Declaration of Occupy Wall Street

Status
Not open for further replies.
jillio said:
Don't want to get shot at? Don't try to exercise your rights to protest. But, since you don't appear to have any convictions regarding social justice, I doubt seriously that you would ever engage in a protest of any kind, unless it is to rant and rave about 2nd Amendment rights. Consequently, you are more likely to be shot by another rabid gun owner than a cop.:cool2:
Click to expand...

Watch the bouncing ball .....

The right to protest does not grant the right to riot and attack police.
 
Steinhauer said:
Watch the bouncing ball .....

The right to protest does not grant the right to riot and attack police.
Click to expand...

You call that a riot?:laugh2: You have lived a sheltered life!:laugh2:

And the guy lying in the hospital with critical injuries wasn't rioting. He was standing quietly with his hands folded in front of him.:roll:

When riots do break out, however, in is generally in response to unfair action by the police.
 
jillio said:
You call that a riot?:laugh2: You have lived a sheltered life!:laugh2:

And the guy lying in the hospital with critical injuries wasn't rioting. He was standing quietly with his hands folded in front of him.:roll:

When riots do break out, however, in is generally in response to unfair action by the police.
Click to expand...

No, the guy lying in the hospital is your "straw man" to villify police officers.

Was he violating the law?

If he had not been violating the law, would he be lying in a hospital bed?
 
jillio said:
Oh, puhleeze. The man was standing silently with his hands in front of him. And then, after he was critically injured, the police attempted to prevent people from helping him.:roll:
Click to expand...

Something stinks here. :mad:
 
Steinhauer said:
No, the guy lying in the hospital is your "straw man" to villify police officers.

Was he violating the law?

If he had not been violating the law, would he be lying in a hospital bed?
Click to expand...

You call a man that was critically injured by a tear gas canister fired by a cop on a crowd that was not a threat a "strawman"? Man, Steinhauer, you need to see a cardiologist. You have no heart whatsoever.

How was he violating the law by standing peacefully outside the barrier? Keep going. I'm anxious to see what a horrible picture you can paint of yourself in this one.
 
deafskeptic said:
Something stinks here. :mad:
Click to expand...

Exactly. I cannot believe that people are actually defending police action in this. Police presence is what created the tense atmosphere to start with. And then to justify an attack on someone standing quietly. It is unbelievable!
 
jillio said:
Investigating, investigating, investigating. Translated as: trying to find some kind of strawman that will detract from the guilt of the officers.
Click to expand...

*shrug* We will see. The one thing not in question is that he was disobeying a police command which is against the law.
 
TXgolfer said:
*shrug* We will see. The one thing not in question is that he was disobeying a police command which is against the law.
Click to expand...

He was outside the barrier.

Ever hear the term "excessive force"?
 
jillio said:
You call a man that was critically injured by a tear gas canister fired by a cop on a crowd that was not a threat a "strawman"? Man, Steinhauer, you need to see a cardiologist. You have no heart whatsoever.

How was he violating the law by standing peacefully outside the barrier? Keep going. I'm anxious to see what a horrible picture you can paint of yourself in this one.
Click to expand...

Correction .... I am not a "bleeding heart". Is it reasonable to assume this could have been totally avoided if he had complied with the law?
 
jillio said:
He was outside the barrier.

Ever hear the term "excessive force"?
Click to expand...

Ever hear the term "appropriate force"? Tear gas to disperse a crowd is "appropriate force"

I guess people just can't have their way all the time - you know - those silly laws that get in the way ....

Like - uh, dude, this ain't our property and like uh .... heh ... we are tresspassing on it
 
Steinhauer said:
Correction .... I am not a "bleeding heart". Is it reasonable to assume this could have been totally avoided if he had complied with the law?
Click to expand...

You can't be a bleeding heart. You have no heart, nor any ability to empathize.

No, it isn't. It is reasonable to assume that this could have been avoided had the police not used excessive force. In fact, even ordering the protesters to leave was a violation of their rights.
 
Steinhauer said:
Ever hear the term "appropriate force"? Tear gas to disperse a crowd is "appropriate force"

I guess people just can't have their way all the time - you know - those silly laws that get in the way ....

Like - uh, dude, this ain't our property and like uh .... heh ... we are tresspassing on it
Click to expand...

Like I am going to trust you to come up with a judgment on "appropriate" action.:laugh2:

Hey, tell me something? Do you know anything about the constitutional rights of this country other than your misinterpretation of Second Amendment rights? It certainly appears you don't. You want to deny others their rights while demanding yours. Hypocritical, to say the least.

Do you know the meaning of "public property"?
 
jillio said:
He was outside the barrier.

Ever hear the term "excessive force"?
Click to expand...

Heard it ....but I don't see it here. Tear gas is commonly used to disperse crowds. Fact of the matter is they were warned that tear gas would be used and they stayed.
 
TXgolfer said:
Heard it ....but I don't see it here. Tear gas is commonly used to disperse crowds. Fact of the matter is they were warned that tear gas would be used and they stayed.
Click to expand...

Causing critical injury with a tear gas canister certainly isn't routine. We also have the premise of exercising due caution.

Again, he was outside the barrier.
 
I thought so. According to reports on Scott Olsen, he's unable to speak for now due to brain damage.
 
deafskeptic said:
I thought so. According to reports on Scott Olsen, he's unable to speak for now due to brain damage.
Click to expand...

Yes. His injuries were very severe. It is horrible.

Video footage posted to YouTube shows Olsen lying motionless in front of a police line after apparently having been hit. A group of up to 10 protesters gather around him, but a police officer can be seen throwing a device close to the group which then explodes with a bright flash and loud bang, scattering the protesters. The video then cuts to footage of protesters carrying Olsen away as he bleeds from the head.

Oakland Mayor Jean Quan, who was in Washington DC when the clashes occurred, has sought to distance herself from the police action.

"I only asked the chief to do one thing: to do it when it was the safest for both the police and the demonstrators," she said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/28/occupy-oakland-occupy-movement
 
jillio said:
Yes. His injuries were very severe. It is horrible.

Video footage posted to YouTube shows Olsen lying motionless in front of a police line after apparently having been hit. A group of up to 10 protesters gather around him, but a police officer can be seen throwing a device close to the group which then explodes with a bright flash and loud bang, scattering the protesters. The video then cuts to footage of protesters carrying Olsen away as he bleeds from the head.

Oakland Mayor Jean Quan, who was in Washington DC when the clashes occurred, has sought to distance herself from the police action.

"I only asked the chief to do one thing: to do it when it was the safest for both the police and the demonstrators," she said.

Scott Olsen 'cannot talk' after injury at Occupy Oakland protest | World news | guardian.co.uk
Click to expand...

This sounds like a case of unnecessary force to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top