dagblog - Comments for "Video Evidence Suggests Oakland PD Violated CA State Law, Federal Consent Decree in Violent Confrontation With Occupy Oakland Demonstrators"

I knew Devils Island, Devils

NCD — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 00:01:55 +0000

In reply to Obviously they wouldn't hold

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!

The idea that these people

Elusive Trope — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 23:10:27 +0000

In reply to Is this a photo of the day in

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.

Is this a photo of the day in

SleepinJeezus — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 22:58:14 +0000

In reply to And, really, are you saying

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.

you keep using the phrase

Elusive Trope — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 22:44:09 +0000

In reply to I have never denied the

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.

I have never denied the

SleepinJeezus — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 22:23:44 +0000

In reply to You are admitting with this

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!

That it was wantonly thrown

Elusive Trope — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 21:44:14 +0000

In reply to "Want to provide some

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).

And, really, are you saying

Elusive Trope — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 21:28:38 +0000

In reply to Leave it to Trope to take all

And, really, are you saying MLK would agree with this?:

"Want to provide some

SleepinJeezus — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 21:26:23 +0000

In reply to First off I have always said

"Want to provide some evidence that backs that up, I'll watch it."

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!

You are admitting with this

Elusive Trope — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 21:26:07 +0000

In reply to Oakland Officer #1: "These

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.

So you have some evidence of

Elusive Trope — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 21:21:28 +0000

In reply to Oakland Officer #1: "These

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.