OWS Protestor Admits Mob Pelted Police with Bottles & Rocks Before Cops Responded

[Coolidge/Dawes '24]

Article here (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47215).


Yessiree. They're the spitting image of the tea party.

An Occupy Oakland protester admitted on national television that the far left violent mob was pelting bottles and rocks at police before the officers responded with tear gas and stun grenades.

However, she felt the police response was inappropriate.

What an idiot. She doesn't show much remorse, does she?

Also... The Barack Obama-endorsed Occupy Oakland goons chucked paint at police officers this weekend while chanting,

"This is why we call you pigs!"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc_brjWJqZk&

[hazek]

It probably is true:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrvMzqopHH0

[Coolidge/Dawes '24]

It probably is true:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrvMzqopHH0

Okay, you got me. I'm not going to make excuses for police officers impersonating demonstrators just so they can provoke a response, stir up trouble, and use it to justify violence against these protestors. That would be unacceptable.

But this video doesn't offer much in the way of context. Sure, we have one of the top-guns at the Oakland police department saying any future "movement" of the sort they confronted in the past should be "infiltrated" to their advantage, but what movement? For what reason? Are these pictures of undercover police from the Oakland protests, or some other demonstration? Is it just OWS they seek to infiltrate, or any political movement that expresses hostility toward the "Establishment" (the Tea Party, anti-war movement, etc.)? Do they want to disguise themselves as run-of-the mill citizens simply because they want to trigger a physically aggressive response from the real protestors (as to deliberately delegitimize the movement) or because they're trying to carry out other unrelated tasks (like nabbing prostitutes, pimps, drug dealers, etc.)? Cops go undercover all the time. Some officers pose as clients who want to get busy with prostitutes, and then arrest any person who offers sexual favors for cash. Some officers pose as pot-smokers who want to buy drugs, and then arrest anybody selling them. I'm not saying I agree with these laws (I don't), but I'm not going to automatically assign sinister motives to the law enforcement officials in Oakland without knowing the full details of the situation. Cops routinely go undercover to catch online predators, potential child rapists, hit-men, fugitive killers, etc. There are already numerous reports of people getting raped and assaulted in their tents at several OWS events. And one lady was caught (thanks to undercover work by police officers) pimping underage girls for her child sex ring. Given the nature of these demonstrations (the violent tendencies of some of the protestors, the disrespect for the law, the refusal to leave privately and publicly owned parks for clean-up and inspection, all of this "off with their heads" nonsense, etc.), I wouldn't be surprised if some cops decided to put on "civilian protest" garb and carefully observe the events unfolding before them.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a fan of police brutality and do realize that law enforcement departments in this country, like all other government agencies, are rife with corruption, inefficiency, and clear abuses of power. But I'm also not the type to jump to conclusions, and I also reject the premise (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?327478-John-Hayward-Oakland-Re-Occupied) that taxpayer-funded property should be allowed to dengenerate into vulgarity, filth, obscenity, etc., which is why I believe at least some of the force used by police against protestors is justified (though whether public property should exist in the first place is a different question). If and when somebody provides me convincing evidence that police provocateurs are stirring mischief with the deliberate aim of provoking a response, then I'll be happy to call the cops out on it. Until then, let the sparks fly.

A few questions for OWS sympathizers:

1. How come the number of OWS protestors arrested is in the thousands, but not a single Tea Partier (or even a progressive Coffee Partier, for that matter) was arrested for any felony or misdemeanor on their part? Why do the OWS protests provoke a more violent response from the police than the Tea Party movement?

2. Why didn't we see Tea Partiers maced in the eyes, pummeled to the ground, sprayed with tear gas, pelted with rubber bullets, etc.? Why would the police feel it necessary to use chemical weapons and force against the Occupiers, but not the Tea Party?

3. What limits, if any, do you think there are to freedom of expression on taxpayer-owned property (besides, of course, physical assault and property confiscation)? Do you think people have the right to expose their genitals to minors, take dumps on the sidewalk, urinate in alleyways, strip down and march naked, openly push for disruption of court proceedings, call for a Jacobin-style revolution complete with guillotines and bloodshed, etc.? Should there be any restrictions on what a person can say or do on publicly owned property, or is it an impulsive, libertine free-for-all when it comes to these domains?

4. What do you think of protestors who keep using the restrooms of local businessowners and shopkeepers over and over again without any concern for the feelings of the private proprietors? What do you think of complaints from homeowners (many who have to get up for work and have kids to take care of) about the day-in-day-out screaming, yelling, drum-beating, etc. from the protestors? Would it be considered "police brutality" and a "violation of First Amendment rights" if cops threw bullhorn-wielding trespassers off the lawns of bank execs upon their request? How about Zucotti park, which is also owned in private?

[pcosmar]

Okay, you got me. I'm not going to make excuses for police officers impersonating demonstrators just so they can provoke a response, stir up trouble, and use it to justify violence against these protestors. That would be unacceptable.


Actually that is a common and often repeated tactic, both here in the US and elsewhere.

I have a question for you.
Who is the girl in the video? and how do you know she was an actual protester?

And I have seen several videos of the event. I am not discounting the possibility that things may have been thrown,, but did not see that in any of the video at the start of the violence.
In fact the marine that was shot in the head was standing a few feet from the officers that shot him.
He was standing still, Next to a Navy man in uniform holding a Constitution.

So again I ask, Who was this girl? and what was the reason for her camera time?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzkdqdgw35k


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEj_4fqDbnM

[dannno]

bump

[angelatc]

A whole bunch of people I don't like not getting along with each other. Popcorn time.

[Becker]

why are there always assholes that ruin the fun for all of us?