Slashdot Mirror
Conflict Between Occupy Wall Street Protestors and NYPD Escalating
phx_zs writes "Today marks the tenth consecutive day that thousands of protesters have flooded the streets of Manhattan, specifically the financial district. ... Sunday marked a change of events as high-ranking NYPD officers exhibited brutal, unprovoked aggression on the peaceful group, reportedly arresting at least 80 people. Many photos and videos have surfaced of NYPD officers slamming protesters on the ground or into parked cars, and in one well-covered incident a NYPD officer (with pending police brutality charges from 2004) maced innocent female protesters point blank for no apparent reason. Many eyewitnesses and several news articles report that the NYPD specifically targeted photographers and media teams streaming the event live on the internet."
Do any Slashdotters have eyewitness reports to share? There seems to be a lot of misinformation originating from all parties involved making it difficult to know how large the protest actually is at this point and whether or not the police are being quite as universally violent as the protestors imply.
Everyone should be protesting, and have the right to protest.
Police that don't understand the right to protest should be charged and removed from work ( fired if the attack is unprovoked )
One sad thing that protesters bring upon themselves is when then charge forward and attempt to become menacing, that in the eye's of the police looks like an attack. They will respond with an overwhelming amount of force. Which is sad, since a peaceful protest goal is for the attention of the problem and to have those in power look and find a solution.
if you see me, smile and say hello.
Well, considering that they are protesting the heart of America's economic system, and considering that mainstream media outlets have long refused to publicize movements that run counter the American economic policy, I would not be surprised if the black-out was deliberate.
Palm trees and 8
Wall Street is a major supporter of this administration, if not every administration before this but this one seems to be heavily stacked in favor of Wall Street this time (and I propose that Wall Street isn't the same as what most people know as Big Business)
So the political machine is not behind it, specifically the unions are not in this. Never under estimate the ability to move people when and how needed. Students don't stand a chance (if this is truly student based) and the really big organizations that would gin up a protest on demand when Bush was in office aren't being given marching orders. Since they aren't giving marching orders their contacts in the press don't have reason to report.
See this is this dirty little secret about protests in America now, they have to be sanctioned by the political parties to receive attention. Sponataneous protesting or groupings of people politically are not favored and about anything that can be done to ignore them is done. If they don't go away then they most be portrayed as a whole as having the very worst traits that can be found in individual members .
So until certain political elements need this protest it doesn't exist.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
No real agenda, no real leadership, no real solutions, no real propose.
Frankly just causing more harm than good and now Moore to make things even worse.
He will make a movie about it, his Dittoheads will go and feel all righteously indignant and he will collect another nice paycheck.
If you say it is the Republicans fault you are just a drone.
If you say it is the Democrats fault you are just a drone.
If you say that President Obama is all to blame you are a troll.
If you say that none of it is President Obama's fault you are a mindless fanboi.
If you think that being a Democrate makes you better than a Republican you are a fool.
If you think that being a Republican makes you better than Democrate you are fool.
If you are a Libertarian well your just in fantasy land.
The solution.
Talk less, listen more, stop treating elections like sporting events, stop vilifying those that disagree with you, and vote in the primaries.
Oh and treat the election like this, this is a job interview and you are the boss. Grill them and then pick.
And don't waste your time sitting on the street eating donated pizza and babbling.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
One thing that the people who purposefully conflate capitalism and corporatism fail to mention all the time is that in "Wealth of Nations" Adam Smith was talking about small communities doing deals one-on-one. At the time the corporation wasn't in vogue and Adam Smith thought it was an outdated concept.
Secondly, Adam Smith didn't like monopolies or banks that were "too big to fail" in today's lingo. The ultimate goal of corporatism is working towards a monopoly or trust.
Anyway... a point that can be drawn from this is that you don't need corporations for capitalism to work and, furthermore, the corporation could work against capitalism in the long run.
Being against corporations having too much power and too many rights is not automatically anti-capitalist.
There is also a huge difference between equitable capitalism and a feudal system under the the guise of capitalism using corporations as proxies of power for the "noble class".
Under current case law the permit system is largely allowed, though it may violate the Constitution depending on how it's applied. The government may place "reasonable" "time, place and manner" restrictions on protests in order to maintain public order and safety, but is not supposed to prohibit protests entirely, or treat them differently based on the content of the protest (this is easiest to show if they treat protestors for and against some position differently).
I don't, for the record, think that interpretation of the Constitution is correct. Were it up to me, I would treat public protest similarly to publication: the government may prosecute actually illegal activity (libel for publication, or violence in the case of protests) if it ever takes place, but there should be an extremely high bar for prior restraint through anything like a permitting or imprimatur system before the speech even takes place.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The "pendulum" will not even begin to swing back until the people:
1) Withdraw all of their savings from the big banks.
2) Reclaim personal control over the money in their IRAs or 401Ks or 403Bs or whatever, and invest it themselves instead of letting corrupt corporations use these assets for their own goals.
3) Place a value on the dollar that is connected to real-world resources and human advancement instead of some false "economy" construct that is programmed into them by their slave-masters.
Street protests are stupid and futile. Many of the idiots who are getting beaten by the cops have credit/debit cards, savings/checking accounts, retirement accounts, etc with the very corporations against which they protest.
Promote change by moving your money,not raising your voice. That the ONLY kind of change that will affect the financial "institutions".
Oh for fuck's sake. I saw coverage of this crap on CNN on the 18th. Two weeks ago.
The reason it isn't getting much coverage in the major media is because it is a couple hundred dirty twenty-somethings (I'm barely not a dirty twenty-something, judgement not particularly intended) complaining that a bunch of rich people are rich.
And they don't even understand what they are complaining about; sure, the government bail out of the banks was a bit of a raw deal for the taxpayer (I bet the protesters don't have much to complain about there) and a bit of a terrific deal for the bank, but the thing no taxpayer wants to talk about is that their entire existence is made better by some sort of stability/existence of the dollar. The richer taxpayers really don't want to talk about all the fixed income funds of theirs that the bank bailout saved.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
as of 2005, top 5% of american society takes 72% of everything. bottom 85% (includes YOU), take only 15%.
in medieval western europe, the law of the land was in the below manner :
lord gets 33% of produce from fields>
church gets 33% of produce from fields>
serfs get 33% of produce from fields.
no lord could ever dream of being able to actually take 72% of economy, and a medieval peasant would be pitying a modern 'well to do' person in terms of the share of the wealth he is taking from at a measly 15% - for, he, as a medieval peasant, got double the rate you are currently getting from your society's wealth.
thats what happens when you get a job. you live TWICE worse off than a medieval serf.
moron. the one whose skull should be cracked is you. you are dragging the average level of humanity down. and if you made your name and address available, im sure someone from new york could offer you the courtesy in a back alley.
Read radical news here
If you've experienced living in a police-state, you're well aware that agents provocateur are standard tools of the trade. What reason do you have to believe that they're not being used here?
Which makes more sense? A peaceful protest being held for a week suddenly turning violent for no apparent reason? Or police tolerating a peaceful protest for a week, at which point they find or make excuses to turn the protest into a riot?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
It seems to be universal that the police force attracts pricks who act out violently. It is only going to get worse when all the rapist, torturer, child murderer soldiers we have in Iraq and Afghanistan come back home and become cops (A CV that lists prior job skills as "killing people" doesn't apply to much other than being a cop).
I know you're trolling, but this is ridiculous. I know many police officers and veterans of Iraq/Afghanistan. None of them have raped or tortured anyone. None of the police I know have killed anyone, and most of the soldiers I know never even fired a shot while in Iraq/A-stan. These "rapists/murderers" are the reason you are still allowed to say things like that about them. Without them you would probably have died or been imprisoned long ago. And notice how, above, I made sure I was logged in when I posted my controversial opinion. You didn't even have the balls to log in for your trolling. These people risk their lives so you can spew this crap, to protect you and your rights that you don't even deserve to have.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
The OccupyWallStreet activists have, so far (this is Day 11 of the protest), been unable to articulate much their philosophy or objectives. There is no single leader; some of them are undirected anarchists, some are communists, and some seem to have no coherent viewpoint.
The clash with police referenced in the article, during a march from lower Manhattan to Union Square and back, actually occurred on Saturday. On Sunday, the protesters were visited by journalist Chris Hedges, who gave an excellent interview (even if you don't agree with his politics or anything else). The full interview is posted at http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/09/chris-hedges-occupy-wall-street-is-where-the-hope-of-america-lies/ [rawstory.com]
Chris Hedges is the first person who has been able to clearly summarize the position of the protesters. Although, it's really just his own viewpoint--some of the activists view Hedges as a "reformer, not a revolutionary" and therefore not a spokesman for their movement--it's the best statement that has emerged from Zuccotti Park since this thing started. Hedges makes it clear that he views the two dominant political parties in the US as equally corrupt and controlled by corporate interests. The corporate media will try to ignore this protest as much as possible, as it does not fit the political agenda of any major news organization.
Personally, I disagree with most, if not all, of what these protesters say, but I emphatically support their right to say it. The behavior of the NYPD was disgusting.
On November 17, 1989, a massive student demonstration took place in Prague. This, by itself, was not all that unusual - another took place the day before in Bratislava, and others took place from time to time in all large cities. What was unusual, though, was the police brutality. They attacked the peaceful protesters to the extent that rumors started circulating that one of the students died. This sparked the "Velvet revolution" that overthrew the police state in Slovakia. What we see here is a similar scenario: instead of lack of basic freedoms we have an economic crisis that started a series of protests. Police is showing a comparable level of brutality. Fortunately, largely thanks to much more fragmented information system with mainstream media downplaying the protests (in Czechoslovakia, the only two TV stations sided with the protesters and informed the public about the police brutality), the brutality on Wall Street won't grow into a much larger movement.
Why because her goal was to egg on the authorities until an "Accident" happened so she can show everyone that she had the higher moral ground.
If the authorities do something illegal, then it doesn't matter how much they were "egged on." They're supposed to be trained professionals.
I don't get it with people like you. You're generally anti-government but pro-authority. Don't you see the disconnect there?
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
The only permit anybody should need to hold a peaceful protest is the first amendment.
Making fun of dumb people since 2009