. They will soon start trying other ways, like health and sanitation, noise, etc. They just want it to stop and they just can't do that! Maybe they think if they escalate the violence the people will strike back and then they can arrested them?? I am very afraid of what will happen when the first person gets killed over all of this! God help us all when that happens.

The PROTEST is peaceful! (so far) If the cops just leave them alone there would be NO VIOLENCE at all! There is NO violence where the cities are not fighting to stop the people from exercising their rights! I haven't heard of one citizen complaint about violence from the protest, The violence is being brought on by the police. The police are provoking the violence so they can the act with just cause, If the protesters stay peaceful, they have no just cause for arrest.

The governments will soon realize that they cannot just brush the 99% under the rug! The world is watching the cities scramble, in trying to take away our rights! They are spending millions, that they do not have, to stop something that they cannot possibly stop!

you didn't answer my questions either :(

The Supreme Court frequentlydeclares government restiction on free speech Constitutional, such as in war time, or when national security is otherwise threatened by not restricting that speech.

It also allows restrictions on free speech regarding fighting words and people citing imminent and plausible violence.

It also allows restrictions on free speech in commercial environments by upholding restrictions (through the FTC) per untruthfulness of claims of teh advertisers etc.

And then we have an entire branch of law that deals with nothing BUT free speech: Defemation law ... Not to mention copyright law...

Maybe I'm taking your statement that SCOTUS can not restrict any free speech too literally? If so, apologies.

However, as written and as far as I can make out, your claim is simply not supported by the available evidence.

But none of these instances apply to the situation. Apples and oranges, (orange juice and apple cider). As it pertains to the seeded topic: What we have are peaceful protests, as protected by the first amendment, no one is inciting violence, these are not riots, etc. In short, peaceful assembly, right to petition govt, and freedom of speech. It is this type of speech which can not be restricted.

And then some jackass starts breaking windows in Manhattan!? That act would be the type of speech/expression which can (and should) be restricted.

And then some jackass starts breaking windows in Manhattan!? That act would be the type of speech/expression which can (and should) be restricted.

AGREED 1000%!

The Occupy movement needs to isolate these criminals that have infiltrated their peaceful movement and turn them over to the police to face charges! It is small groups of people that are causing the trouble and they need to be stopped fast! Most of the Occupy Movements claim to have a zero tolerance for violence, so they need to step up and turn the violators over to face charges for their actions!

There have been rumors that the people throwing rocks and bottles and causing damage are actually POLICE UNDERCOVER AGENTS, that are trying to turn this into a violent protest! That way the riot squad can sweep in and arrest everyone! The governments will stop at nothing in trying to stop this movement! As long as they stay peaceful they cannot be stopped!

There have been rumors that the people throwing rocks and bottles and causing damage are actually POLICE UNDERCOVER AGENTS, that are trying to turn this into a violent protest!

They go under the guise of Black Bloc and are no more or less than provocateurs - who they work for is anybodies guess, but all that is for sure is that they do not represent OWS or any other progressive movement they hijack solely for the purpose of making them look bad in the eyes of the media/public. They did it to the Oscar Grant protesters protesting the murder of Oscar Grant during the trial of the Police officer who murdered Oscar Grant. They do it all over the place, they are very well organized and prepared. Check out the crazy fire extinguisher spray paint they used that even pro taggers don't use!?! Molotov cocktails!?! WTF!?! Here is one assessment of Black Bloc and their actions during pro-union protest in Europe: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/jul/23/globalisation.davidpallister

Other anarchist groups and anti-globalisation protesters are suspicious about the black block's origins. In Italy, the Green party senator for Genoa, Francesco Martone, alleged that there was a history of collusion between the police and neo-fascists to discredit the left. "There is evidence that they have worked together to infiltrate the genuine protesters," he said.

Video evidence collected by protesters and the independent media suggests that men in black were seen getting out of police vans near protest marches. They were noted for never attacking the police or the steel wall around the red zone of the city.

An Italian communist MP, Luigi Malabarba, said yesterday that during the riot on Friday night, "I saw groups of German and French people dressed as demonstrators in black with iron bars inside the police station near the Piazza di Kennedy. Draw your own conclusions."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/27/anticuts-march-black-bloc

Here is what the story for yesterday's demonstration should have been: half a million marchers, in the largest show of labour union strength in decades, turn out to oppose the government's draconian cuts.

Here is what the story became: a few hundred anarchists, many dressed in black, trashed businesses and clashed with police on Oxford Street and in Trafalgar Square.

The anarchists, calling themselves the black bloc, stole the headlines from the 500,000 other protesters who'd travelled from all over the UK to express the refusal of millions to accept austerity as the consequence of a crisis they did not create.

Black Bloc is a very dirty group who needs to be dealt with swiftly - I doubt there will be any Police assistance in weeding them out from peaceful protesters - OWS will most likely have to deal with them on their own. From volunteer security made up of veterans or even private security with the help of people like Soros :) Something needs to be done about these infiltrators.

Upswing.

Do you think that the City of Oakland was justified in trying to close the park?

Do you think that the city of Oakland was justified in using lethal force on peaceful protesters?

Why do we have children going to bed hungry all across America, but suddenly, nearly every major city, has found millions and millions of dollars to pay overtime to police to stop a peaceful protest?

Where are the cities going to find the MILLIONS of dollars they will have to spend on the lawsuits, that are soon to follow, due to the actions of a few city officials, that called in the riot squads, and gave them illegal orders?

Here's some more info on Black bloc, very dirty lot they are - suspicious at best to say the least:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57319036/is-black-bloc-hijacking-occupy-oakland/

http://www.bagnewsnotes.com/2011/11/self-policing-another-part-of-the-occupy-story-were-not-getting/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_mUf35DlLM Black Bloc in London doing their thing, notice them take a bank by force, then as Police enter, they rush past the police as the Police instead go after the press.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve2t5dXQk4E Black Bloc cops

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XgEI5dCrE Cop dressed as Black bloc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5G7aCgXtWgSame old Same old Black Bloc/Police cozy relationship. Amazing. Reminds me of how Black Bloc had their way with banks and WholeFoods in Oakland with no Police in sight (though there were plain clothed ones http://www.copblock.org/9777/cop-provocateurs-compromised-at-occupy-oakland/ ) and then when a couple marchers get hit by a car, Police show up in a matter of a couple minutes...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5G7aCgXtWgSame old Same old Black Bloc/Police cozy relationship. Amazing. Reminds me of how Black Bloc had their way with banks and WholeFoods in Oakland with no Police in sight (though there were plain clothed ones http://www.copblock.org/9777/cop-provocateurs-compromised-at-occupy-oakland/ ) and then when a couple marchers get hit by a car, Police show up in a matter of a couple minutes...

Here's the video of Black Bloc Oakland Ca. WholeFoods incident Mentioned, notice how black Bloc are clearly not there as friends of OWS protesters in any way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86XhCwHhwn8

The video in parentheses in the quoted section above is at least proof that OPD had undercover agents out and about... Somehow OPD managed to be nowhere in sight when Black Bloc went on a rampage even against OWS Protesters, then when someone gets hit by a car, Police show up out of nowhere in no time at all..

I am

When the police started beating the @!$%# out of rich white kids the bull@!$%# stopped, Much quicker than it did in the south. You bring up Kent state, very few people remember a similar incident at Jackson state in Jackson Mississippi.

Its only a matter of time before people of stature enter the fray.

OWS

As a movement is getting more powerful and their message is spreading around the world the 99% of the world have reached a point that they have said enough is enough.

Funny how you seem to think that you speak for 99% of the country - Who exactly said you were speaking for everyone? Did you go around and ask 99% of the population if you could be there spokesperson ?

(CNN) – Although most Americans don't trust Wall Street, that hasn't translated into full support –or understanding– of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Despite large majorities who think that Wall Street bankers are greedy, overpaid and dishonest, four in ten don't have an opinion about the weeks-long protests, according to a new CNN/ORC International poll released Monday.

Among those who have an opinion, the public is split on how they feel about Occupy Wall Street. Thirty-two percent of Americans say they have a favorable view of the movement that has spread from Wall Street to Chicago, and that even cropped up at the most recent CNN presidential debate in Las Vegas. Twenty-nine percent of the nation says they have an unfavorable view of Occupy Wall Street.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/24/wall-street-discontent-high-but-occupy-wall-street-largely-unknown/

I think the Republicans have sowed the seeds of a revolution from 2000 to 2011.

People revolt when they are hungry and unable to feed, shelter and clothe themselves. There are nearly 60 million Americans living on food stamps and millions have lost their homes and jobs.

Many millions of families have been broken apart or busted up and the anger and resentment is growing in America everyday.

I personally truly believe that we are just one incident a way from a major upheaval in America.

When it happens we should all blame Republican policies that have favored the rich over the poor and lower middle classes.

And none of you Republican Partisan hacks should be surprised when this thing explodes.

Funny but if the majority agreed with you why did they overwhelmingly elect Republicans in the mid term elections?

The only hack here is those who think they speak for everyone even though FACTS clearly dispute that notion

Bostonman

The Republicans lied in 2010 and used the normal Republicans, the Tea Party and the Independents like cheap prostitutes.

They promised a laser like focus on jobs in exchange for their support in 2010.

They haven't delivered.

What they did instead of jobs was to focus on abortion, gay and homosexual sex, and same sex marriage.

Their laser like focus on those issues and the legislation the Republicans passed really created a lot of jobs.(SARCASM)

The Oakland protesters were peaceably gathered when the police engaged them with paramilitary tactics. I keep thinking that this should not be happening in this country. How can we take the high ground on international incidents where military or paramilitary tactics are used against protesters if we use the same tactics on our own unarmed, protesting citizens? Where are the honor and respect for upholding our democratic principles on behalf of our unarmed, protesting citizens?

The unprovoked attacks on our unarmed, protesting citizens puts the US in a negative perspective. People who dislike the OWS protesters routinely talk about patriotism and American exceptionalism without demonstrating any patriotism or exceptionalism towards unarmed US citizens who oppose them. It deeply saddens me that veterans of recent wars are viewed in the negative because they engage in protest opposition to the teapublican worldview.

Republicans are less favorable than OWS

In the 34 years that an ongoing poll has asked Americans for their take on Congress, never in the three-decade span has that number dipped into the single digits. Never, at least, until now.

Though their take has waxed and waned throughout the course of American history, this year’s results mark the first time that Congress’ job approval rating actually dropped to lower than 10 percent. According to the latest poll, only 9 percent of Americans have faith in the current lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

The latest poll adds that 71 percent of those surveyed don’t think Republicans in Congress can fix the jobs problem either.

A good number of Americans, 46 percent, also say that the current Occupy Wall Street movement, gaining steam in its second month now, reflect the views of most Americans. Of those surveyed, however, 18 percent did not offer an opinion.

Link for that story ? Funny but if Republicans are less favorable than the OWS what does it say about Dems who are below Republicans?

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans have similar, mostly negative views of the Republican and the Democratic parties. Gallup's Sept. 8-11 update on party favorable ratings shows 53% viewing the Republican Party unfavorably and 43% favorably, and 55% having an unfavorable and 42% a favorable view of the Democratic Party.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149795/Republican-Democratic-Party-Images-Equally-Negative.aspx

Sorry I totally forgot the link http://rt.com/usa/news/congress-approval-poll-obama-795/

I have no doubt that the Dem's also have horrible ranking. It is the masses waking up to that fact that the two party gravy train loving sell outs are killing America. So really next election is anyone's guess what will happen. Hopefully it will result in kicking out a lot of the lifers from both parties and inject lots of fresh blood from both that actually have a vision and goal to work together to find middle ground.

Don't think a third party would rise to much money in the game crushes them.

Wishful thinking I know.

If OWS wants to be taken seriously then they need to follow all of the laws.

Just like all those uppity black people should have all sat at the back of the bus and stayed away from the "whites only" diner counters and water fountains, right?

Just like all those uppity black people should have all sat at the back of the bus and stayed away from the "whites only" diner counters and water fountains, right?

Comparing the two are idiotic - Those things happened what 50 years ago ? How is protesting how much a banker makes the same as protesting forcing a black man to drink from a seperate water fountain than a white man the same ? Not even close

Fed Up

They promised a laser like focus on jobs in exchange for their support in 2010.

I think that was Obama who said he was going to focus like a laser on jobs.

No it was John Boehner and Eric cantor:

Where are all the jobs the Republicans promised ?

If they aren't keeping the promises they made in the 2010 election, should we believe ... The goveynemment can do much to spur job creation. ...

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/where-are-all-the-jobs-the-republicans-promised/question-1498953/

The Great 'Bait and Switch' of 2010: Politicians ignore their promise ...

25 Jul 2011 ... In Congress, instead of focusing on job creation as they promised, Republicans ... The unsurprising result is that Republicans now have a group of extremely ... But the extent to which the 2010 election was a bait-and-switch on ... Now, fast forward and ask yourself ….if Sam Walton didn't take the hyphen out ...

http://www.workingamerica.org/blog/2011/07/25/the-great-bait-and-switch-of-2010-politicians-ignore-their-promise-to-crea...

Republicans slam president on j

So then the protestors should obey the laws right? You do realize if they just abeyed the laws none of this would have happened

So then the protestors should obey the laws right? You do realize if they just abeyed the laws none of this would have happened

The problem with is that law enforcement can claim any law they want to break up the protests. At any point they can say they're simply doing it for the safety of the participants without any real law to back it up. Strictly speaking there is no place in any city that allows for this type of protest so does that mean we give up our constitutional rights to gather? You're de facto breaking the law just by doing so in most cases.

As an example, where I live in Providence RI the police are saying they are going to break up the protesters because it's getting cold and nights are now consistently going to below freezing. It's for the protesters safety. What law exactly does that fall under? The "we just want to get these people out of here" law? If I felt like sleeping in a tent in my backyard all winter would I breaking this "for my own safety" law?

See how it starts to get fuzzy?

Yeah but Americans could say that is not the case. These people are just doing what ever they want. Someone " The Police " need to be there to stop it.

The OWS protesters actively engage in unarmed civil disobedience that does not destroy property or engage in violence: their unarmed protest actions are based upon non-violent occupation [duh-uh!]of public space to draw attention to their concerns.

If the Klan or any other group engages in unarmed, non-violent civil disobedience in a similar fashion, they too will deserve the right to not have violent, paramilitary police actions perpetrated upon them.

That's not the case. We all know this.

If they are unarmed why are there so many stories about them throwing things at police? And last i checked no matter what group you are you must get permits to occupy public property do you not? I know here in Mass anyways that you must get a permit so why aren't these groups getting permits like every other group must do ?

Forum Post: Occupy Oakland admits on MSNBC that protesters were throwing bottles and rocks BEFORE police responded

http://occupywallst.org/forum/occupy-oakland-admits-on-msnbc-that-protesters-wer/

I know here in Mass anyways that you must get a permit so why aren't these groups getting permits like every other group must do ?

Because you don't need a permit to exercise your First Amendment rights. Stuff like that and fenced in "Protest Spaces" and such are ridiculous.

It does get fuzzy - But let me ask you something - If a group of white supremacists decide to protest and take over public property would we allow it? We can''t have different sets of laws for different groups- If we allow these protestors to just take over and not leave how in the future can we tell any group they cannot do the same thing ?

I don't know if we would but we most certainly should. Even horrible speech and gathering is protected.

If a group of white supremacists decide to protest and take over public property would we allow it? We can''t have different sets of laws for different groups- If we allow these protestors to just take over and not leave how in the future can we tell any group they cannot do the same thing ?

So because one group may come with a message most people dont agree with nobody can do it? That is not the way our rights work. Disgusting, ignorant, and misguided as the Klan may be, they have every right to gather and protest, just as the rest of us do.

Civil disobedience has long been used as a way to protest the status quo and to air grievances. It has been effective time and time again over the ages to get a message out to the government and the general population.

I don't know if we would but we most certainly should. Even horrible speech and gathering is protected

Yup, just ask those loons from the Westboro Baptist church...

Disgusting, ignorant, and misguided as the Klan may be, they have every right to gather and protest, just as the rest of us do

You are right - Of course you must also follow all local laws when protesting - Which seems to be a real problem with these protestors - None of the groups have pulled permits and when they are told they have to leave they do not

And I reiterate from post #14.11:

Just like all those uppity black people should have all followed the laws and sat at the back of the bus and stayed away from the "whites only" diner counters and water fountains, right?

The reason it is laws with protesting because of mob mentality. They try to control it before it gets out of hand. These protesters are out of line. BUT I say let them keep on. Show the world how bad they are.

Look when you see muslin nations standing with these people that should tell you something. When these same countries where celebrating 9/11

Also I think westboro church has like 60 members. LOL .. you worried about 60 but not of 1000 people being arrested and 1/3 telling you they believe it is ok to use violence.

WarhammerThree .. how did Martin Luther King March ???

@ndeepnow

how did Martin Luther King March ???

King was arrested 5 times for civil disobedience, all in relation to protests for the civil rights movement:
-1955 during the bus boycott

-1960 in an Atlanta lunch counter sit-in waiting to be served at an all-white restaurant

-1962 in Albany Georgia during an unsuccessful protest

-1963 in Birmingham, Alabama for demonstrating without a permit. He spent 11 days in jail and wrote his famous Letter from Birmingham Jail, probably his second most influential speech after the I Have a Dream speech. The campaign launched the day after his arrest and was a major turning point in ending segregation in the South.

-1965 in Selma Alabama during a voting rights demonstration

You can get more details here:
http://www.lib.lsu.edu/hum/mlk/srs216.html

Those arrest happened over forty years ago - These are not the same times

Sure, rationalize it any way you want. Whatever makes you feel better. The fact remains that MLK was arrested for going where laws said he wasn't allowed and protesting without the proper permits. The OWS crowd is getting arrested for breaking the same laws.

No you are spinning it - MLK was protesting that all citizens should be treated the same - There protestors are protesting what they call greed on Wall Street - Tell me how many of these protestors had to sit at the back of the bus? How many of them were forced to drink from a "blacks only" water fountain? The comparison is not a good one

But he wasn't acting in violence. Nothing he did was violent. He may have been disobedient but not VIOLENT.

If people want to set in the park until they get arrested and do no harm to anyone and go to jail peacefully. Then I'm all for it.

I'm not talking about what they are protesting about. I'm talking about the laws they are breaking. You said:

So then the protestors should obey the laws right? You do realize if they just abeyed the laws none of this would have happened.

And I simply pointed out to you that other protests often started out by breaking laws. And, ndeepnow, I agree with you. But again, I wasn't talking about bottle being thrown or gas canisters hitting Marines in the head. This is simply a question of when curfew came, should the protests have all packed up and gone home or should they have broken the law and stayed. I feel that if MLK had followed the law, then no one would have notice, no one would have cared and nothing would have changed. I feel the same applies here.

They should have just set there and got arrested peacefully. This marine doesn't look peaceful.

Because you don't need a permit to exercise your First Amendment rights. Stuff like that and fenced in "Protest Spaces" and such are ridiculous.

The first amendment gives people the right to take over public land for as long as they want? No one is stopping them from protesting - But when it is time to leave at night as they were told to then they must obey the law- The constitution does not say i need a drivers license to drive does it? But i still get arrested or ticketed for driving without a license right? There are laws in place that protect the country as a whole - They must be followed

boston -- correct.

Ian

Im pretty sure they have the times posted as to when the park opens and closes, there is probably a no camping sign to. They chose to break the law and the cops kicked their asses, maybe next time they will obey the law.

Im pretty sure they have the times posted as to when the park opens and closes, there is probably a no camping sign to. They chose to break the law and the cops kicked their asses, maybe next time they will obey the law.

Wow. Sieg Heil, bud. Didn't know we lived in a military state.

Didn't know we lived in a military state.

We dont, we live in a country that has laws, but apparently liberals dont think the laws apply to them.

The first amendment gives people the right to take over public land for as long as they want? No one is stopping them from protesting - But when it is time to leave at night as they were told to then they must obey the law- The constitution does not say i need a drivers license to drive does it? But i still get arrested or ticketed for driving without a license right? There are laws in place that protect the country as a whole - They must be followed.

Actually, no, they don't if they are unconstitutional. Basic rights such as 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances' are not superseded by state ordinances. You have no basic right to drive a car. The right to assemble to air our grievances to the government, on the other hand, was one the first things our Founding Fathers addressed. This isn't sleeping in a park as a vagrant. That wouldn't be assembly. This is expressing an inalienable right on public land that we paid for.

We dont, we live in a country that has laws, but apparently liberals dont think the laws apply to them.

Actually, we're quite sure the First Amendment applies to us.