OWS protests turn violent in Oakland, CA.

[PaulConventionWV]

hxxp://news.yahoo.com/oakland-tense-police-protesters-clash-100606437.html


Hours after nightfall Tuesday evening, protesters had gathered at a downtown library and began marching toward City Hall in an attempt to re-establish a presence in the area of the disbanded camp.

They were met by police officers in riot gear. Several small skirmishes broke out and officers cleared the area by firing tear gas.

The scene repeated itself several times just a few blocks away in front of the plaza, where police set up behind metal barricades, preventing protesters from gaining access to the site.

Tensions would build as protesters edged ever closer to the police line and reach a breaking point with a demonstrator hurling a bottle or rock, prompting police to respond with another round of gas.

[Sematary]

I watched a bunch of stuff on this morning. They couldn't find anyone who confirm that the protesters hurled anything at the police and one report had the police denying that THEY fired the tear gas but that the protesters had done that. Smells fishy to me. The multiple reports I read when coalesced, look like the cops showed up to evict the protesters and when they wouldn't, they started firing tear gas and bean bag bullets, etc...
Proves once again - our government supports protesting overseas but not in it's own land

[pcosmar]

The violence ALWAYS starts from the Government.

It's what they do.

[PaulConventionWV]

I watched a bunch of stuff on this morning. They couldn't find anyone who confirm that the protesters hurled anything at the police and one report had the police denying that THEY fired the tear gas but that the protesters had done that. Smells fishy to me. The multiple reports I read when coalesced, look like the cops showed up to evict the protesters and when they wouldn't, they started firing tear gas and bean bag bullets, etc...
Proves once again - our government supports protesting overseas but not in it's own land

Yep, that was grounds for a Supreme Court case during the Civil Rights Movement. Now, people barely raise an eyebrow at police violence. It's uncanny how irrelevant it's become that the police can do almost anything, and nobody cares. It's really quite scary that they can get away with just about anything now.

[vita3]

I was in NYC yesterday checking out OWS. Way too many police officers there.

[Created4]

I haven't been following the story in Oakland, but was the "plaza" across from City Hall where they were gathering private property? I wouldn't be too quick to lump all police into a single category ("the government"). They have a legitimate function and many of them may even be sympathizers to the protesters. Private property and private business rights should not be violated when honoring the right to protest, and of course neither should violence be allowed to disrupt business and people's rights to access public property.

[oyarde]

Better be careful in Oakland , not for the weak and timid there .....

[Coolidge/Dawes '24]

I haven't been following the story in Oakland, but was the "plaza" across from City Hall where they were gathering private property? I wouldn't be too quick to lump all police into a single category ("the government"). They have a legitimate function and many of them may even be sympathizers to the protesters. Private property and private business rights should not be violated when honoring the right to protest, and of course neither should violence be allowed to disrupt business and people's rights to access public property.

This. I wouldn't be too quick to paint the entire Oakland police force with a broad brush, either. A lot of these protestors are utterly disrespectful when it comes to other peoples' property rights, and I would even go so far as to say that some of their actions would qualify as trespassing. Not just in Oakland, but across the country. Take, for example, some of the organizers who march onto the lawns of bank executives and shout at them with bullhorns. Your right to speak freely does not supersede a homeowner's right to defend his turf against trespassers. The property owner either gives you permission to enter the premises, or denies you access. He has no obligation to listen to people blather on about how evil or wicked or corrupt he is. He has no obligation to listen to ideas that he finds reprehensible, or give strangers a platform on which to denounce him, or put up with smelly, dirt-faced, adolescent brats screaming in his face. He is the one who holds title to the land. His signature is the one scribbled on the deed. He is the one who takes care of the building, furnishes the yard, pays the bills on the heating, lighting, etc. When somebody occupies your property without asking, and strolls onto your lawn uninvited, you have every right to a) expel him yourself (using brute force if necessary) or b) ask the police to do it for you. I, for one, would cheer if one of these lawn-invaders got maced in the eyes.

Are there some disturbing cases of police brutality at these events? Sure. But not all of it is ipso facto unjustified. We hear a lot of sob stories about cops "beating up" peaceful protestors at Brooklyn Bridge, especially from the movement's apologists, but what we don't hear is that these folks themselves were violating the rights of others. Law enforcement officials warned activists several days in advance to stay off the road and do their marching on the walkway so they wouldn't be blocking vehicles trying to drive across. Turns out some of the Occupiers saw this as the perfect opportunity to get the movement some publicity... by deliberately staging a mass arrest. You had organizers planning this whole thing ahead of time. I'm not saying that every single person marching that day was purposely trying to cause mischief, but there were some troublemakers who were trying to do that very thing. The more devious among them thought that if enough people disobeyed the cops' orders, and got themselves arrested, they'd get more coverage from the MSM and possibly even win some sympathy from the American public. They were right. It certainly caused a stir on the cable news networks. People were already handing out flyers on what a person should do if he/she got arrested days beforehand. Would it be a mistake to call this a partial PR stunt? Make a scene, get pinned down by the fuzz, record it on camera, post it on YouTube, get the public riled up, make national headlines... sounds like it to me. Does the right of people to freely assemble/speak their minds override the right of people to communte to work and get home to their children and families? Not in my book.

I hate police brutality just as much as the next person, but to say that these cops are just looking for stupid reasons to jump hippies and beat them for absolutely no reason whatsoever (other than the adrenaline rush they supposedly get out of it) is ridiculous. We have stoned dudes, on TAPE, throwing bottles and garbage at police officers. Several of these activists are trashing privately owned parks and refusing to pick up after themselves. Anonymous organizers are calling up law enforcement agencies and making explicit threats. We have people holding up signs of bank execs with pikes pierced through their heads. Many are openly pushing for the execution of corporate CEOS. We have self-avowed commies and socialists calling for a Jacobin-style revolution complete with gulliotines and bloodshed. Peaceful protestors my ass.

And what about that gay dude who was jumped by several police officers? Turns out he elbowed a cop in the face and threw liquid on him. And after being attacked, he tried to transmit the officer with HIV. Are we just supposed to ignore the cop cars that were vandalized, or the food carts and shops that were terrorized, or the bystanders who were assaulted, or the officers some jackasses tried to knock down during a police barricade? No doubt a lot of these protestors are peaceful citizens just trying to get their voices heard through an incredibly popular and well-known public forum. But a huge swath of them are either inciting violence or actually committing it. And it's really annoying that people are weeping like babies (and gasping in complete and utter SHOCK) when these folks get peppersprayed in the face or pummeled to the ground. What the fuck were you expecting?

I know a lot of the "cosmolibertarians" (i.e. libertines) think you should be able to do whatever the hell you want, say whatever the hell you want, and express yourself however the hell you want on public property, which all of us are forced to pay for at gunpoint. Now, in my ideal world, all property would be owned in private, by voluntarily financed organizations (businesses, corporations, religious groups, hospitals, charities, conservationists, zookeepers, etc.) and individuals. Nothing would be owned by the State, which relies on pure coercion, intimidation, threats, violence, etc. to gather funds, provide services, and keep itself going. But unfortunately we don't live in that world. It's a horizonal goal that we should all strive for (and the fight is a worthy one), but let's be realistic: it won't be achieved in our lifetimes. In the meantime, what is the proper role of government in regulating conduct on land "owned" and "financed" by the State? Again, the cosmolibertarians would say: let these public domains degenerate into dirty, God-forsaken cesspools. People should have unrestricted freedom of speech and freedom of action on taxpayer-funded property, they say, as long as no legs are broken or limbs blown off. In other words, there should be no rules of conduct on property owned and managed by the State. But take that argument to its logical extreme. The Gillepsies and the Welches of the world say they have the right to express themselves however they want and say whatever the hell they want on publicly owned property. But what about my right not to be exposed to filth, vulgarity, obscenity, nudity, and all that other yucky stuff we old-fashioned types don't want to put up with? I don't want to encounter naked people humping rabbits in front of my face on the sidewalk. I don't want to walk into a public library and deal with dirty, drunken bums swearing at my children, pissing in corners, and smearing crap all over the carpet. Yet the libertines want to force that on me, whether I like it or not, in the name of protecting my freedoms. Pshh.

I take a different approach: as long as the State is seizing my earnings to purchase and maintain the land "they" own, they should treat the land as if it were privately owned by a sensible person or corporation. Murray Rothbard took this position, as did Ayn Rand (for all you naysayers out there). It's not "unlibertarian" to expect adherence to civilizational norms, or manners, or decency on publicly owned property. As with private property, there should be rules of conduct on how it may be used. The State should be able to lay down some reasonable expectations: who may set foot on the premises, when one may set foot on the premises, how long one may set foot on the premises, what one may do or say on the premises, and so forth. These are the conditions upon which people may be permitted to enter. If those conditions are breached, then force or expulsion may be necessary. (This is why some libertarians are in favor of immigration controls, for instance.) So if you're caught taking a dump on the sidewalk, or urinating in an alleyway, or exposing your genitals to minors, or "occupying" a park at a certain time in a certain place without permission, don't expect me to cry you a river when you get arrested (or smacked, pummeled, maced, etc. for resisting arrest).

As far as the Oakland riots go, I do think the police went a little overboard, but they were right to use force against the mob. As columnist John Hayward notes:


What if the Tea Party had occupied a city park for weeks, defied lawful orders to leave from very deferential authorities, organized a violent resistance to the police that resulted in someone getting critically injured, and re-occupied the park while the submissive mayor declared her support for their goals? Honestly, what would you have said about it, and how do you think the media would have reported it? Are you embracing the notion that the police have no right to resist mob actions, and if so, are there any minimum size or ideological requirements a mob should have to qualify for immunity to civil law? Also, does the presence of a military veteran confer absolute moral authority and legal impunity upon any mob, or only leftist ones?

The individual officers who participated in last night’s police action will have to answer questions about their actions, as cops always do. If a fair investigation reveals some of them acted inappropriately, they should face appropriate consequences. While that’s going on, the organizers of Occupy Oakland should be facing charges for inciting the riot. Civilizations that will not defend themselves die beneath the heels of anti-civilization. It’s as true at both municipal and global levels.

This is why I'm so disturbed when Ron Paul eagerly jumps on the OWS bandwagon. At least Rand knows what a bunch of "spoiled little brats" they are (his words, not mine). And he also predicted that this "Paris mob" would erupt into violence long before any of us did. It's only a matter of time before people start breaking open windows to get "theirs." I don't want to know what happens after that. I honestly don't.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_dg0GSL36g