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.

130 of 961 comments (clear)

  1. Policy City-State by trolman · · Score: 2, Troll

    I will share this; The natural evolution to a police city-state is complete. The government has put up rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life. There are secret police units aka terrorist units. A lot of people like this type of society. Those coming from outside the city get a bit of a shock, no pun intended, when introduced to the lifestyle of a city-state.

    1. Re:Policy City-State by houstonbofh · · Score: 2

      It is not an evolution, but a pendulum. I think it is starting to swing back as more people say "no" to an unreasonable TSA and so on.

    2. Re:Policy City-State by cavreader · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Spoken like someone who has never really been to or experienced living in a real police city-state. It seems the protests today are more about seeing how far you can push the authorities attempting to keep things civil before you get your head bashed in. The actually reason or target of the protest gets lost in the background noise.

    3. Re:Policy City-State by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      It's quite a panopticonic fiefdom they have there... Still haven't caught London in terms of cameras; but the sinister image-processing central computer is a nice touch, as is the 'fusion center' and the oblique references to anti-aircraft capability...

    4. Re:Policy City-State by optimism · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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".

    5. Re:Policy City-State by erroneus · · Score: 2

      I appreciate your general view on this but I respectfully disagree. In the urban jungles, "controls" of this sort might be more readily accepted, but if this were attempted in, say, Texas (my home state) you would see something else occur in response. And frankly, I don't see how or where the police forces I have known in Texas even attempting what is being done in New York city. (That's not to say they don't do bad things in Texas... they do! Lots of injustice to go around.)

      But then again, I don't imagine there would be much in the way of government protests in the first place...

      I'm quite sympathetic to the cause of inappropriate support of global banking by the US government and and the Federal Reserve bank... the shadow tarp pisses me off more than just about anything associated with the financial mess.

      I got into an "uncomfortable" conversation about market speculating and how it's a problem for the global economy... an opposing viewpoint chimed in with words that included "hard earned money." It was hard to listen to them after that. Wall street does not operate the way people like this think it operates...

    6. Re:Policy City-State by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well... yes and no.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    7. Re:Policy City-State by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The level of violence of U.S. cops "on the scene" is pretty surprising by most civilized standards. I will agree it's not a "police state" because the biggest marker of those is what happens more generally if you're arrested (e.g. do thousands of people get disappeared?). In the U.S. a typical arrested protestor will just be released, sometimes cited, though occasionally prosecutors do go overboard with charges intended to intimidate. There are a handful of more worrying terrorism detention-without-trial cases, but I haven't heard of that being used in relation to street protests.

      It does seem strange that the level of violence on-the-scene is needed, though. Sure, it's not mowing people down, Tiananmen style, but it seems pretty excessive. I don't know if it's an attempt to scare off "normal" people from showing up (which leads to a vicious cycle of only more-extreme people being willing to show up), or if it's just the individual work of not-very-disciplined cops.

    8. Re:Policy City-State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm living in a police state. Saudi Arabia. The cops here tend to keep a lower profile* and rarely bash heads.

      *Lower profile as in, there are cops everywhere, but they aren't as thuggish. Americans lost to terrorism (but it keeps the money flowing up into the defense industry). Your spouting out that it's not a police state when it obviously is makes some of us in actual police states laugh. Go get your kid's nuts checked and fingers put into your wife's vagina so you can board a plane. But keep insisting that the US ain't a police state.

    9. Re:Policy City-State by jythie · · Score: 2

      Heh. Check your history.... tieing the dollar to 'real world resources' had its own massive problems and did not actually help in any of the mythical ways people think it did. It was quite unstable and easily manipulated.

    10. Re:Policy City-State by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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!
    11. Re:Policy City-State by SendBot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the authorities really wanted to keep things civil, they would do something about the elite minority committing wholesale theft against everyone else in the country. They also might try to uphold constitutionally protected rights, or not pepper spray kettled peaceful protesters in the face, or impose disciplinary action on those who represent them poorly instead of promoting such despicable activity.

    12. Re:Policy City-State by scalarscience · · Score: 2

      Well the supreme court decision that has directly led to "papers please" in the US took place in Texas, a man on his own property with his truck (NOT on public land or a public road) was asked for ID by a police officer and declined, was arrested and subsequently courts sided with 'the law' that you must provide identification at all times including on your own property....so yep Texas isn't exempt from police state status. Incidentally how are the speed traps in rural TX these days?

    13. Re:Policy City-State by cobrausn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From what I've been able to figure out about Paul and the Gold Standard, it seems he just wants to see multiple forms of currency being accepted, such as standard dollars, gold dollars, silver dollars, etc... supposedly the idea is that it's harder to mess with a market via currency manipulations if you don't own all the currency, and somehow this will open up world trade in such a way that it becomes harder for a government to 'wage war' via currency manipulations.

      Basically he likes peace and free trade between nations, and thinks as long as we have one form of currency that can be easily manipulated, there is a greater chance of international (and internal) conflict.

      Not sure if he's right (or even if my interpretation is right), but it's interesting. I always like listening to Paul because he doesn't discuss the same five talking points every other party-affiliated drone does, though I don't agree with all his policies.

      --
      How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
    14. Re:Policy City-State by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      You have a couple of things going on.

      You have a handful of weirdos who wouldn't get attention if they didn't provoke the police into some kind of action.

      You have some number of police who are willing to cross the line, or who have too short a fuse for this kind of work.

      You have people only posting the interesting bits of video, such that observers get a skewed view of the scene.

      If you actually live in NYC and venture through these "protests", you see a bunch of people standing around and you wonder what all the fuss is about on the national news.

      As an aside, I no longer live in NYC, so I haven't been to this particular protest. Also, if this is an "occupy Wall St" protest, what the heck are they doing in Union Square? Let the dog molester and peepers get back to work!

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    15. Re:Policy City-State by NetDanzr · · Score: 4, Insightful
      As someone who grew up in a police state (communist Czechoslovakia), I find quite a lot of parallels between the Wall Street protests and the beginning of the anti-communist revolution in my country (I'm not implying these protests will spark a revolution).

      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.

    16. Re:Policy City-State by Catbeller · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Remember Seattle? No-one does, accurately. Long, peaceful protests against the corporations, then suddenly: Anarchists! OMG! At least a dozen, springing from the protesters, smashing and running and breaking and somehow, not getting caught. Then, of course, in immediate sync, governments across the world instituted a world police state in which the very act of protest caused police violence. In Canada, the UK, the US. Very convenient.

      I'd bet much that most "anarchists" are specially trained agents of god-knows-who, governments, quasi-govercorporPR ad hoc committess, whatever. They activate and infiltrate, then disappear.

      End result: anti-war protest, Chicago, 2003-ish, where I personally witnessed every unmarked cop car in the city parked on lower Wacker drive, poised to take on Armageddon, or as we know them, anti-violence peace marchers. They rounded everyone up and arrested them. We've not had a mass peace march since. Not to mention the media channels broadcasting nothing but "these pinks are holding up rush hour!", instead of examining WHY the war to come was insane - as it was. The protestors were right, and the cops and everyone else were wrong.Too damned bad no one cared to cover them other than commie-pro-Islam crazies. We'd have about a million more live Iraqi innocents, and twenty thousand fewer brave Americans with their junk burned off.

    17. Re:Policy City-State by Catbeller · · Score: 2

      Lemme give an example. The Tea Party. The very name of the "movement" is a perversion of history.

      The Tea Party was not a revolt against a tax increase on tea. It was a revolt against a tax removal on tea by the British Parliament designed to benefit the crown corporation. The Tea Party was an anti-corporate rebellion, for godsakes, yet somehow the "Tea Party" of today gets their history wrong in the very meaning of their name! And no one points it out in all the years since they formed, not in any debate or interview I've seen. A people with a fake history cannot learn real history, nor can they make history other than screwing everything up.

    18. Re:Policy City-State by The+Snowman · · Score: 2

      We take on mountains of debt that will be repaid with our future labor. And when we do it to buy for $200,000 a house that could be built for $50,000, we are selling ourselves cheap (hoping, of course that someone will be willing to sell himself to us for even less in the future). This has the effect of consolidating a lot of power with the people how have a lot of money today. If we didn't do that, they would have about as much power as the rest of us.

      The market value of a house really does correlate with the cost to create it, assuming there is not a bubble. First of all, materials are quite expensive, as is the labor not only to construct the structure, but prepare the land, dig and pour the foundation, etc. If you have to tear down an existing structure or handle hazards (e.g. a swamp, unstable/shifting land, etc), that adds more. But before you even start looking at those costs, take a look at the value of the empty lot itself. That has a market value as well: I have seen empty lots in nice areas of my city go for $100k, ten times as much as equal-sized lots with houses in the ghetto.

      I believe the market value of a house truly is "what someone is willing to pay for it," not what a bank wants to mortgage it for. It is actually in the bank's interest to mortgage it for less than its worth, since in the event of a foreclosure, it is more likely to recoup its costs and at least break even.

      I have been through buying, refinancing, and foreclosing a house in the past four years. I know firsthand about the value of a house, and what number various interested parties place on it.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    19. Re:Policy City-State by Aighearach · · Score: 3

      Sonny, sonny, sonny.

      First you ask, "Don't believe me?" And then you fail to provide any coherent proof of your hypothesis.

      Then you attempt to assign homework.

      Your homework should have been to discover facts that actually support your hypothesis, along with some explanation of their support.

      And until you can get an A+... stay off my lawn!

    20. Re:Policy City-State by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

      All correct, if you ignore that women, gay people and Black people actually got closer to equal rights with straight White men, all through 1960s street demonstrations. It took until 1970 for street demonstrations to start to end the Vietnam War, which otherwise would have gone on forever. Forever: just as the Iraq War has gone on longer than the Vietnam War, even if you don't count the Iraq War that we waged in Iraq 1989-2003.

      And that's just to name a few. Also accomplished was the birth of environmental protection from corporate pollution and any number of other advances underwritten by people going into the streets to show their anger or just unity in opposition.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    21. Re:Policy City-State by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      I have. We've remodeled every room in our house except one, increased the appraised value by over 50%, cost us less than 10% total, and thats being cautious, we probably spent far less than that specifically on remodeling the house, as we did some other things as well. We've done the wiring, the roof (including having to repair structural support due to a tree falling on it), installed hardwoods in the main areas, tiled from floor to ceiling the bathrooms, removed the ugly wood panelling from the main rooms and drywalled them. About the only thing we haven't redone is actually putting up new brick walls on the exterior.

      Housing is ridiculously overpriced, even now when its 'bad'.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    22. Re:Policy City-State by jcr · · Score: 2

      In Texas, lawmen are smart enough to realize they other guy not only probably has a gun, its probably bigger too.

      The effect of this awareness in Texas, as in other places like Switzerland where the population is not only armed but well-trained in the use of arms, is that the police tend to avoid actions that would meet with disapproval from the people.

      FWIW, the most polite officer I ever encountered was a DPS trooper who wrote me a ticket for 70 MPH when I was doing 90, and informed me that if the fine were paid before the court date, Texas wouldn't bother to notify my home state of the infraction.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  2. Apparently, by bhcompy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    there is a conflict between occupy English and Slashdot, as well.

  3. Lack of news by iONiUM · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In Canada at least, there has been a serious lack of news about this protest. It's mentioned in passing sometimes, but that's about it. I don't even really know what it's about. I heard "protesting corporate greed in America", but I mean that's a tough thing to protest.. you're basically protesting capitalism..

    Anyways, my question is why is there such a media gap about this protest? Is it on purpose (tin foil hat), or is it just because it's vague and nobody really cares about it, so the media doesn't bother?

    1. Re:Lack of news by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    2. Re:Lack of news by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Informative

      A good answer to that is here... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgr3DiqWYCI&feature=share It is not news because no one died. But now it is becoming news because the media is ignoring it. And the pendulum starts to swing back.

    3. Re:Lack of news by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      In Canada at least, there has been a serious lack of news about this protest. It's mentioned in passing sometimes, but that's about it. I don't even really know what it's about. I heard "protesting corporate greed in America", but I mean that's a tough thing to protest.. you're basically protesting capitalism..

      I live in the US, tend to watch a good bit of news on all the networks (let things balance out a little that way)...and read headlines on the internet.

      It has barely made a blip on the 'map' on any news source I've seen.

      From the little coverage I've heard...would seem to be like 20 people showing up to protest. Frankly I had no idea it was still going on.....thought it was a one day deal that happened the other day.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:Lack of news by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you're basically protesting capitalism..

      Basically protesting Crony capitalism. A Big difference there....

    5. Re:Lack of news by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 2

      I don't even really know what it's about. I heard "protesting corporate greed in America", but I mean that's a tough thing to protest.. you're basically protesting capitalism..

      I'm not sure the protesters know either.

    6. Re:Lack of news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Lack of news by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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".

    8. Re:Lack of news by Nadaka · · Score: 2

      Just like Iran, Tunisa, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, and Syria, the people in power in America don't want you to know and are more than willing to manipulate the media to keep you blissfully ignorance of their tyranny. Some of those have have fallen, and others have tightened their grasp and brutalized their own people.

    9. Re:Lack of news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      Well lets just wait for Al Jazeera's take on the events.
      Capitalism is not evil, free reign capitalism is. The late Pope John Paul II understood this very well and tried for many years to bring to the attention of the masses this truth.
      Money cannot trump man, but this is what an out of control capitalistic system does.

    10. Re:Lack of news by GlobalEcho · · Score: 2

      Part of the media gap may be because such an ill-informed, ill-aimed and intellectually diffuse protest is meaningless. Here's an article from the left-leaning NY Times:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/nyregion/protesters-are-gunning-for-wall-street-with-faulty-aim.html

      I would say that coverage in one of the major newspapers of record is hardly a big gap. Certainly less of one than these wastrels seem to deserve.

    11. Re:Lack of news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I work on Wall St (as in, I work on that street, I do not work for a bank). The reason there has been little to no media coverage is because there's very little to cover. The protesters are exaggerating the situation to a degree that has gotten offensive. There are not "thousands of people" marching on Wall St. The largest march has been less than 200 people, and most have been in the area of 20-30. The largest gathering I've seen has been maybe 250 out in the park. They have no message, no organization, and no direction. If anything, the police have been overly lenient with them. They've been marching without a permit, and blocking traffic when they do it. They're squatting in a privately owned park with no permission from the owner. They're blatantly antagonizing the police on a regular basis. The whole thing is pathetic, and the fact that they have the audacity to compare themselves to the situation in Libya is flat out offensive.

    12. Re:Lack of news by Kevin+Stevens · · Score: 5, Informative

      A friend of mine works downtown and has a view of the protest, and the reason it isn't getting coverage, is that it has been quite small. I hear that it has been growing in size each day, but last Friday, the number of protesters was laughable, it looked to be about 100 people from the cellphone picture I saw- the plaza they are protesting in is more crowded during rush hour when people are going to/from work. Not much of a protest, especially by NYC standards. I mean every time the UN meets there are gatherings there many times that size.

      I also get within a block of that park on my commute home. They certainly aren't making much of a splash, as I don't even notice them. I think this is a very small protest that is getting national media coverage only because its such a provocative subject.

    13. Re:Lack of news by Nadaka · · Score: 2

      That is not a no true Scotsman argument.

      They are protesting the corruption in capitalism, not "basically capitalism"

    14. Re:Lack of news by sjames · · Score: 2

      Your post inadvertently reveals why protest is so important here. Capitalism is NOT supposed to be about unbridled greed. Certainly it is not supposed to be about greed that results in scrapping all morals and ethics.Wall Street has come to epitomize everything that capitalism is NOT supposed to be. It is intimately tied to those investment banks that knowingly and willfully risked the entire world's economy in order to extract even more profit from the system, often resorting to outright fraud to do it. Without them, we would not be in a crappy economy today and we would not have so much unemployment.

      Unlike the petty thieves who go to jail for their crimes, these guys who have done a lot more damage to a lot more people got a big fat bailout to make sure their bonus checks wouldn't bounce. If justice were functional, the police would be leading them away in cuffs, but instead they are arresting the people complaining about them.

    15. Re:Lack of news by PyroMosh · · Score: 2

      THIS!

      The people who haven't seen anything about this haven't been paying attention. I've heard "nobody is paying attention!" since day one. Al-Jazeera, MSNBC, CNN, the NY Times, the Guardian, Keith Olbermann on Current TV, and NPR are all sources I've encountered this on, to say nothing of social media. Hell, even Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert covered this. (I don't know if The Daily Show did or not).

      The reporting I've seen and heard has all played more or less the same... reporters looking for a story. Most outfits came right out and said if you ask 10 people what the event is about, you get 10 different answers. They go over how they operate as a commune and how they are voting on what they want.

      I'm not making that up, they've got a council that's trying to decide what their demand will be. they haven't decided, nor do they even have any illusion that they *do* have a formed demand.

      Until there started to be violence against the protesters, I get the impression that most of the reporters were going through the motions of what they sensed was a non-story.

      The Tea Party by contrast had some elements to it that were sexy to the media. They were vocal and belligerent. They showed up at town hall meetings and yelled at members of congress, they showed up with guns. Later, they carried misspelled racist signs and got 10x as crazy.

      The media shows up at this, sees a hundred or so hippies living in a commune in a part trying to decide what their demand will be. There's nobody opposing them (until the seemingly random violence from some cops), and no story to cover. Nothing that looks good in a 5 second clip on the 9 O'Clock news, and nothing that sounds good and concise in print.

    16. Re:Lack of news by Scrameustache · · Score: 2

      why is there such a media gap about this protest?

      Manufacturing Consent

      The film presents and illustrates Chomsky's and Herman's thesis that corporate media, as profit-driven institutions, tend to serve and further the agendas of the interests of dominant, elite groups in the society. A centerpiece of the film is a long examination of the history of The New York Times' coverage of the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, which Chomsky says exemplifies the media's unwillingness to criticize an ally of the elite.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    17. Re:Lack of news by TheTyrannyOfForcedRe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Big government paired with cronyism is not part of capitalism. It never was.

      You are soooooo wrong. Big government + cronyism is the default steady state of capitalism. The capitalist system can have no other outcome. Wealth concentrates. The rich use it to brainwash the masses and pay for political favors. The two dynamics amplify each other until you get what we have today. It's inevitable.

      --
      "Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
    18. Re:Lack of news by djp928 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only permit anybody should need to hold a peaceful protest is the first amendment.

    19. Re:Lack of news by MrSteveSD · · Score: 2

      If it was such a pathetically small number of people, why did the Police feel the need to use such force?

      I should imagine the media in the US are much the same as the UK when it comes to the police. They do not like criticizing them unless someone dies. Even if there is plenty of footage of police hitting unarmed peaceful protesters it will just be reported as "Police Scuffled with Protesters".

    20. Re:Lack of news by Catbeller · · Score: 3, Informative

      Anything critical of capitalism - or corporatism, really, 'cause they are not the same - is simply not covered anymore. The protestors are considered pinks by the people who own things, among which are the people who own all the media outlets, and by extension, hire the reporters who cover the events. A reporters who would try to present anti-corporate discussion, other than with derision, would soon be marginalized and then unemployed and unemployable. See what happened 2001-2003 to the very few reporters who tried to disagree with the march to war. They were dumped and disgraced, never to be heard from again. Any reporter knows what happens to any reporter writing to the left of Reagan - you gone.

    21. Re:Lack of news by SETIGuy · · Score: 2

      Yeah, it they had been Tea Party goons beating up homeless vets, then there would have been repeated news stories about how the homeless people had egged on the non-violent Tea Party demonstrators by repeatedly bashing their faces into the demonstrators fists.

    22. Re:Lack of news by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

      And you know it's not interesting because... you never heard of it, and the BBC ran only a couple of obviously shallow articles about it. Which is why there's no stories about it in your media. That's a tautology. How can you know anything about what might be interesting about it?

      When 1500 middle class people turn up for a week and a half to demonstrate against the financial system, especially if it's badly organized but still persists, that's an event. You might want professionally produced Tea Party simulations of popular movements, but this demonstration is what real people getting fed up with looks like.

      And the cops attacking them for no good reason should be interesting to anyone.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    23. Re:Lack of news by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

      Yes, macing those women who were merely being corralled by other cops was really "lenient". Of course you don't want to bite the Wall Street hand that feeds you, Anonymous Coward. But why should we listen to you? Didn't you used to be Bush's press secretary?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    24. Re:Lack of news by dryeo · · Score: 2

      This is the end game of capitalism. The most ruthless, greedy capitalists buy the government to make sure there is no competition. Pretending that human nature will lead anywhere else is as stupid as those that thought that communism could work on a large scale.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  4. have fun protesting by onepoint · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:have fun protesting by SkimTony · · Score: 2

      If they had their permits

      Which part of the First Amendment to the Constitution was unclear? No one should be able to require permits. They have a Right to Peaceably Assemble. Period.

    2. Re:have fun protesting by i.r.id10t · · Score: 2

      If they had their permits and weren't breaking any laws, then they should be there.

      Nice to see the first amendment requiring permits just like the 2nd ...

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    3. Re:have fun protesting by Duradin · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you're doing civil disobedience then you know you are breaking the law and, this in an important and, you accept the punishment for doing so if it is brought against you.

      Your cause is more valuable than what the punishment takes away.

      If you're just trying to get a message out without the civil disobedience being a protestor isn't a magical get out of jail free card for when you over step your bounds.

    4. Re:have fun protesting by Duradin · · Score: 2

      There's lots of protesting for you to do then. Basically every public building has a maximum occupancy, set by some level of Government! The fire marshal is taking away your rights!

    5. Re:have fun protesting by superwiz · · Score: 2

      Either you a: allow people to protest or b: say that they break the law, causing civil disobedience and massive riots.

      Depends on which law you disobey. If the actions they take are violent (in addition to being illegal), then it's not a civil disobedience. It's "violent protests." So your point is off key, while the gp's point is on key.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    6. Re:have fun protesting by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Permits for assembly are in violation of the First Amendment. It's not the protest that's illegal, it's the government itself.

      Somehow the "law and order" crowd always exempts itself from following the law.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:have fun protesting by phorm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And being a police officer isn't a free ticket to smashing somebody's face in.
      Being arrested should be the legal and reasonable answer to illegal activity (civil disobedience or no). Being assaulted is not.

    8. Re:have fun protesting by sheepofblue · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When the first protest resulted in destruction of property you lose the ability to claim peaceful. Being forceful with the police and taunting them does nothing to change that perception or to create the perception that it was a tiny rogue minority. Sorry but these people came with the intent of being annoying and disruptive and then complain when they get treated like they are annoying and disruptive.

    9. Re:have fun protesting by Surt · · Score: 2
      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    10. Re:have fun protesting by lahvak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When I peacefully protest or commit an act of peaceful civil disobedience, I fully expect to be charged for violating the law, and have legal charges brought against me. I expect to have to spend some time in jail, or pay a fine, if I break a law. What I do not expect, though, is having my face smashed into a parked car, being beaten by police officers for non-violently refusing to disperse, etc. I expect that my infractions against the legal system will be responded to withing the limits of the legal system.

      Violent attacks against peaceful protesters is exactly the kind of police behavior that we usually heavily criticize when they are committed by police in various totalitarian regimes.

      --
      AccountKiller
    11. Re:have fun protesting by m.ducharme · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry, were the protesters "peacefully assembling" in someone's living room? Or on a public street? I missed that part. And by the way, I think you have herring in your teeth. Looks kinda red.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    12. Re:have fun protesting by hey! · · Score: 2

      Suppose your neighbor stands on the sidewalk in front of your house and shouts political slogans through a bullhorn at 3AM. You can call the cops and the First Amendment doesn't keep them from arresting him, as long as that's what they always do in cases like this. What they can't do is listen to the guy and treat him differently based on whether they agree or disagree with him.

      What the long-standing interpretation of the First Amendment is in such cases is this: the government may regulate the *manner* of speech, provided that there is a legitimate purpose (in this case protecting the peace and privacy of people in their homes minding their own business), the regulations are narrowly tailored for that purpose (not arresting people having normal conversations that don't intrude into other peoples' homes) and they don't discriminate based on the content of the speech (say, arresting the commie but giving the born-again Christian a pass).

      Permits can fall into the category of reasonable regulation or not, depending on how they're handled. There are many legitimate purposes in a case like this for requiring permits. One is to be able to prepare for the protection of the rights of people using the space in question. This includes both people going to and from work, and the protesters themselves.

      A permit requirement can be unconstitutional if it discriminates base on who the protesters are or what they're protesting, if it is unreasonably restrictive (e.g. requiring a protest against Wall Street to be held in Brooklyn) or burdensome (e.g. requiring a permit fee that's so expensive it would discourage the protesters).

      In other words the government can ask protesters to do reasonable things, so long as doing those things don't meaningfully restrict the protesters right to protest.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  5. Not just Canada by MrEricSir · · Score: 2

    This protest has failed to make headlines in the US as well. The only coverage I've seen is on blogs and Slashdot.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Not just Canada by plopez · · Score: 2

      CNN had a brief blurb. Huffington post is covering it. NY times had something. Google it.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    2. Re:Not just Canada by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This protest has failed to make headlines in the US as well.

      Probably because it is not a tea party protest.

      Those things seem to get a LOT of news reports these days...about how violent they are, etc....

      If it isn't a protest by a conservative group...well, the mainstream press doesn't seem to feel the need to take much interest in it...

      Then again..I don't see fox on it either....so, maybe both sides have a reason to ignore it....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:Not just Canada by maxume · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    4. Re:Not just Canada by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      And I am sure there is some police who are being little more harsher then they should be, but I expect the protesters are not as peaceful as this article has you believe. I remember a while ago a friend of a friend who we were having lunch with was stating that she was going to get a bullet proof vest before she went to go protest...
      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.

      Wall Street isn't really to blame it is more of a symbol of what they are blaming. Espectially as all the rich people who do pull some strings are filing electronically miles away. It is like protesting in front of a Data Center because you don't like the website they are hosting.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:Not just Canada by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Are there any other kind of police?

      That was unfair, they are trained to do this and there supervisors surely approve.

    6. Re:Not just Canada by Mab_Mass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      Please don't be so sure. If you recall earlier this past year, there were massive protests in Wisconsin. As someone who personally took place in a lot of them, I know that our media is terrible. For example, during these protests, the rallies were larger than the biggest Tea Party rally ever, even though it was during a snowstorm in Wisconsin in February. That certainly strikes me as news, but when you turned on CNN, all you saw was a 10-second sound bite on Wisconsin, followed by a 3-minute long piece on the history of the Tea Party in US politics. (I don't have links handy.)

      Personally, I don't know enough of the ground truth of what is happening on Wall St. to comment, but I very highly suspect that anything that has been said on any major network news is woefully inaccurate at best.

    7. Re:Not just Canada by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      What are you talking about? I have yet to see a single news account about violence at a Tea Party rally or protest.

      I think you misread me. I meant that many news reports, on the left/liberal side or those giving speeches about the TP (Shelia Jackson Lee and the like) constantly berate the TP as having meetings that are violent, express and advocate violence as part of their platform....but no, there isn't any documentation to this fact in reality. Yet, you see violence show up at left/liberal protest...like this one.

      The thing is...many on the far left seem to speak of the Tea Party in terms of violent protests and violent change advocacy, but when asked to show evidence of it...you just plain don't see it. I've seen video of labor unions acting violent to TP's and other groups they disagree with however.....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    8. Re:Not just Canada by scot4875 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    9. Re:Not just Canada by crhylove · · Score: 2

      Worst Slashdot Comment ever. The giant corporate mega banks have devastated nearly every global economy, families, individuals, and brought the world to it's knees.

      Obama's entire staff is ex Goldman Sachs. The fox is fully inside the hen house, we're all fucked, and a few people shouting about it in the streets and getting beaten by the corporations police force (the corporations own the state at this point), IS NEWS.

      These giant corporations and corporate mega banks need to be shut down, permanently.

      --
      I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    10. Re:Not just Canada by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

      You're lying. Your friend, if she does exist, did no such thing. If she exists and did tell you that then she was lying.

      So what if you expect the protesters are not peaceful. In fact they are, and the cops attacked them without reason.

      Wall Street is full of the people who actually robbed us of our money and freedoms. I know; I worked supporting a hedge fund in Midtown through 2010.

      You are just another authoritarian who will lie based on your preconceptions, totally uninterested in fact especially when it contradicts your expectations.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    11. Re:Not just Canada by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

      Or you could stand on the sidewalk in the afternoon talking to your friend and get maced for no reason. Like what actually happened, not what your bizarre violence fetish dreamed up.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    12. Re:Not just Canada by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      While you're at it, why don't you mention that unions bussed their rent-a-mobs into Wisconsin, in contrast to Tea Party rallies where most participants are there on their own volition.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  6. Any reliable coverage? by OverlordQ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is there any reliable coverage outside of these first person blogs?

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:Any reliable coverage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Local ABC 7 and NBC New York covered them only in passing. The tones of the two were worlds apart - ABC 7 was an absolute hatchet job, not bothering to interview any of the protesters, then resorted to name-calling (whiny, privileged, etc.). NBC actually got as far into the nitty-gritty as a two minute clip would allow.

    2. Re:Any reliable coverage? by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Informative

      The most neutral I have seen is here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgr3DiqWYCI&feature=share And it is an opinion piece.

    3. Re:Any reliable coverage? by angrytuna · · Score: 2

      There's a Times article available today on the subject.

      --

      It is a solemn thought: dead, the noblest man's meat is inferior to pork.

  7. Re:doubt it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    From what I can tell they chose peaceful and leftist. Their organization is terrible.

  8. Re:I'm confused by houstonbofh · · Score: 2

    Look at the videos. The Police crossed the line, and not by a little. But not all. In any group of 100 people, there will be some jerks. The problem is the protecting of jerks with badges and guns.

  9. MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell has an excellent report by itsybitsy · · Score: 3, Informative
  10. Videos I've seen by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    You know, of all the videos I've seen, I've noticed one thing. They start either right after or only a second or two before the police undertake some form of action (arrest, detainment, macing, tasing, etc). Why don't these videos ever show us what is happening in the few minutes prior? If you are lucky, the longest you ever get to see is about 20-30 seconds. If the protestors really are acting peacefully, then why aren't the showing the parts of the video showing them being peaceful before the police's "brutal, unprovoked aggression"? I assume that, in events like this, the protestors always have cameras rolling in case of police action, so you can't say that there is no video of this. I'm sure most protestors there really are acting peacefully, but in the thousands that are there, you can't say there aren't any intentionally trying to provoke a police response.

    And I know I'll probably take a karma hit for this, but I'm still not posting AC, because I am trying to point out what I see as a major hypocrisy in the US protest culture these days: entrapment on the part of police is always decried as immoral, wrong, or illegal, but it is perfectly fine for protestors to entrap police.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:Videos I've seen by MoriT · · Score: 2

      They are live streaming too, if you want all the context you can handle. Most videos get trimmed because people get bored: I know that if I start watching something and nothing happens for 20 seconds I'm likely to swap to the cute cat video linked in the right bar...

    2. Re:Videos I've seen by haruchai · · Score: 2

      If you watch the clip of Lawrence O'Donnell's commentary, as posted by itsybitsy, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UHsLccXQUY, he promises to post the complete, unedited video of the protest on his MSNBC blog. Have a look to see if there's any intentional misleading of the protestors actions.

      And I think you're completely off the mark about perceived hypocrisy - if it's anyone getting away with entrapment, it's the cops.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    3. Re:Videos I've seen by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      You mustn't be looking hard enough. Techdirt has a post with links to at least four videos of the same incident, all from different angles. With plenty of time before the cop comes up and shoots the women directly in the face with pepper spray. Even the blue shirts around him appear surprised.

      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110927/09480916110/can-nypd-back-up-its-claim-confrontation-that-required-pepper-spray-despite-more-video-evidence.shtml

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    4. Re:Videos I've seen by SmoothriderSean · · Score: 2

      FWIW, some of the linked articles point to videos of the mace incident that include a good minute or two beforehand.

      There's no doubt in my mind that it sucks to be one of these cops, and that there are protesters out there looking for the police brutality money shot. Hell, the cops are the kind of people who'll be having their pensions cut to maintain tax cuts for Wall Street, the protesters should befriend them.

      But at the end of the day which side here is herding people around to try to end a public demonstration? Is it worse to be shouted at or maced? Do you (rhetorical "you", not Nidi62 in particular) apply the same degree of skepticism to mainstream news reports? Should we be so quick to imagine or assume a wrong by someone less powerful that would excuse the wrong we can see being done by someone more powerful?

    5. Re:Videos I've seen by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    6. Re:Videos I've seen by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2

      Although I agree that the GP was out of line, I must take exception with your statement:

      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.

      Perhaps you don't realize this, but the rights mentioned by you are accorded to everyone simply because they are human - deserving them or not does not come into the picture. The idea that some people deserve rights, while others don't, is often a key ingredient to (apparent) overreactions like this article is about. You might want to rethink these words, as they seem to have been typed in anger, rather than in reflection.

      --
      That is all.
  11. Protest - permit required by milbournosphere · · Score: 2

    Forgive my (lack of) understanding of this, as it's been a while since I took my civics courses. Doesn't requiring permits in order to protest violate our first amendment right to peacefully assemble? Just like 'free speech zones', it seems that these measures tale away from our right to assemble peacefully to protest one thing or another, not just under the American constitution, but under the UN's Declaration of Human Rights as well.

    1. Re:Protest - permit required by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Protest - permit required by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      But what about when protestors decide to walk down a major road in a city, putting themselves in danger from getting hit by cars or creating financial damage by prevented people from accessing business on that street(businesses that they may not even be protesting against). This is the point of permits for protests; it is not a censorship issue, it is a public safety issue.

      Say I own a small electronic repair store along a major street that also runs past the state capitol. People want to demonstrate against the state government, so thousands of people march down the street, clogging traffic and keeping people from entering my store. Now, while the government may(or may not) have done something wrong, obviously I have not. There is no way you could justify (morally, ethically, or legally) denying me my right to make a living and feed my family to protest something with which I have had no part in. This is why many cities have permits or designated areas for protests to be legally carried out.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:Protest - permit required by Rakishi · · Score: 2

      Once there are ten thousand people in one location it's damn hard for the cops to do anything without being horribly brutal. Moreover if you stuff ten thousand people in one location with no control it's damn easy for the thing to go horribly wrong (see London recently) before the cops even get there. Humans in groups do not behave like rational individuals, they behave like herd animals. Just look at every store in the US on Black Friday.

      And that's without anyone, on whichever side (which includes third parties looking for LOLs), deciding to spread some misinformation to spark things off.

      So yeah, getting permission beforehand and requiring proper safety measures by organizers is the only sane way to keep things under control. Welcome to real life where things aren't black and white, zealots who think they are generally cause more deaths than anyone else.

      And you definitely do not want mass violence happening because that's how you get people to happily and willingly vote for a police state.

    4. Re:Protest - permit required by tftp · · Score: 2

      Say I own a small electronic repair store along a major street that also runs past the state capitol. People want to demonstrate against the state government, so thousands of people march down the street, clogging traffic and keeping people from entering my store.

      Well, you're going to put a hell of a lot of pressure on your representatives to capitulate and get those protesters off your sidewalk, right? This is how protests work.

      "That's a nice electronic business you got here. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it..."

      Attacking uninvolved, peaceful civilians to further political aims is called terrorism. Attacking people or property to elicit financial gain is called racketeering. Do you seriously advocate use of these tactics?

    5. Re:Protest - permit required by tftp · · Score: 2

      Who said anything about attacking?

      One of earlier posters:

      "keeping people from entering my store" is a serious interference with business. This particular anarchy is 10 days old. With low margins of commodity services that electronic repair guy could be bankrupt by now.

      If you don't think this is a real attack, let me surround your house with hostile hippies, so that you can't safely enter and your wife and your kid can't safely leave, for ten days. The hippies probably won't hit or stab any of you, but really you can't know that - those are all strangers to you and to each other. Some of them may be even professional provocateurs (they exist.) Other may be on drugs, not in control of their actions.

    6. Re:Protest - permit required by Fjandr · · Score: 2

      There is no way you could justify (morally, ethically, or legally) denying me my right to make a living and feed my family to protest something with which I have had no part in.

      Sure there is. You have the right to choose how you attempt to make a living. You do not have a right to be free from impediments to making that living if those are not the result of illegal activity. There are many things in the world that can prevent you from making a living in a chosen trade. Your only right is to attempt to continue in that trade despite impediments you have no control over (and no right to exercise control over, or delegate others to exercise control over), or to move to a different trade.

      If people protest that a product you make is horribly destructive, far in excess of its useful purposes, that product may be rightfully restricted or banned. You might lose your livelihood and have to change careers. There are plenty of examples where a protest can either directly disrupt your business, on purpose, or do so as a side effect. As long as they are not intentionally harming your trade in contravention of rational legal standards, you better just suck it up. If protests block your store long enough to cause you to go out of business, perhaps it's something you should actually be paying attention to.

      If you don't like it, perhaps you should have bought property where the storefront wasn't butted up against a public space. Oh, wait, you benefit from that public space in good times, but bitch and complain that it's public when something happens there you don't like. You sound like a fucking rancher complaining about others using public lands that they graze cattle on. Only your use of the public space is acceptable, fuck everyone else. Sense of personal entitlement much?

  12. Re:doubt it by AlgoRhythm · · Score: 2

    I'm not sure I agree with you, but to pick the 2 that are apropos here: Peaceful and leftist.

    This bunch of loosely assembled hippies, anarchists, socialists and new agers doesn't have a coherent voice what-so-ever.

    I haven't been down to Wall St. to see the current incarnation, but several dozen camped outside of the my office at the Woolworth building for a couple of weeks while protesting the mayor's budget a month or two ago. They were a nuisance, but certainly not threatening.

  13. I hope they're not trying to disrupt the market by LordNacho · · Score: 3, Insightful

    because to do that they'd have to be in Secaucus, NJ.

  14. Easy, Bush is not President by Shivetya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Easy, Bush is not President by nadavwr · · Score: 2

      The protesters in Wall Street have the right idea.
      A year ago, there was very little chance for such a protest to get momentum. So, what changed?

      This year, people living in western democracies were vividly reminded how much power the people hold when governments in Tunisia and Egypt were toppled by protesters.

      In Israel, for example, what started up as a few students striking up tents in protest against skyrocketing housing costs quickly evolved into thousands of tents around the country and massive protests. From a few tents, in one month, the protest movement went to this. (and this wasn't even the largest protest).

      The protests weren't affiliated with a political party or a labor union -- there were no "marching orders" -- but now politicians are lining up to garner votes, and party platforms are being rewritten to cater to the newly sounded demands of the people. This wouldn't have been possible in Israel before the Arab Spring -- Israelis just had no idea they were capable of any political action other than voting every few years and complaining the rest of the time. The projected impact of the protests is increased taxing of the rich for funding social plans, and increased regulation.

      If the "Occupy Wallstreet" protest manages to strike a nerve in the American public, it can grow very fast, and media outlets ignoring them now will not be able to continue doing so. There is place in the American political system for a counterbalance to the Tea Party movement.

  15. Not much to report. by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Not much to report. by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 2

      Well, the important thing is that inarticulate people parroting a form of lowbrow cynicism have found a way to feel superior to those who care about things and take sides on issues.

  16. So this is the new Slashdot? by MaxBooger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Really? This is what it's come to?

    I come here for the nerdy, techy, geeky news items of the day. This story is none of those.

      There are plenty of sites that I can go to that cover the activist social ranting scene. There is only one Slashdot. Please don't wreck the latter by trying to make it the former.

    1. Re:So this is the new Slashdot? by plopez · · Score: 3, Informative

      Slashdot is also for "stuff that matters".

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    2. Re:So this is the new Slashdot? by haruchai · · Score: 2

      I don't see the old slogan on the front page anymore but, when I started coming here, almost 14 years ago, it was "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters".
      This stuff matters.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  17. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why would the police attach peaceful protesters? That doesn't make sense, those kinds of tactics were done away with after they sicced dogs on African Americans fighting for equal rights, that sort of thing just doesn't happen any more so if the police arrested 80 people they must have had good reason. We all know how violent the left can get these days.

    Don't invent theories about how you are sure no one would do something.

    I am old enough to remember dogs and firehouses being used on civil rights protesters. I also remember people making the same argument you do: The protesters must have done something violent, or be hiding weapons, or planning to loot shops, because the police are civilized people. Don't hypothesize about the morals of a large group of people. Look at what they are doing (there is a video), and judge them by their actions.

  18. Protest is in the news & has a goal by prgrmr · · Score: 5, Informative

    You can find links on google's new page, like this one: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-27/wall-street-protesters-joined-by-susan-sarandon.html

    The protesters are actually fairly well organized with planned events, a voting process for making immediate decisions, and a goal of getting Obama to acknowledge the wealth gap and appointing a commission to recommend actions for dealing with it.

    The "traditional" media is indeed ignoring it. There's an on-going debate on twitter about whether or not the twitter admins are actively suppressing the #occupywallstreet hash-tag from trending.

  19. Actually, I was just there. by mckinnsb · · Score: 5, Informative

    I just took my lunch break off from work to check out the protest in Liberty Square. There seems to be about as many people there - staying with sleeping bags - as the small park can hold. It's no bigger than a block, and a small one at that. The estimates of about 200 people staying in the park are likely accurate.

    From my understanding after talking with some of the protesters there, the incidents in New York happened when they attempted to march through the streets. In addition, I found out that the numbers of people over the weekend were not just limited to the people staying in the park; there are a lot of people who are not roughing it in the concerete jungle of NYC and are staying with friends or relatives during 'off period times' of the protest.

    I can't speak to any police brutality during my brief visit. The protest was extremely peaceful while I was there (unless you consider a drum circle violent), but I did see several of the officers in the YouTube videos present at the square - although noticeably they were not the ones who perpetuated or committed any act of brutality (although you could argue they did nothing to prevent it). In fact, the officers I did recognize were the ones who had doubtful expressions on their faces in most of the videos. The officers were mostly staying out of it. There were also no "white shirts" there - the higher ranking officers whom, over the weekend, seemed to be largely responsible for the more egregious assaults. I also heard that some 100 officers refused to patrol the protest after the incidents over the weekend. I wouldn't be surprised if the commissioner or someone else "gave the department a talking to".

    IMHO, it's really hard to discount the video evidence that there was unjustified force, given the multiple angles of the YouTube videos available.

    I've heard some people say that some of the protesters' were "over-reacting" to the actions of the police. I think that is ridiculous. I would love to see how anyone would react to being pulled across a concrete street by four armed men. Additionally, one of the women maced in the YouTube video was deaf , and thats why she was screaming at a great volume.

    It's not unheard of for police officers to attempt to arrest people videotaping them - and given a recent ruling in a Federal Appeals Court that declared video taping a police officer a constitutional right, the actions of some of those officers was foolish and irresponsible, a fact probably made more evident to not just the public, but their superior officers, by their absence today.

    1. Re:Actually, I was just there. by PCM2 · · Score: 2

      The estimates of about 200 people staying in the park are likely accurate.

      Wait, I thought the /. summary said "the tenth consecutive day that thousands of protesters..."?

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    2. Re:Actually, I was just there. by mckinnsb · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah - I tried to address this in my post. There are only 200 people staying within the park, as in camping with sleeping bags and plastic bags for shelter. There are thousands who are participating that are staying elsewhere in the city.

    3. Re:Actually, I was just there. by Unreal+One · · Score: 2

      I've been following the #occupywallstreet Twitter feeds and I really find this an important question. With little-to-no mass media coverage of the protests, it makes it really difficult to gauge the magnitude of the protests. If you go by the number of posts on Twitter, it's either a major event or a completely virtual one. It seems reading the feeds and headlines like this one about 'escalation' this may actually turn into something meaningful, but any coverage by the mass media plays it off as a fizzling joke.

      I think they are fighting the good fight, as David vs. Goliath as it may be. And I do think they have an agenda, as disconnected as it must be considering they are a leaderless group. Corporate Greed clearly IS a cancer, and personally I would really like to see five things done to right the ship: 1) mandatory, real taxation of corporations with major limitations and caps on exemptions, 2) heavy taxation on companies that move jobs overseas, AND heavy taxation on imported goods. 3) Don't hate me; tighter restrictions on h1b work visas to develop better local, skilled workers. 4) Absolutely criminalize corporate campaign contributions, and 5) abolish the two party electoral system and have completely open elections.

    4. Re:Actually, I was just there. by PCM2 · · Score: 2

      There are only 200 people staying within the park, as in camping with sleeping bags and plastic bags for shelter. There are thousands who are participating that are staying elsewhere in the city.

      I was being a little snarky, but I'd love to get some kind of real confirmation of that. You said you saw 200 people. You seemed to be saying those people told you there were thousands more. Where are they? None of the videos I've seen seem to indicate thousands of people. We have protests here in the Bay Area, too, so I have a pretty decent idea of what a crowd of thousands of people would look like. What I'm seeing in these videos looks like a few hundred loosely-organized people, most of whom are just sitting around (as opposed to, say, choking the streets in their teeming thousands). Meanwhile, folks are posting photos to Facebook showing the streets filled with people -- which turn out to be Photoshopped. It seems to me that all the hyperbole and rhetoric coming out of the protesters is doing them more harm than good, because it all seems so phony and disingenuous. Since you live in New York, give us your real impression: How does this protest really compare to, say, the St. Patrick's Day Parade?

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
  20. Re:doubt it by copponex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Their cause alone proves that they are violence-prone and violence-minded. I don't care how much karma this burns. Well-organized, peaceful, leftist -- pick any 2 of the 3, but you can't have all 3.

    If you couldn't have all three, a black man wouldn't be the president. American history is full of occupations of public and private spaces for civil and worker rights, and they worked in the 30s as well as in the 60s. That's why you have a 40 hour workweek and the right to vote regardless of your gender or skin color.

    But what would an uneducated crypto fascist like you know about that?

  21. phx_xs numbers are inflated by peter303 · · Score: 2

    Kids trying to get media attention, but not able to. Thats the worst thing you can do is not give them attention.

  22. Beat the crap out of those brutes then. by unity100 · · Score: 2

    They are violating your legal rights, abusing power, judiciary is doing nothing about it, and they are just continuing living their life easily with YOUR tax money.

    They shouldnt. you should confront them and hold them accountable for what they are doing with your tax money, since the judiciary is not doing it, city is content with it, and the government doesnt care about it.

    an encounter in a back alley can make anyone remember that they are just human beings.

  23. Re:doubt it by MoriT · · Score: 2

    Yup. Except those knitting grandmas: they seemed pretty organized and leftist, so I'm betting they're ready to stab someone in the eye with those knitting needles at any second!

  24. Don't let Reality hit your ass on the way out by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Did you even watch any of the videos? Did you even look into this at all? I can't understand how you could have done so and still hold such an opinion.

    As far as I can tell, I don't agree with any of these people protesting. I am pretty much convinced their protests are ineffective and a waste of time, and that the individuals involved may, in fact, be wastes of perfectly good protoplasm.

    THAT BEING SAID, there is no excuse for the behavior of the NYPD in this incident. The behavior of the NYPD Commanders during this protest has been disgusting, immoral, illegal, and against everything we as a Nation are supposed to stand for. But what is even more disgusting is how the NYPD immediately closed ranks on this matter, excusing their behavior as completely reasonable. What is even MORE disgusting than that, however, is citizens such as yourself who are willing to give the Police a blank check to do whatever they want to people you dislike or don't agree with.

    Shame on you. You aren't worthy to lick the boots of those who shed blood to secure the rights you'd see others denied.

    --
    Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
    Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
  25. My personal observations... by zenetik · · Score: 2, Informative

    I was down there on Day 2 photographing demonstrators and police. This was Sunday, so the NYPD was able to block off Wall Street, the bull, areas near banks, etc. so disruptions by the demonstrators were minimal. An Anon told me they had been forced away from Battery Park and into Zuccotti Park the night before, but there didn't seem to be much tension between demonstrators and police at the time and some of the police seemed friendly with demonstrators. Demonstrators have made it clear time and time again that they are also fighting on behalf of NYPD officers. From reports I've read through Twitter and elsewhere, some NYPD officers have shown at least some support for demonstrators but the "white shirt" commanding officers are the ones who usually instigate trouble. I can't verify this directly, but in many of the photos and videos I've seen of arrests and attacks on demonstrators, "white shirts" appear to have been directly involved. The now-infamous pepper spraying of penned in female demonstrators was done by a white shirt officer who also appears to have sprayed some of his officers as well. I'm planning to head back to Zuccotti Park this week to get more photos, so I'll have a better idea of how much things have changed in the past week or so.

  26. Re:doubt it by _0xd0ad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The video was a single continuous shot. Nothing was edited out of it, and anyone can tell this just by watching it, as I did. All your comment proves is that you're an idiot.

  27. Re:Awesome by unity100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  28. Re:doubt it by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 2

    Right, cause I've never been to a well-organized, peaceful and leftist protest.. Oh except for pretty much every well-organized protest I've been to.
    Stop blowing smoke out of your ass.

  29. wow. their cause PROVES that they are violence by unity100 · · Score: 2

    minded eh ?

    so then, the same should have been applied to american revolutionaries back in 1774, and franklin, jefferson, revere et al should have been all jailed and beaten down ...

    how DARE they revolt against unfairness and suppression.

  30. I hope the protesters up their game a bit by argStyopa · · Score: 3

    Hopefully it will turn out like this:
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article515384.ece

    WHEN 35 Greenpeace protesters stormed the International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) yesterday they had planned the operation in great detail.
    What they were not prepared for was the post-prandial aggression of oil traders who kicked and punched them back on to the pavement.

    âoeWe bit off more than we could chew. They were just Cockney barrow boy spivs. Total thugs,â one protester said, rubbing his bruised skull. âoeIâ(TM)ve never seen anyone less amenable to listening to our point of view.â

    Another said: âoeI took on a Texan Swat team at Esso last year and they were angels compared with this lot.â Behind him, on the balcony of the pub opposite the IPE, a bleary-eyed trader, pint in hand, yelled: âoeSod off, Swampy.â

    I had plenty of experience with anti-CIA recruitment protesters in college, and the charming anti-Republican protesters last year in St Paul. I really couldn't imagine possibly feeling sorry for them. They're repellent self-righteous zealots who are utterly obnoxious regardless of their cause, or even whether they're right or not. Even if I'd agreed with their point of view, I'd want them off my side.

    --
    -Styopa
  31. Mace versus pepper spray by guttentag · · Score: 4, Informative

    I know this is slashdot and facts are irrelevant here, but the NYPD hasn't used mace since 1994: http://www.nyc.gov/html/ccrb/pdf/pepperreport.pdf. There is a difference between mace and pepper spray (most significantly that mace is illegal in most of the civilized world).

  32. Re:doubt it by Zironic · · Score: 2

    If you watched that video you'd see it was completely unprovoked. If I knew any of those women I'd probably arrange to have him kidnapped and pepper-sprayed repeatedly for about an hour since his identity is known.

  33. What it's about. by JazzHarper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  34. I live a block away by apilosov · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here's the gist:

    *) There are no "Wall St" firms on Wall St anymore (nor anywhere close). NYSE trading floor is not that important in grand scheme of things. The neighbourhood became residential about 15 years ago, and now there's 20,000 residents like me.

    *) When the protest started (two weeks ago), there were minimal number of protesters (1000) despite the protesters claims to have 20k people.

    *) There's "OVER 9000" cops downtown, and it makes getting around quite annoying since I have to navigate police barriers (not a big deal, but just annoying). There's definitely more cops than protesters at any given area. At the beginning of protest, they had a 2-cop shoulder-to-shoulder line blocking Wall St. The only protesters were 6 people dressed in white robes (could pass for either Star Wars freaks or priests), cops were quite bored.

    *) Cops are polite and keep to their business (that is, stand there and look serious). I can't say same about the protesters.

    *) Protesters themselves...oy. Whatever it is they are protesting, they are an embarassment to their cause. I've chatted to a few, and had a few come over for drinks, and uh...Well, it's exactly what you'd expect, well-meaning but clueless younger people who are looking for attention and "feeling of doing something".

    *) They protest evil corporations. Nevertheless, most of them have latest iphone4 (just look at the videos - they are ones taping). It doesn't bother them that Apple is largest corporation in the world who isn't very nice to its users.

    *) There's a huge number of DSLRs at the protest - combined with iphone4, means nobody there is really starving.

    *) I started speaking to one of protesters about bitcoin. He was very interested in it and buying some if they are likely to appreciate. He was *shocked* when I pointed out that's exactly what "evil bankers" do.

    *) Cops don't really give a damn about protesters. They are charged with enforcing certain rules - such as, no "permanent structures". So, every so often, a cop walks through the protest site checking things out. Each time a cop does so, there's 10 people with cameras surrounding said cop to make sure any "brutality" gets videotaped. It gets quite silly since these kids don't really understand they need to move away for a cop to walk through (and since they are looking into their viewfinder, they don't realize that the cop is a foot away, resulting in a cop having to push the photographer out of the way - "omg brutality").

    *) Protesters are completely disorganized - there's nobody who is "in charge", which leads to interactions with cops that could go much smoother, if a single person was designated to be liaison to cops. Protesters also can't/won't police their own - so if someone does something illegal, its becomes up to cops to enforce (vs, protesters saying "this is not cool, please do not do it" and avoiding police involvement).

    *) When cops walk by, most protesters just ignore them, continuing with conversations etc. However, there are a few who get "in your face" to cops and start shouting/etc - and yes, I'd say that the protesters are trying to provoke conflict, whether they intend to or not.

    *) As far as professionalism goes, I'd say cops are generally acting professional, if bored and annoyed at having to deal with hippies who hate their guts.

    *) There is serious "victim mentality" among protesters - such as "media is suppressing coverage" (no, its just not important enough - the protest is much smaller than an average union rally).

  35. Re:fool. by _0xd0ad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Okay then. How much of the land did the peasants own?

  36. You are deluded about the nature of US government by EnergyScholar · · Score: 3, Informative

    You speak as if elections matter in the USA. I think you've not been paying close attention, else you are deluded. The two branches of the Money Party each field a candidate, and you get to choose between them. That's effectively one party government. The (mostly) young people protesting in New York have figured this out. I'm surprised you have not.

    Also, I'd like to point out that these kids are using the same non-violent resistance techniques that have toppled multiple governments worldwide in the past 12 years. These techniques were pioneered by Gandhi and have been refined considerably since then. They have proven, time and again, to be an effective technique, if and only if there is a free press. While I'm not suggesting that as isolated protest in New York City will cause revolution in the USA, I suspect the powers that be are more concerned than they care to admit. Please recall Gandhi's quote about the use of non-violent direct action techniques, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

    These protests in New York are largely considered practice by the (non) organizers. I suspect that the protesters will learn, through some unpleasant incidents, that they need to engage in more and better non-violent resistance training. The standard mechanism used to stop protests of this sort is to have agent provocateurs incite violence, which is then used as an excuse to crush the public protest with overwhelming force. The way to avoid this is for all people engaging in non-violent direct actions to first practice, in an organized group training environment, how to respond non-violently when confronted with violence or the threat of violence. I don't believe this first round of protesters have had much training.

    Personally, I wish the protesters well, and hope they succeed in raising awareness about just how bad the current US system is. Perhaps, then, some practical ways to deal with the current disaster-in-the-making will be seriously considered. Here is a link to a very mainstream article from the BBC that describes the history of the techniques currently being deployed in New York.

  37. Not really capitalism by terjeber · · Score: 2

    you're basically protesting capitalism.

    You are? Since when was it capitalism that when an investor (or many) made failed investments, the government would jump in and cover their losses? The banks did badly. The "Capitalist" reaction to that, from the government should have been "OK. So what? Good luck". Instead the government took tax-payer money and started shoring up those failed investments. If it hadn't been for this government stupidity, which is 100% the opposite of capitalism, the crisis of 2008 would have been significantly worse, but essentially over before Christmas. In 2008. Due to government intervention funded by tax-payers, we'll pay for this for decades to come.

    Shoring up the banks was socialism. Isn't that what the Wall Street protesters are protesting?