OCCUPY WALL STREET

[kannon]

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/11...rate-monarchy/

[SoNotHer]

"I wrote back suggesting that I am a happy dude, and its not Anger — its closer to an ineffable sadness that comes once you realize you have lost something dear. I am old enough to have grown up when this nation was a Democracy, but that era has passed. We now live in a nation no longer run by the citizens — it is a Corporatocracy — and that makes me sadder than angry ..."

Great piece, Kannon. Thank you for posting it.

Originally Posted by kannon

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/11...rate-monarchy/

[Slater]

http://www.alternet.org/occupywallst...r/?page=entire

Norm Stamper certainly made mistakes as Chief of Police in Seattle, but he was willing to learn from them. I think he offers a few important insights in the article linked above:

1) That although the 1999 "Battle in Seattle" should have served as a primer of what NOT to do for law enforcement agencies, the opposite has happened. It has ushered in an era of increased militarization of law enforcement. He writes: "The paramilitary bureaucracy and the culture it engenders—a black-and-white world in which police unions serve above all to protect the brotherhood—is worse today than it was in the 1990s. Such agencies inevitably view protesters as the enemy."
2) That militaristic policing causes violence. "My support for a militaristic solution caused all hell to break loose," Stamper says. He's right. It did.
3) That 9/11, or more specifically the government's heavy-handed response and exploitation of public fears, has fueled the current crisis in law enforcement. "[T]he federal government began providing military equipment and training even to some of the smallest rural departments ... Everyday policing is characterized by a SWAT mentality, every other 911 call a military mission."

The whole article is worth a read. One thing I have been thinking about that he didn't touch on is the way that the proliferation of non-lethal (or really, less-lethal) weapons has made police forces considerably more aggressive and considerably less concerned about consequences, even in this day when almost everything is captured on video. These tools that were supposed to allow officers to defend themselves without killing people have instead become offensive weapons deployed to secure compliance (or, it seems, sometimes just as a show of dominance) rather than to secure the officer's safety.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Slater

http://www.alternet.org/occupywallst...r/?page=entire

Norm Stamper certainly made mistakes as Chief of Police in Seattle, but he was willing to learn from them. I think he offers a few important insights in the article linked above:

1) That although the 1999 "Battle in Seattle" should have served as a primer of what NOT to do for law enforcement agencies, the opposite has happened. It has ushered in an era of increased militarization of law enforcement. He writes: "The paramilitary bureaucracy and the culture it engenders—a black-and-white world in which police unions serve above all to protect the brotherhood—is worse today than it was in the 1990s. Such agencies inevitably view protesters as the enemy."
2) That militaristic policing causes violence. "My support for a militaristic solution caused all hell to break loose," Stamper says. He's right. It did.
3) That 9/11, or more specifically the government's heavy-handed response and exploitation of public fears, has fueled the current crisis in law enforcement. "[T]he federal government began providing military equipment and training even to some of the smallest rural departments ... Everyday policing is characterized by a SWAT mentality, every other 911 call a military mission."

The whole article is worth a read. One thing I have been thinking about that he didn't touch on is the way that the proliferation of non-lethal (or really, less-lethal) weapons has made police forces considerably more aggressive and considerably less concerned about consequences, even in this day when almost everything is captured on video. These tools that were supposed to allow officers to defend themselves without killing people have instead become offensive weapons deployed to secure compliance (or, it seems, sometimes just as a show of dominance) rather than to secure the officer's safety.

Yes, what you say above (I bolded and underlined) seems so true to me. This whole thing about non-lethality of these kinds of weapons (and they are weapons) has given license to using them in situations not calling for them at all- and the public has accepted this. There is new information that the manufacturers of stun-guns like Tasers (a brand name) not giving the full story about how they can kill a person. They have not really given police department the real data!! So, departments have been developing crowd control and even perp apprehension tactics based upon faulty information. Then there is the fact that some (and it is a very small number) of police have aggressive personality traits that point to the fact that they shouldn't even be in law enforcement.

I wonder too- about all the TV cop shows and the displays of force used by characters that we see continually. How has that influenced the public about these tactics? I have heard from cops that they would be fired on the spot for a lot of the things TV cop heros do.

This may sound hoaky, but, I do respect police and I think they have a very difficult job. I support whatever equipment and training they receive for their own protection. However, something is really wrong here with the lack of training about differences in crowds like citizens exercising protest in a non-violent manner and that is not trying to stick it to cops.

So many of the incidences over the last couple of months just seem like waiting out dispersal by police would have been the best thing. Yes, they need to make certain emergency routes are open, but why don't they send in officers to "talk" through what is needed to keep people safe first- kind of like officers trained in negotiation with hostage situations. I might be very naive here, but, it just seems like the entire police crowd control of un-armed citizens needs to be overhauled and updated. And these kinds of weapons have influenced more responses of a first-aggressive nature based upon the false premise of these weapons are not harmful.

Could be talking up my own rear- I do not have any law enforcement expertise at all.

I think with what happened at UCD and has gone viral may help in law enforcement having to re-evaluate these tactics and make a lot of changes.

[ruby_woo]

Honestly, I've been wondering how much of the violence is due to simple disdain for the protestors? My uncle has been cop for about 20 years, and he's been going on lately about how back his day he was too busy focusing on how he could contribute to society and how he would support himself and how it never crossed his mind that anyone owed him anything blahblahblah. Then all his cop buddies chime in and agree.

And he's not even one of the aggressive jerk cops. He rescues kittens.

I'm not trying to present "anecdata" in an argument or anything, but it's been hard for me to ignore what's right in front of me. Like AtLast, I could be talking up my own rear.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by ruby_woo

Honestly, I've been wondering how much of the violence is due to simple disdain for the protestors?

So when cops have disdain for someone they can just spray them in the face with pepper spray? Even when they are just standing there doing nothing, like those women at Occupy Wall St caught on camera being sprayed in the face by a white shirt for no discernible reason. You can open their mouth and spray pepper spray down their throat if you have disdain for them. Or you shoot them with rubber bullets when they are asking you if they are okay or too close if you have disdain for them. Or if the cops have disdain they can beat the crap out of a transperson or a queer. If cops have disdain they can act as they please, is that the idea? Too bad they don’t have some disdain for child molesters and rapists.

[ruby_woo]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

So when cops have disdain for someone they can just spray them in the face with pepper spray? Even when they are just standing there doing nothing, like those women at Occupy Wall St caught on camera being sprayed in the face by a white shirt for no discernible reason. You can open their mouth and spray pepper spray down their throat if you have disdain for them. Or you shoot them with rubber bullets when they are asking you if they are okay or too close if you have disdain for them. Or if the cops have disdain they can beat the crap out of a transperson or a queer. If cops have disdain they can act as they please, is that the idea? Too bad they don’t have some disdain for child molesters and rapists.

I'm not saying I think it's acceptable at all, definitely not was I was trying to imply...

But could lack of training + disdain for the group in front of you lead to making jerk decisions? Maybe.

In Slater's post (sorry, I don't know how to double quote), he mentioned Norm Stamper saying "The paramilitary bureaucracy and the culture it engenders—a black-and-white world in which police unions serve above all to protect the brotherhood—is worse today than it was in the 1990s. Such agencies inevitably view protesters as the enemy."

[SoNotHer]

I appreciate your voice, Ruby Woo, and I am really grateful to hear about your uncle. I talk with the police in my neighborhood, and I have worked with some very compassionate police on the issue of prostitution.

I think we have to start to address perceptions. I think we have to talk about why protestors are perceived as malcontents with no real point or cause and how that view gets used. Perhaps some are, or perhaps some are the like the people I've stood with who have lost homes, have no healthcare, have lost all of their personal savings in a bad 401K, an underwater mortgage or a medical bankruptcy.

Personally, I find the desire to protest and speak up for a more equal and just society not only welcome but brave and one of the most hopeful things I have seen in my voting lifetime.

But most of all, I think we have to allow people to exercise their right to disagree and to even protest without fear of violence. Without these, I think we're looking at something other than a democracy.

Originally Posted by ruby_woo

Honestly, I've been wondering how much of the violence is due to simple disdain for the protestors? My uncle has been cop for about 20 years, and he's been going on lately about how back his day he was too busy focusing on how he could contribute to society and how he would support himself and how it never crossed his mind that anyone owed him anything blahblahblah. Then all his cop buddies chime in and agree.

And he's not even one of the aggressive jerk cops. He rescues kittens.

I'm not trying to present "anecdata" in an argument or anything, but it's been hard for me to ignore what's right in front of me. Like AtLast, I could be talking up my own rear.

[Corkey]

http://www.fictionews.com/news/105/B...ews-story.html

Good news for UC Davis students.

[AtLast]

I absolutely disagree with what has been going on in terms of peaceful assembly and the use of tear gas, etc. to disperse them.

I have to speqk up about the fact that not all OWS demonstrators have been non-violent. Although, the case in SF wherein a woman slashed 2 officers (one in the face) with an exacto knife (which she stole from an artist showing at a street art fair nearby) was not peaceful assembly. Now, it looks like she and the guy she was with were hanging out at the SF encampment and not really OWS people. Most of the attacks on police with bottles, etc. all over the US have been done by anarchist groups or people just there to party. They do not represent the core of OWS demonstrators at all.

This always happens and I do think the cops need to protect themselves. This is a complex set of circumstances. Many of the OWS folks have let the homeless and other groups share space simply due to feeling the pain of disenfranchised people. The non-violent OWS folks are not at fault for a few lashing out at police, but, I just can't sit back and say it has all been peaceful or that police have some things to worry about. How do they know who is safe and not going to strike-out?

In no way do I support what happened at UCD- and I think that the Admin and the campus police department is at fault for failing to train officers for these kinds of protests. Also, I do think there were rogue officers involved that would act that way no matter what.

I sure don't put the actions of a very few "outsiders" that have been violent on the movement as a whole. But, there have been incidences of people attacking officers. This is where I think "knowing" the population is really important and that the first thing that happens should be communication between the campus police chief and demonstrators that can speak to what is planned and who might not be really part of the protest.

The UCD police officers were wrong and I hope prosecuted outside of the university in criminal court. Those students were not posing any kind of physical threat. But other people have. Not many, but it has gone on.

[atomiczombie]

National Day of Action to Stop (and Reverse) Foreclosures

December 6 will be a big day of action for the Occupy Wall Street movement. #OWS will join the struggle of families and communities that have been on the front lines of a struggle for economic justice. We will stand in solidarity and ask our fellow occupations to join us for a national day of action on the foreclosure crisis. We are fighting Wall Street's reach on every block, every farm, every house in America with sit-ins at foreclosed properties to right this moral injustice.

The Occupy movement is born of the simple belief that humanity could meet our common needs if not for the predation and greed of the very few.

Nowhere is this disparity of wealth and power more evident than in the struggle to secure the human right to housing.

In a nation that puts the right to housing at the center of its founding dream, millions of people have lost their homes or fear that they soon will because of the foreclosure crisis. Wall Street created this crisis with lies and greed. And Washington, instead of investigating Wall Street and banks, is cutting back room deals to let bankers escape justice for their crimes.

Wall Street turned a fundamental human need into a badly rigged casino game with fraudulent lending practices and corrupt securitization. They destroyed our economy, kicked tens of thousands of people illegally out of their homes, and are now using a small fraction of the money they stole to buy off politicians and settle for far less than they owe.

More information to come.

Contact: occupyourhomes@gmail.com
On Twitter: @OccupyOurHomes
Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/events/304693926222145/

LINK: http://occupywallst.org/article/dece...eet-goes-home/

[Ciaran]

Originally Posted by AtLast

I have to speqk up about the fact that not all OWS demonstrators have been non-violent. Although, the case in SF wherein a woman slashed 2 officers (one in the face) with an exacto knife (which she stole from an artist showing at a street art fair nearby) was not peaceful assembly. Now, it looks like she and the guy she was with were hanging out at the SF encampment and not really OWS people. Most of the attacks on police with bottles, etc. all over the US have been done by anarchist groups or people just there to party. They do not represent the core of OWS demonstrators at all.

As someone who is admittedly and openly sceptical about the Occupy movement, this is one of the aspects that I struggle with. On the one hand the Occupy movement tries to portray itself as representing all, or almost all (99%) of society, uses rhetoric and, on occasions, imagery that attracts anarchists and, worse, those with no sense of social responsibility ... and, yet, distances itself from the consequences that result.

The desecration of St Paul's Cathedral here in London is the perfect case in point.