Seattle Police Pepper Spray Peaceful Protesters [Video]

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug


My claim has always been that none of us can know what happened prior to the events we see on this video. The police appear to be professionally responding to something that occurred prior to the video starting. The fact that they made preparations before acting seems to indicate that they are taking both their safety and the safety of the protestors into consideration. The police have an obligation to protect both themselves and any other persons in the area. Yes, pepper spray was used. But other than the person who acted aggressively toward the police, I can see no other acts of overt use of force by the police.

Also, the fact that you refer to the police as "little piggies" indicates to me that you do not have an open mind on this matter and are going to take exception with whatever points I may have on this subject.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by Big Trouble in Little Chi

 

Do you think you have the right to ignore other peoples rights?

No, but the police sure do as evidenced by their suppression of free speech.

How would you personally deal with people who unlawfully stomp all over everyone elses rights?

I certainly wouldn't be doing what you are, which is blindly defending the very people "who unlawfully stomp all over everyone's rights".

It's about people who have zero respect for everyone else and consider themselves special and that they can do whatever they want to others.

This is completely disingenuous and you should be ashamed for writing it.

The real people who consider themselves special are the ones in the conglomerate that is comprised of the bankers and politicians. They belong in jail, not the brave people who are protesting their corruption.

I know everyone here hates cops, and this post won't be popular, but sometimes the facts aren't popular.

The first aggressive action was taken by a protester. Now, in Seattle, the police have been explicitly told that, rather than break out the night sticks and tear gas, pepper spray is more appropriate to deal with an agressive/non-compliant person. The Governer has appologized to all peaceful protesters that may have got caught up in anything, and reminded them that as long as they stay peaceful there's no problem.

He made it clear that he was not sorry to anyone who was agressive towards the police because the worst they got was pepper spray. To me its an appropriate response to aggression, and won't escalate things like beating people with night sticks will.

Now, the old lady that got sprayed... She was more concerned about how she looked in the photos of her after being sprayed, than actually being sprayed. It doesn't even sound like she cared all that much about OWS because in an interview she pretty much said she's a professional protester (maybe amatuer, I'm not saying people are paying her to protest) because she saw the crowd as she was riding on a bus and decided that "I can't miss this" (her words in a radio interview).

Personally, I say let the people protest as long as they're peaceful. If you practice civil disobedience, you're going to get arrested, dispersed, etc. and anyone who doesn't accept this fact is an idiot.I'm just glad Seattle uses spray instead of sticks.

You stop being peacefull when you block a street. It's not a matter of police spraying peacefull protesters. It's a matter of police trying to brake up a group who with intent and knowledge chose to brake the law.

Originally posted by Big Trouble in Little Chi

No, but the police sure do as evidenced by their suppression of free speech.

Blocking streets has nothing to do with free speech.

reply to post by GringoViejo

sometimes the facts aren't popular.

The first aggressive action was taken by a protester.

No. That is not fact. That is your opinion (unless you are privy to more information than just this video). The first thing we see on the video is a cop using a bicycle as a weapon in a very aggressive manor.

The Governer has appologized to all peaceful protesters that may have got caught up in anything, and reminded them that as long as they stay peaceful there's no problem.

Oh that makes it ok then. Don't worry guys, we can indiscriminately pepper spray peaceful protestors because the Governor has apologized in advance for us.

I couldn't think of more ideal conditions than that to exploit agent provocateur tactics.

and won't escalate things like beating people with night sticks will.

Who needs night sticks when you have bicycles?

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Blocking streets has nothing to do with free speech.

You don't say? If that is the case, several live feeds in NYC show the protesters on the sidewalks and the police in the streets blocking traffic. At one point, there was even a convoy of 50+ police vehicles (mostly gas-guzzling SUV's) speeding recklessly through the streets.

Funny that the "blocking streets" excuse is backfiring.

Don't know what backwaters place you are from but at least in the civilized world that's what the police excist for. It's called "enforcing the law" in case you want to google it or something.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Don't know what backwaters place you are from but at least in the civilized world that's what the police excist for. It's called "enforcing the law" in case you want to google it or something.

I live in a large, crime-ridden city with a metropolitan population of 2,690,886, nearly half of your country's population.

I don't know how peaceful the police are in Finland, but I've seen firsthand both police brutality and police enforcing the law. What happened in Seattle was undoubtedly the former. Pepper-spraying an old woman who is exercising her First Amendment rights is about the most un-American thing I've ever heard of.

You're still claiming that blocking a street is 1st amendment right? Did police order them to stop protesting? No. Did the police go spraying everyone who was protesting? No. Did the police order them to clear the road and then spray those who refused? Yes.
I cant believe this isn't obvious.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
You're still claiming that blocking a street is 1st amendment right?

You are putting words in my mouth and it is completely dishonest. If you read my reply a few clicks up the page you will see that cops block the streets and cause traffic more than the protesters do.

Also the first Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." This means that if these people wish to protest in the street, no law can say otherwise. You say this is disruptive and a nuisance? That's the point of protesting to people who won't listen.

"PsykoOps" pretty clear by your handle what your aim is here

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug


Yes, I am privy to a bit more information than the video, if I didn't live in Seattle I probably wouldn't. But for the sake of argument lets assume its an opinion.

Anyways, no, its not okay to spray peaceful and non-peaceful protesters alike. If it were okay why would the governer appologize?

But to be honest, it doesn't matter who started it. The fact of the matter is, that even if they didn't start it, the protesters fought back. I know when your in danger of bodily harm this seems like a logical reaction. But if you're having a peaceful protest, then its a counterproductive reaction. In the 60's, and even more commonly in other countries like india, the people knew this. That's why people recall protesters, not fighting back, but often piling on top of a fellow protester to try and protect them, or you would see people basically rescuing others. This wasn't lost on the public and helped win a lot of support. It exposed the opposition for what it was. It takes courage and discipline to take a beating willingly.

The problem with the use of violent confrontation strategies is that they quickly escalate to the point where the parties' only concerns are victory, vengeance, and self-defense. In these cases, the moral arguments of people who are being unjustly treated become irrelevant. What matters is that they have used violent strategies and their opponent is, therefore, justified in a violent response. This problem is complicated by the fact that both sides are usually able to argue that the other side started the violence.

www.colorado.edu...

I worte a thread about the subject here www.abovetopsecret.com...

So far its pretty unpopular with anyone that supports OWS, but in light of recent events I think the strategies covered are even more important and ultimately helpful.

reply to post by Big Trouble in Little Chi


I'm putting words to your mouth? Are you denying that you wrote these:

Originally posted by Big Trouble in Little Chi
Pepper-spraying an old woman who is exercising her First Amendment rights is about the most un-American thing I've ever heard of.

Originally posted by Big Trouble in Little Chi
No, but the police sure do as evidenced by their suppression of free speech.

And then you quote constitution again. Again making this a 1st amendment issue when infact it has nothing to do with free speech. 1st amendment does not say "Anyone can block or do whatever they wish on streets. Pitching a tent in the middle of a highway is everyones right".