RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Occupy Wall Street

It could just as easily be a case of the media knowing there’s more to the story that what’s in a YouTube video. It could also be that one or two cops pepper-spraying a few hippies isn’t national news. After all, most crime stories are local, not national.

I’d also point out that the New York Times, which is both the local and national paper in the area has covered the incident and stated an investigation has been launched (which is what happens in any police brutality case).



Funny you mention Michael Moore

• "It warms my heart to see all of you here," Moore told the few hundred people gathered at Zuccotti Park as part of the "Occupy Wall Street" protest. He told them they each represented thousands of other Americans, and to not lose heart, that "our power is derived from the people."
  
  Moore posted a message on his Twitter account while he was still with the protesters stating: "This is just the beginning. Honored to be part of this."
  
  He railed against Wall Street and the richest of the rich, saying "they have tried to take our democracy and turn it into a 'kleptocracy."'
  
  

Now, I’m not saying the involvement of Moore—an activist known for creating heavily edited and deceptive videos—proves these police are innocent. After all, there’s no proof he was even involved in editing the videos.

However, it does serve as a reminder that, as Sammitch notes, these things can be deceptively edited. It also serves as a reminder that there are people on the far left who have been known to do such things to advance a political point.



I realize the laws of each jurisdiction vary. But I am unaware of a law in New York City that criminalizes roping off sidewalks.

In fact, when I’ve been to NYC over the years I’ve seen sidewalks barricaded for any number of reasons: street fairs, television production and construction being common ones. Those barricades were all illegal?

And speaking of illegal:

• In interviews, police officials described the lack of a permit and the fact that protesters were obstructing traffic as key factors in the arrests and the department’s decision to end the march.
  
  “If you have a permit, the police will accommodate for things like diverting traffic,” Mr. Browne said. “If you take a street for a parade or protest without a permit, you are subject to arrest.”
  
  Mr. Richter, of the police union, said that from the perspective of the protesters, the Police Department’s decision to suddenly end the demonstration might have appeared arbitrary.
  
  “I can see it from a demonstrator’s view, asking, ‘What changed?’ ” Mr. Richter said. “But there comes a point when the command staff makes a decision that the crowd is too big, and we’re at a breaking point, and we have to take back the street.”

A city can, and does, require even “peaceful groups” to get permits. Try to hold a parade without one. If the protesters needed a permit and didn’t get one, that means they were acting illegally.

But, even if all that’s true, it doesn’t translate to the police having the right to use to use excessive force. And I said so. So why are you saying:


I’ve made it clear I don't support police brutality (if in fact that is what occurred) regardless of the views of the protesters.

And that is how a free country is supposed to work. It’s like the old saying "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.”

Free speech is not supposed to be dependent on whether or not the speaker’s message is offensive. Therefore, whether or not I’m offended by their message, or agree with it, is irrelevant to whether the protesters should be pepper-sprayed.

And, if the topic at hand is whether the police were justified then that’s pretty much the [happy] end of our discussion. We’re basically in agreement. We might quibble over whether the videos are accurate, or whether the protesters should have had a permit, but we can agree that, unless the officers had a legitimate basis to fear for their personal safety, they used excessive force.

However, despite that agreement, you keep bringing up the content of the protesters’ message. This led me to believe you are more interested in that message than the actions of the police. One could even assume this is less about condemning bad cops and more about trying to drum up sympathy for the hippies and their cause.

Again, I'm not accusing you of that, simply noting it could be seen as that.