MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
Hits of the Day
Video Evidence Suggests Oakland PD Violated CA State Law, Federal Consent Decree in Violent Confrontation With Occupy Oakland Demonstrators
By SleepinJeezus on Sat, 11/05/2011 - 3:25pm |And there are some who will still argue that it is irresponsible to exercise free speech rights and the rights of free assembly if there is possibility it will provoke a police riot.
URL:
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/690611/video_evidence_suggests_oakland_pd_violated_ca_state_law%2C_federal_consent_decree_in_violent_confrontation_with_occupy_oakland_demonstrators/#paragraph3
- Add new comment
- 2575 reads
Comments
It really all comes down to this, from the bulletin linked to in the article:
Ultimately to claim demonstrators pose a clear and present danger of imminent violence is a judgment call. Whether the acting officer Sgt Bates was correct in this assessment is open to debate. One can base one's opinion on one obviously edited video or not. But he made the call then made the announcement:
The question for those there was: "do I stay (and possibly be arrested and tear gassed) as a way to express that I disagree with this judgment call?" or "do I leave and fight the judgment call in different venues?"
The Bulletin clearly states in its opening definitions
But it also then states immediately afterward:
Now if one wants a free for all in the arena of free speech, I can give you plenty of scenarios which any true liberal will cringe at and call for the government to impose those reasonable expectations.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 11/05/2011 - 4:43pm
Leave it to Trope to take all the history of non-violent demonstrations and turn it on its head.
There is not a doubt that Trope would have counseled the Little Rock 9 to stay away from that school because it would upset the white people and be interpreted as a provocation worthy of a police riot in response. Can you promise Trope that absolutely 100% of the black community wil refrain from responding to police abuse in non-violent fashion? If not, you better stay home because your exercise of your rights will be delegitimized (according to Trope).
And Trope would gladly have stood beside Bull Connor to turn the firehoses on the protestors in Birmingham. Sonsabitches got exactly what they deserved because they was disturbing the peace, goddammit. He's sympathetic to these sonsabitches, alright, but how can they ever hope to gain any rights if they keep INSISTING upon them in this way? Can't hey see that all hey are doing is pissing people off? Oh, the horror!
People embrace non-violent resistance quite deliberately, Trope. They in fact invite arrest and take full responsibility for whatever "illegal" actions they commit. And they know that there is a possibility of police abuse, as well. And so no one is surprised at the police riot in Oakland. But they are right to insist that the police rioters be held accountable for their actions, even as they police their own membership to control violence within the ranks.
Read MLK's Letter from Birmingham Jail, Trope. Please. Before you dig this hole any deeper. All the nuance in the world ain't going to make your argument that the non-violent exercise of rights to speech and assembly and non-violent resistance should somehow be self-limited out of concern for the response it might attract from the authorities. That's just crazy-talk.
by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 2:56am
Your response is just a bunch accusations that don't address at all what I am talking about.
In the end, there is a debate of whether there violence exhibited by some of those assembled, and whether the police were correct in assessing the assembly of people that met the definition of an unlawful assembly.
That you refer to it as a police riot shows you have come to your conclusion on the matter. Although I read protesters who did not deny the reports of violence on some of the participants part. So it is within the realm of sanity to make the case that the police were in their rights to break up this particular gathering.
It doesn't matter if some of the people in the crowd fully embraced non-violence.
It may be nuance to you, but not all assemblies of people in the street are not created equal.
A few other things. First it plain offensive that you would assert that I "would would have counseled the Little Rock 9 to stay away from that school because it would upset the white people and be interpreted as a provocation worthy of a police riot in response." Obviously you so blinded by your ideological beliefs that you cannot read properly. You just see someone who doesn't see those on the protest side as pure angels as devils. It is what they call fanaticism, with all of its uncritical zeal.
And I have read those letters. It just proves my point that you make some assumption that obviously I have not. Actually what I would recommend is that anyone in the movement read the letters, because I can bet many have not.
by Elusive Trope on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 1:11pm
Oakland Officer #1: "These damned protestors are really getting under my skin."
Oakland Officer #2: "Yeah, it sure would be nice to break it up and send 'em all home."
Oakland Officer #1: "We can do even better than that! Hey, Bill! Take a couple guys with you, go down there in street clothes and toss a couple rocks at the police line! We'll beat the f*ck outa' them hippies!"
In Trope's world, a very plausible way to quell any exercise of free speech or assembly.
Also, a very good way to ensure violence becomes the coin of the realm.
And yes, Trope, this addresses very precisely what you are talking about, especially in light of your failure to provide any evidence at all that the protestors presented any general threat of mayhem and violence. The record shows otherwise; that in fact the riot began in the uniformed crowd that brought the weapons and the gear and the attitude.
I suggest you review what kgb has written elsewhere in this thread. He gets it, and he's been much more eloquent than me in explaining just how full of shit you are! LOL!
by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 4:09pm
So you have some evidence of this conversation? Or is just something you made up, but has now taken on the illumination of reality in your memory? Is this the fictional conversation which you derive your conclusions about the incident? Is this how you deny that even the occupiers acknowledged the rock throwing etc? And was it police officers who took over that building, lit barricades on fire, etc? You are so blinded by your desire to see all those who went to the streets as angels you can't tell what is just some story in your imagination and what actually happened.
by Elusive Trope on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 4:21pm
You are admitting with this little story, by the way, that the rock and bottle throwing did indeed occur, except in your alter reality it was police provocateurs. So it didn't happened, but if it did, then it wasn't the protesters. Continued pathetic attempts to ignore reality, really.
by Elusive Trope on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 4:26pm
I have never denied the possibility that rocks or bottles were thrown. But it was clearly not a standard practice of the crowd, which is seen on video to be overwhelmingly non-violent and non-threatening to the cops or to the greater public.
If rocks or bottles were thrown, it would appear by the video record to be the work of outliers or even by agent provocateurs. This is ALWAYS a possibility, and should be considered within a crowd management plan exercised by any responsible police action. HINT: Such a plan would NOT include "police riot" as proper response to limited incoming non-lethal projectiles.
Continued pathetic attempts to construct a strawman that fits your lousy logic. Pathetic, indeed!
by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 5:23pm
you keep using the phrase "police riot" and then construct your argument around that as if it was a truism. There is nothing I have seen to say it was a police riot. One shock blast a riot does not make. Nor is the use of tear gas after the announcement that tear gas would be used if people did not disperse.
You create an altered reality - a police riot occurred - and then construct all statement base on this.
The point is that the police can declare an assembly of people unlawful if they believe there is a potential for violence. So no rocks and and bottles actually need to have been thrown per se. In the end it doesn't matter if 97% of the people were there to be peaceful, if the presence of the 3% created a situation which the police deemed it necessary to disperse the crowd. You are arguing that the police have to ignore that 3% (or 2% or whatever). It is debatable, but it is debatable. It has nothing to do with strawmen or red herrings.
And do you have any evidence whatsoever it was agent provocateurs or is just wish on your part? And the notion that the elements that showed up on the night of the day long strike weren't there during this event is sort of kind of laughable.
by Elusive Trope on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 5:44pm
Your fallacious arguments are nothing short of Orwellian. An Incident Commander has no more discretion to declare a peaceful assembly an imminent threat than you have to declare that night is day.
Whether the OPD declaration of an "unlawful assembly" was itself lawful must be determined by the objective facts on the ground
by c-5 (not verified) on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 2:03pm
And, really, are you saying MLK would agree with this?:
by Elusive Trope on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 4:28pm
Is this a photo of the day in question? Or is this a subsequent demonstration after the police action (aka "police riot") that resulted in the injury to Scott Hansen?
It's a very important distinction here, Trope, and you know it. Relates to the JFK quote quite explicitly, and quite counter to your continuing nonsense.
HINT: I haven't seen ANYTHING closely resembling this kind of activity in Madison, where nearly continual street protests - some with over 100,000 people in attendance - have been ongoing since February.
by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 5:58pm
The idea that these people just happen to show up is as I said before laughable. Suddenly they're wearing fatigues etc. This element was there that day and they were there the day in question. It is not something you want to accept - not all committed Buddhists. I have dealth with this kind of folks in organizing rallies. They drove me crazy when they weren't pissing me off. And if a situation has been created where these kind of folks feel they have carte blanche to act then the police need to intervene, even if 97% of the folks are there to be peaceful. It is sad, but that is the way it is.
And now you seem to be also saying that they are being violent as a result of the one night in question. If that didn't happened then they wouldn;t have been driven to such acts. And as such is acceptable.
Go ahead keep making excuses and ignoring the reality on the ground.
And maybe just maybe Madison doesn't have the anarchist contingency that Oakland has and thus different results. You know, something to think about is the concept that every community is exactly like every other community.
by Elusive Trope on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 6:10pm
Interestingly, that has nothing to do with the legal basis OPD used to justify the deployment of potentially-lethal force. It appears as if the default legal interpretation from the standpoint of the Mayor's office and Police Chief is that, absent "rocks and bottles being thrown" by the protesters, the protest would have been fully protected under the 1st Amendment and supported by the authorities. And I think that's probably a wise stance both politically and because there is quite a lot of court precedent supporting people's right to demonstrate - even when it's inconvenient for those who may be running the government (who should NEVER be confused for "the government" - belonging to the people - that they are merely caretakers of).
The police do not have the authority to arbitrarily place the restrictions you highlight, their mandate ONLY allows unilateral action in the instance of a clear public safety threat and then only to the limited extent necessary to protect the public (also interesting, this mandate does not elevate force protection over the protection of civilians - just the opposite). Policy makers with authority to place such restrictions on *peaceful* demonstrations apparently had not done so in this case - or at least have denied doing so publicly.
As such, the important part of this article is the detailed deconstruction - exactly matching my earlier analysis - that indicates nothing was thrown at the officers prior to the events occurring. And in that regard, this link should make you happy ... they spoon-fed you what you lazily demanded of me.
So, it now becomes critically germane to the issue; how's it going on your quest to find a shred of footage that supports your/OPDs assertion of protesters engaging in violence that could possibly have justified the attacks? Or are you ready to concede the point and acknowledge no such violence occurred?
Without that - despite your observations being questionably applicable in the case that Oakland's official position were that the protest itself was illegal *regardless* protester behavior - it seems pretty difficult to assert the police didn't go beyond their remit under the law , which is indeed a crime, under the color of duty no less.
by kgb999 on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 12:20pm
The cops are lying, yet it's likely nothing will happen to them. In some cities, the cops are rotten to the core, Oakland seems to fit that description.
Another 'keeping us safe' story from just a couple days ago, by NYC cops:
From the comments following: 'You know NYPD is out of control when it starts treating white people with the same disrespect and denigration that it has always treated black people....'
My post-Knapp Commission (Knapp 'cleaned up' NYC cops) recollections of NYC cops include when my father, who ran a 20+ employee research facility on Columbia University property, had to pay off the local NYC cops to get the permit approved to move heavy and very expensive equipment across the sidewalk and into a university building. Shaking down Columbia employees (actually the contractor handled the dough) in broad daylight and on a public street. Also, our next door neighbor in Jersey, who ran a NYC bar, complained that the cops regularly came by his bar for payment, which ended only when the criminals the cops worked with told him to stop paying the cops, and pay him instead, he would 'take care of' the cops. He did, they never came back.
by NCD on Sat, 11/05/2011 - 5:28pm
Okay, will you be willing to go on the record as to never to hold any city and its police force liable for any illegal action taken by any person that could have been taken into custody and then wasn't because the officers claimed they made a "judgment call" at the time of the encounter?
I would add my first half hour of roaming Paris in Left Bank with a few of my fellow creative writing students ended with four police officers confronting us and asking us for our passports. We produced them. They spent a while looking them over and talking among themselves as we waited anxiously. Then they let us go. But I would guess that had one of us not had our documentation with us, that person would have been hauled away.
(maybe a personal note of transparency for all those out there - the student building we stayed in that summer was next to a police station in the Latin Quarter which was a target of a terrorist bombing at a later date.)
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 11/05/2011 - 5:51pm
One of the big things that I remember which made America awesome compared to other places in the world is that you didn't have to live in fear of leaving your papers at home or facing arbitrary arrest. If I recall, that was exactly how many a dissident found their way into the jail cells of the former USSR. Another big one was not having to face demands for documentation to be allowed to move from area to area. You believe in all the economic nonsense of Reganism ... and NONE of the positive genuine commitment to American-style freedom that also marked the national tone he set. Way to choose the absolute worst of an era to celebrate.
And your entire premise is bullshit anyhow. You have no idea what would have happened if one of you had forgotten your passports back at the hotel. Maybe the officers would have escorted you back to retrieve it. Maybe they would have called your hotel to confirm registration. I've know a lot of folks who visited France ... never once heard of anyone getting hauled off to jail for forgetting their wallet back at the room.
by kgb999 on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 2:33pm
Obviously they wouldn't hold them in Paris where people would notice.
I visited some of the gulags in Nice and surrounds, where undocumented tourists were held on less-than-subsistence diets so that everyone looked deathly skinny and exposed to the sun in less than adequate clothing - some treated like animals, wearing nothing at all. It was like being on Devil's Island, I tell you.
by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 2:49pm
I knew Devils Island, Devils Island was a haunt of mine, friends, Nice, Monaco or Marseille are not Devils Island, they are far, far worse!
by NCD on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 7:01pm
And if there were active protests going on in the streets (those have been known to happen in Paris) would they have behaved differently than on a sunny quiet summer day - yeah probably. If they felt were Americans who had come to participate in the unrest - would they have treated us differently - yeah probably. The point is that is not an act of fascism for the police to ensure that people have documentation. The point is that you do need legal identification in this country - call it papers or drivers license. And I have had a friend who was hauled in because he didn't have one - outside a rock concert and the cops were looking obviously for any reason to haul any of us in.
by Elusive Trope on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 2:59pm
Fact is, you don't actually need legal identification in America. We have imposed a USSR-style requirement to have papers in order to travel in most instances, but there is no requirement to have it. Trust me. I live in Idaho ... right next to Montana and Eastern Washington - atop Utah and Nevada. Big world out there in America.
Incidentally, that's why a bunch of people - from nuns to the elderly - have been systemically disenfranchised when the GOPers made it a requirement to have a drivers license in order to vote. Which, from the view expressed here, I assume is *another* republican tactic and policy approach that you are drawing breath to speak glowingly of?
And BTW, it should be noted. Isn't France where they outlawed Muslim dress ... and speaking English? More to the point, who gives a fuck what the French do? If you want to live where they do things like they do in France ... shouldn't you just move to France rather than fuck up America?
by kgb999 on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 3:31pm
And it is quite the debate tactic you used there by attempting to place me in the camp for Voter ID requirements. Actually, the word I would use for that debate technique is sloppy, or maybe pathetic. It reeks of desperation.
And I assume you only eat freedom fries.
And since the French don't have the death penalty, and we do, based on your logic, you are pro death penalty.
by Elusive Trope on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 3:57pm
Good grief. BTB, Trope.
by kyle flynn on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 4:02pm
Huh?
Business to Business? Back to Basics? Bob the Builder? Bite the Bullet? Bring the Booty? Better than Beer? Belize Tourism Board?
by Elusive Trope on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 4:13pm
“A revolution is coming – a revolution which will be peaceful if we are wise enough; compassionate if we care enough; successful if we are fortunate enough – but a revolution which is coming whether we will it or not. We can affect its character; we cannot alter its inevitability.”
JFK
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 11/05/2011 - 5:50pm
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. JFK
Just who "those" are is the question. Is it only some on the law enforcement side? Aye, there's the rub.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 11/05/2011 - 5:55pm
Trope, you're wrong. There is no question about who "those" are.
by kyle flynn on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 1:07am
Eggzackly, Kyle. It has been Oakland Police's "judgment call" to riot and express violence as their response to the protestors.
Here in Madison, the police have been particularly astute at avoiding violence - even when confronted with well over 100,000 protestors at the Capitol on a couple different occasions.
Oakland has trouble with vandalism and violence as a feature of the ongoing protest there within the first hours of its development.
Violence and vandalism and mayhem are not a part of the ongoing protest in Madison.
"We can affect its character," said JFK "but we cannot affect its inevitability."
I've seen the video of the authority's "judgment call" being acted upon in Oakland. I've participated in the demonstrations in Madison. With confidence in the similarities in both situations, I would say the violent "character" of the demonstrations we see in Oakland was made inevitable by the violence of the police action.
JFK was right. Trope is wrong. Go figure! ;O)
by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 1:57am
Same here in Olympia, Sleepin.
Reasonable minds can see that the occupy movement is characterized as a non violent protest of the deep and completely unacceptable inequality of wealth and political power in our country and around the world. It's peaceful, by definition. Responsibility for the violence so far, and the violence to come, falls squarely in the lap of "law enforcement." You know the apparatus I'm referring to--the one with all the guns, armor, chemical weapons and apparently the judgment to put it all to use. But fuck 'em. They can keep it. We'll hang onto the moral authority. Every last drop.
by kyle flynn on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 1:01pm
What does that even mean? That even if protesters utilize violence they are actually being peaceful? Or that if violence is used, if they have less violent apparatus at their disposal then it should be considered peaceful? That the moral authority of the movement means it can do no violence in the means to its ends? How could angels do violence?
by Elusive Trope on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 1:23pm
C'mon Trope. Why do you hate America?
by kyle flynn on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 2:36pm
The type of question asked by someone caught in their own ideological hyperbole.
by Elusive Trope on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 3:01pm
I assume you are aware of the context in which JFK was speaking ... which seems difficult to twist into the pretzel of a point you appear to be trying to make. He was clearly speaking as a national leader to the responsibility of national leaders in relation to hearing and empowering the democratic will of their populations.
The "those" in question are those who have bought and sold our freedom - and who give orders to law enforcement. A call went out from someone with command authority and the decision to make the call was arrived at through some series of consultations. For example, in Oakland, It's not like the front-line law enforcement officers fell back, held a quick assembly which reached consensus to pass out gas masks, issue one final dispersal order and open fire.
In some places, such as Albany, the police told policy makers that their mandate to preserve public safety precluded their political desire to mandate the police approach. Which seems to be a response much more in line with what I understand to be the protocol for crowd management and escalation of force in tense situations and mandate of America's peace officers. So, certainly there is room for some police forces to grow to understand their power within their mandate to help support peaceful action rather than accommodate political posturing to turn it violent - but it doesn't change the fact that the officers taking action aren't the ones giving the orders.
Individual action, such as tossing a flash-bang into a crowd of people clearly helping an injured person should be viewed and prosecuted as what they are - a sick individual taking advantage of a chaotic situation to carry out an act of sadism. He doesn't represent law enforcement in any way shape or form. That is a different issue than the institutional posture a police force adopts in relation to protests and the command decisions that led to creating the chaotic situation which nurtured the sadistic act..
The policy makers and political brass of the OPD hold accountability for the orders given. The individuals and interests they choose to consult and accommodate in crafting and implementing those orders - and the orders they give - determines if they fall on the side of empowering peaceful revolution or making violent revolution inevitable.
by kgb999 on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 3:32pm
First off I have always said that if there were actions taken by police that deserve to be punished should be punished. I have never taken the stance that the Oakland police individually or collectively are innocent of any charge of abuse or brutality.
My beef has always been with those who want to simply place all the guilt onto one side of the issue. There are those who want to make the case that there were protesters who were throwing objects at the police. They can believe what they can believe.
Individuals on the protest side need to be accountable for their actions. If they facilitate an atmosphere which can lead the law enforcement officials from concluding that greater violence in possible, then they are facilitating the violent revolution. It doesn't matter that their political beliefs are good and decent.
That doesn't mean that the police also helped facilitate it. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation, which is what most people seem hell bent on asserting.
The only video evidence I have been presented (by anti-police posters) do not show that the officer shooting the flash-bang knowingly did it into a group helping someone. It looks like an idiot shooting blindly and thus should suffer disciplinary action accordingly. But you have seen into his heart and thus can make the assessment that it was a "sadistic" act. Want to provide some evidence that backs that up, I'll watch it.
by Elusive Trope on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 4:09pm
OMG! Incredibly obtuse. We've seen the video record. But how do we know that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't just hunting pigeons? How do we know that the Al Qaeda air force actually INTENDED to fly into the WTC? Maybe they were just bad pilots?
To accept your premise is totally absurd. You would argue that what we are watching on the video was not necessarily a purposeful attack on an injured non-combatant and on those who came to his rescue. In doing so, you argue it is plausible that flash grenades are instead wantonly thrown about with no degree of targeting, which is an equally reprehensible use of these weapons.
You've dug quite a hole, Trope. And you've done it in pursuit of some kind of intellectual exercise in place of an application of common sense and compassion. Good luck with that!
by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 4:26pm
That it was wantonly thrown about with no degree of targeting is exactly what I am arguing - and I am also arguing that the officer involved should suffer the appropriate consequences (ie punishment) for doing so.
And this isn't some intellectual exercise. It is the real life of push and shove between the ability of populace to exercise their right to express their opinions and the ability of the government to maintain order. One only has to check out the Whole Foods and other businesses in Oakland during the generally peaceful march to see what I am talking about.
In the end you are arguing that common sense says the cops are all in the wrong and the protesters did nothing wrong. Or is it compassion - that requires one to ignore whatever the protesters did because their intentions or goals were for a good cause (something the anti-abortionist protesters also used when they tried to shut down clinics and terrorize those who sought to use their services).
by Elusive Trope on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 4:44pm