OCCUPY WALL STREET

[Cin]

Interesting article. Well, I think it is anyway.

http://www.alternet.org/world/152802...llion_/?page=1

[persiphone]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

Interesting article. Well, I think it is anyway.

http://www.alternet.org/world/152802...llion_/?page=1

me too. it was very thought provoking and it enlightened me to an aspect of the system that i hadn't thought of before. but it clicks with me as a parent of a kid in the public school system. i've had more than a few convos with teachers over the years about my child. i have to remind them that i'm not raising a kid to automatically do what adults say just cuz their adults. my son is capable of thinking for himself and it's created some communication problems within the school system. he's also not afraid to point out adult injustice. they don't like that very much either. so when i get called in over an incident like that, the teacher is shocked when i take my son's side. the experience has been very much like swimming upriver for the past 10 years. so this thought process actually makes perfect sense to me. i just never knew what to call it other than i knew something was really fucked up.

[Cin]

Here is a link to what I found to be a great article. It’s quite long, 30 pages, kind of like a short story - a non-fiction horror story. It’s an analysis of financial terrorism and it explains to some degree the process by which global bankers plunder nations.

It wasn’t a lot of new material exactly, but it cleared up a lot of stuff for me. It connected a lot of dots. Maybe someone else will get something out of it as well.

If it wasn't so long I would have posted the whole article because i've noticed that sometimes just a post with a link can get lost. Oh well here's hoping...


http://andrewgavinmarshall.com/2011/07/15/167/

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

I would imagine they are all in Wall St.'s pocket, but the way the numbers were interpreted is a tad off.

Romney's Raised More Than Twice the Wall St. Cash as Obama... Why Does the WaPo Say the Opposite?

Compare and contrast. Here, via Open Secrets, are the top recipients of campaign cash from the finance, insurance and real estate sector, according to FEC filings:

Top Recipients, 2011-2012

Candidate Office Amount
Romney, Mitt (R) $5,047,797
Obama, Barack (D) $2,464,605
Gillibrand, Kirsten (D-NY) Senate $1,398,945
Corker, Bob (R-TN) Senate $1,195,864
Boehner, John (R-OH) House $1,159,137

And here is the lede from a Washington Post story that's been getting a lot of play:

Despite frosty relations with the titans of Wall Street, President Obama has still managed to raise far more money this year from the financial and banking sector than Mitt Romney or any other Republican presidential candidate, according to new fundraising data.

What's going on? Well, the WaPo included not only cash that Obama has raised on Wall Street for his campaign, but also for the Democratic National Committee, which, it notes, "will aid in his reelection effort."

That's not an entirely inappropriate analysis -- Obama raised that cash, which is news-worthy if for no other reason than we have a lot of Wall Street execs taking to various opinion pages to whine about how mean Obama has been to them and promising to take their balls and go home if he's not nicer. And of course Obama was the Darling of Wall Street in 2008. But there are a few problems with it.

First, this is simply an advantage of being an incumbent at this point in the cycle. Eventually the GOP will have a nominee and he (it won't be Bachmann) will go to Wall Street and raise money for the RNC.

So, it's an apples to oranges comparison. The RNC has already raised about $3.3 million from finance and real estate, according to OpenSecrets.

The other problem is that while the DNC will "aid in his re-election effort," it will also spend some of that cash on party infrastructure and for the campaigns of other Democratic candidates.

I note this mainly because we use contributions to the campaigns themselves in our report on Wall Street's influence in Washington, merely noting in parentheses that the figures don't include money raised for the two parties' national committees. So, a clarification seemed to be in order.

Yes I totally get what you are saying. However, the fact remains that Obama and the Democrats are just as much in the pocket of big banks and corporations as are the Republicans.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

Yes I totally get what you are saying. However, the fact remains that Obama and the Democrats are just as much in the pocket of big banks and corporations as are the Republicans.

LOL, yes, I believe you are exactly right. They are all in the pocket of the Wall Street. And it looks like both parties are equally compensated for their efforts. I just came across the article and thought it was interesting how The Washington Post interpreted the numbers. Doesn't change a thing except WaPo got it backwards.

[PapiChino]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

I looked and I didn't see a thread on this particular subject, so I decided to start one here. I want to have a place to specifically discuss the Occupy Wall Street movement, rallys, and how it is spreading across the nation.

Here is their newly voted on platform/declaration:




I think this movement is tremendously important and it's existence is an inevitable outcome of decades of economic injustices perpetrated by the government, banks and corporations in the US and around the world.

What do you all think about the Occupy Wall Street movement and it's message?

Thanks for starting this...

[Ebon]

Naomi Wolf arrested at OWS

http://occupycyberspace.wordpress.co...y-wall-street/




How I Was Arrested at Occupy Wall Street
Naomi Wolfe

Naomi Wolfe

Last night I was arrested in my home town, outside an event to which I had been invited, for standing lawfully on the sidewalk in an evening gown. Let me explain; my partner and I were attending an event for the Huffington Post, for which I often write: Game Changers 2011, in a venue space on Hudson Street. As we entered the space, we saw that about 200 Occupy Wall Street protesters were peacefully assembled and were chanting. They wanted to address Governor Andrew Cuomo, who was going to be arriving at the event.

They were using a technique that has become known as “the human mic” – by which the crowd laboriously repeats every word the speaker says – since they had been told that using real megaphones was illegal. In my book Give Me Liberty, a blueprint for how to open up a closing civil society, I have a chapter on permits – which is a crucial subject to understand for anyone involved in protest in the US. In 70s America, protest used to be very effective, but in subsequent decades municipalities have sneakily created a web of “overpermiticisation” – requirements that were designed to stifle freedom of assembly and the right to petition government for redress of grievances, both of which are part of our first amendment. One of these made-up permit requirements, which are not transparent or accountable, is the megaphone restriction.

So I informed the group on Hudson Street that they had a first amendment right to use a megaphone and that the National Lawyers’ Guild should appeal the issue if they got arrested. And I repeated the words of the first amendment, which the crowd repeated. Then my partner suggested that I ask the group for their list of demands. Since we would be inside, we thought it would be helpful to take their list into the event and if I had a chance to talk with the governor I could pass the list on.

That is how a democracy works, right? The people have the right to address their representatives. We went inside, chatted with our friends, but needed to leave before the governor had arrived. I decided I would present their list to his office in the morning and write about the response. On our exit, I saw that the protesters had been cordoned off by a now-massive phalanx of NYPD cops and pinned against the far side of the street – far away from the event they sought to address.

I went up and asked them why. They replied that they had been informed that the Huffington Post event had a permit that forbade them to use the sidewalk. I knew from my investigative reporting on NYC permits that this was impossible: a private entity cannot lease the public sidewalks; even film crews must allow pedestrian traffic. I asked the police for clarification – no response. I went over to the sidewalk at issue and identified myself as a NYC citizen and a reporter, and asked to see the permit in question or to locate the source on the police or event side that claimed it forbade citizen access to a public sidewalk. Finally a tall man, who seemed to be with the event, confessed that while it did have a permit, the permit did allow for protest so long as we did not block pedestrian passage.

I thanked him, returned to the protesters, and said: “The permit allows us to walk on the other side of the street if we don’t block access. I am now going to walk on the public sidewalk and not block it. It is legal to do so. Please join me if you wish.” My partner and I then returned to the event-side sidewalk and began to walk peacefully arm in arm, while about 30 or 40 people walked with us in single file, not blocking access. Then a phalanx of perhaps 40 white-shirted senior offices descended out of seemingly nowhere and, with a megaphone (which was supposedly illegal for citizens to use), one said: “You are unlawfully creating a disruption.

You are ordered to disperse.” I approached him peacefully, slowly, gently and respectfully and said: “I am confused. I was told that the permit in question allows us to walk if we don’t block pedestrian access and as you see we are complying with the permit.” He gave me a look of pure hate. “Are you going to back down?” he shouted. I stood, immobilised, for a moment. “Are you getting out of my way?” I did not even make a conscious decision not to “fall back” – I simply couldn’t even will myself to do so, because I knew that he was not giving a lawful order and that if I stepped aside it would be not because of the law, which I was following, but as a capitulation to sheer force. In that moment’s hesitation, he said, “OK,” gestured, and my partner and I were surrounded by about 20 officers who pulled our hands behind our backs and cuffed us with plastic handcuffs.

We were taken in a van to the seventh precinct – the scary part about that is that the protesters and lawyers marched to the first precinct, which handles Hudson Street, but in the van the police got the message to avoid them by rerouting me. I understood later that the protesters were lied to about our whereabouts, which seemed to me to be a trickle-down of the Bush-era detention practice of unaccountable detentions. The officers who had us in custody were very courteous, and several expressed sympathy for the movements’ aims.

Nonetheless, my partner and I had our possessions taken from us, our ID copied, and we were placed in separate cells for about half an hour. It was clear that by then the police knew there was scrutiny of this arrest so they handled us with great courtesy, but my phone was taken and for half an hour I was in a faeces- or blood-smeared cell, thinking at that moment the only thing that separates civil societies from barbaric states is the rule of law – that finds the prisoner, and holds the arresting officers and courts accountable. Another scary outcome I discovered is that, when the protesters marched to the first precinct, the whole of Erickson Street was cordoned off – “frozen” they were told, “by Homeland Security”. Obviously if DHS now has powers to simply take over a New York City street because of an arrest for peaceable conduct by a middle-aged writer in an evening gown, we have entered a stage of the closing of America, which is a serious departure from our days as a free republic in which municipalities are governed by police forces.

The police are now telling my supporters that the permit in question gave the event managers “control of the sidewalks”. I have asked to see the permit but still haven’t been provided with it – if such a category now exists, I have never heard of it; that, too, is a serious blow to an open civil society. What did I take away? Just that, unfortunately, my partner and I became exhibit A in a process that I have been warning Americans about since 2007: first they come for the “other” – the “terrorist”, the brown person, the Muslim, the outsider; then they come for you – while you are standing on a sidewalk in evening dress, obeying the law.

By Naomi Wolf, Guardian UK

[persiphone]

i'm actually pretty surprised by the police response. perhaps i shouldn't be. perhaps i knew this would be the reaction all along i just didn't want to admit it. police brutality is something that happens to other people in far away places. it's something you read about sometimes in the morning news and you shake your head while reading it and then go about your day. and now the police brutality is in our face and happening to our own with massive frequency. and yes, we have lost our rights. we have no choices. and this is fast becoming possibly the second greatest civil rights movement in our history.

[SoNotHer]

I have enormous respect for NW, and her post are one of the things I miss about FB.

This post feels momentous to me. I think we're watching the historical landmarks of this movement fall into place.

No wake up call is easy, particularly when it has been a long, self-induced, self-delusional slumber. But we are waking up. I am more hopeful about that than ever.

Thank you for the videos and Wolf's commentary, Ebon. :-)

Originally Posted by Ebon

Naomi Wolf arrested at OWS

http://occupycyberspace.wordpress.co...y-wall-street/




How I Was Arrested at Occupy Wall Street
Naomi Wolfe

Naomi Wolfe

Last night I was arrested in my home town, outside an event to which I had been invited, for standing lawfully on the sidewalk in an evening gown. Let me explain; my partner and I were attending an event for the Huffington Post, for which I often write: Game Changers 2011, in a venue space on Hudson Street. As we entered the space, we saw that about 200 Occupy Wall Street protesters were peacefully assembled and were chanting. They wanted to address Governor Andrew Cuomo, who was going to be arriving at the event.

They were using a technique that has become known as “the human mic” – by which the crowd laboriously repeats every word the speaker says – since they had been told that using real megaphones was illegal. In my book Give Me Liberty, a blueprint for how to open up a closing civil society, I have a chapter on permits – which is a crucial subject to understand for anyone involved in protest in the US. In 70s America, protest used to be very effective, but in subsequent decades municipalities have sneakily created a web of “overpermiticisation” – requirements that were designed to stifle freedom of assembly and the right to petition government for redress of grievances, both of which are part of our first amendment. One of these made-up permit requirements, which are not transparent or accountable, is the megaphone restriction.

So I informed the group on Hudson Street that they had a first amendment right to use a megaphone and that the National Lawyers’ Guild should appeal the issue if they got arrested. And I repeated the words of the first amendment, which the crowd repeated. Then my partner suggested that I ask the group for their list of demands. Since we would be inside, we thought it would be helpful to take their list into the event and if I had a chance to talk with the governor I could pass the list on.

That is how a democracy works, right? The people have the right to address their representatives. We went inside, chatted with our friends, but needed to leave before the governor had arrived. I decided I would present their list to his office in the morning and write about the response. On our exit, I saw that the protesters had been cordoned off by a now-massive phalanx of NYPD cops and pinned against the far side of the street – far away from the event they sought to address.

I went up and asked them why. They replied that they had been informed that the Huffington Post event had a permit that forbade them to use the sidewalk. I knew from my investigative reporting on NYC permits that this was impossible: a private entity cannot lease the public sidewalks; even film crews must allow pedestrian traffic. I asked the police for clarification – no response. I went over to the sidewalk at issue and identified myself as a NYC citizen and a reporter, and asked to see the permit in question or to locate the source on the police or event side that claimed it forbade citizen access to a public sidewalk. Finally a tall man, who seemed to be with the event, confessed that while it did have a permit, the permit did allow for protest so long as we did not block pedestrian passage.

I thanked him, returned to the protesters, and said: “The permit allows us to walk on the other side of the street if we don’t block access. I am now going to walk on the public sidewalk and not block it. It is legal to do so. Please join me if you wish.” My partner and I then returned to the event-side sidewalk and began to walk peacefully arm in arm, while about 30 or 40 people walked with us in single file, not blocking access. Then a phalanx of perhaps 40 white-shirted senior offices descended out of seemingly nowhere and, with a megaphone (which was supposedly illegal for citizens to use), one said: “You are unlawfully creating a disruption.

You are ordered to disperse.” I approached him peacefully, slowly, gently and respectfully and said: “I am confused. I was told that the permit in question allows us to walk if we don’t block pedestrian access and as you see we are complying with the permit.” He gave me a look of pure hate. “Are you going to back down?” he shouted. I stood, immobilised, for a moment. “Are you getting out of my way?” I did not even make a conscious decision not to “fall back” – I simply couldn’t even will myself to do so, because I knew that he was not giving a lawful order and that if I stepped aside it would be not because of the law, which I was following, but as a capitulation to sheer force. In that moment’s hesitation, he said, “OK,” gestured, and my partner and I were surrounded by about 20 officers who pulled our hands behind our backs and cuffed us with plastic handcuffs.

We were taken in a van to the seventh precinct – the scary part about that is that the protesters and lawyers marched to the first precinct, which handles Hudson Street, but in the van the police got the message to avoid them by rerouting me. I understood later that the protesters were lied to about our whereabouts, which seemed to me to be a trickle-down of the Bush-era detention practice of unaccountable detentions. The officers who had us in custody were very courteous, and several expressed sympathy for the movements’ aims.

Nonetheless, my partner and I had our possessions taken from us, our ID copied, and we were placed in separate cells for about half an hour. It was clear that by then the police knew there was scrutiny of this arrest so they handled us with great courtesy, but my phone was taken and for half an hour I was in a faeces- or blood-smeared cell, thinking at that moment the only thing that separates civil societies from barbaric states is the rule of law – that finds the prisoner, and holds the arresting officers and courts accountable. Another scary outcome I discovered is that, when the protesters marched to the first precinct, the whole of Erickson Street was cordoned off – “frozen” they were told, “by Homeland Security”. Obviously if DHS now has powers to simply take over a New York City street because of an arrest for peaceable conduct by a middle-aged writer in an evening gown, we have entered a stage of the closing of America, which is a serious departure from our days as a free republic in which municipalities are governed by police forces.

The police are now telling my supporters that the permit in question gave the event managers “control of the sidewalks”. I have asked to see the permit but still haven’t been provided with it – if such a category now exists, I have never heard of it; that, too, is a serious blow to an open civil society. What did I take away? Just that, unfortunately, my partner and I became exhibit A in a process that I have been warning Americans about since 2007: first they come for the “other” – the “terrorist”, the brown person, the Muslim, the outsider; then they come for you – while you are standing on a sidewalk in evening dress, obeying the law.

By Naomi Wolf, Guardian UK

[atomiczombie]

[Cin]

Throw Them Out With the Trash: Why Homelessness Is Becoming an Occupy Wall Street Issue
by Barbara Ehrenreich

As anyone knows who has ever had to set up a military encampment or build a village from the ground up, occupations pose staggering logistical problems. Large numbers of people must be fed and kept reasonably warm and dry. Trash has to be removed; medical care and rudimentary security provided -- to which ends a dozen or more committees may toil night and day. But for the individual occupier, one problem often overshadows everything else, including job loss, the destruction of the middle class, and the reign of the 1%. And that is the single question: Where am I going to pee?

Some of the Occupy Wall Street encampments now spreading across the U.S. have access to Port-o-Potties (Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C.) or, better yet, restrooms with sinks and running water (Fort Wayne, Indiana). Others require their residents to forage on their own. At Zuccotti Park, just blocks from Wall Street, this means long waits for the restroom at a nearby Burger King or somewhat shorter ones at a Starbucks a block away. At McPherson Square in D.C., a twenty-something occupier showed me the pizza parlor where she can cop a pee during the hours it’s open, as well as the alley where she crouches late at night. Anyone with restroom-related issues -- arising from age, pregnancy, prostate problems, or irritable bowel syndrome -- should prepare to join the revolution in diapers.

Of course, political protesters do not face the challenges of urban camping alone. Homeless people confront the same issues every day: how to scrape together meals, keep warm at night by covering themselves with cardboard or tarp, and relieve themselves without committing a crime. Public restrooms are sparse in American cities -- "as if the need to go to the bathroom does not exist," travel expert Arthur Frommer once observed. And yet to yield to bladder pressure is to risk arrest. A report entitled “Criminalizing Crisis,” to be released later this month by the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, recounts the following story from Wenatchee, Washington:

"Toward the end of 2010, a family of two parents and three children that had been experiencing homelessness for a year and a half applied for a 2-bedroom apartment. The day before a scheduled meeting with the apartment manager during the final stages of acquiring the lease, the father of the family was arrested for public urination. The arrest occurred at an hour when no public restrooms were available for use. Due to the arrest, the father was unable to make the appointment with the apartment manager and the property was rented out to another person. As of March 2011, the family was still homeless and searching for housing."

What the Occupy Wall Streeters are beginning to discover, and homeless people have known all along, is that most ordinary, biologically necessary activities are illegal when performed in American streets -- not just peeing, but sitting, lying down, and sleeping. While the laws vary from city to city, one of the harshest is in Sarasota, Florida, which passed an ordinance in 2005 that makes it illegal to “engage in digging or earth-breaking activities” -- that is, to build a latrine -- cook, make a fire, or be asleep and “when awakened state that he or she has no other place to live.”

It is illegal, in other words, to be homeless or live outdoors for any other reason. It should be noted, though, that there are no laws requiring cities to provide food, shelter, or restrooms for their indigent citizens.

The current prohibition on homelessness began to take shape in the 1980s, along with the ferocious growth of the financial industry (Wall Street and all its tributaries throughout the nation). That was also the era in which we stopped being a nation that manufactured much beyond weightless, invisible “financial products,” leaving the old industrial working class to carve out a livelihood at places like Wal-Mart.

As it turned out, the captains of the new “casino economy” -- the stock brokers and investment bankers -- were highly sensitive, one might say finicky, individuals, easily offended by having to step over the homeless in the streets or bypass them in commuter train stations. In an economy where a centimillionaire could turn into a billionaire overnight, the poor and unwashed were a major buzzkill. Starting with Mayor Rudy Giuliani in New York, city after city passed “broken windows” or “quality of life” ordinances making it dangerous for the homeless to loiter or, in some cases, even look “indigent,” in public spaces.

No one has yet tallied all the suffering occasioned by this crackdown -- the deaths from cold and exposure -- but “Criminalizing Crisis” offers this story about a homeless pregnant woman in Columbia, South Carolina:

"During daytime hours, when she could not be inside of a shelter, she attempted to spend time in a museum and was told to leave. She then attempted to sit on a bench outside the museum and was again told to relocate. In several other instances, still during her pregnancy, the woman was told that she could not sit in a local park during the day because she would be ‘squatting.’ In early 2011, about six months into her pregnancy, the homeless woman began to feel unwell, went to a hospital, and delivered a stillborn child."

Well before Tahrir Square was a twinkle in anyone’s eye, and even before the recent recession, homeless Americans had begun to act in their own defense, creating organized encampments, usually tent cities, in vacant lots or wooded areas. These communities often feature various elementary forms of self-governance: food from local charities has to be distributed, latrines dug, rules -- such as no drugs, weapons, or violence -- enforced. With all due credit to the Egyptian democracy movement, the Spanish indignados, and rebels all over the world, tent cities are the domestic progenitors of the American occupation movement.

There is nothing “political” about these settlements of the homeless -- no signs denouncing greed or visits from leftwing luminaries -- but they have been treated with far less official forbearance than the occupation encampments of the “American autumn.” LA’s Skid Row endures constant police harassment, for example, but when it rained, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa had ponchos distributed to nearby Occupy LA.

All over the country, in the last few years, police have moved in on the tent cities of the homeless, one by one, from Seattle to Wooster, Sacramento to Providence, in raids that often leave the former occupants without even their minimal possessions. In Chattanooga, Tennessee, last summer, a charity outreach worker explained the forcible dispersion of a local tent city by saying, “The city will not tolerate a tent city. That’s been made very clear to us. The camps have to be out of sight.”

What occupiers from all walks of life are discovering, at least every time they contemplate taking a leak, is that to be homeless in America is to live like a fugitive. The destitute are our own native-born “illegals,” facing prohibitions on the most basic activities of survival. They are not supposed to soil public space with their urine, their feces, or their exhausted bodies. Nor are they supposed to spoil the landscape with their unusual wardrobe choices or body odors. They are, in fact, supposed to die, and preferably to do so without leaving a corpse for the dwindling public sector to transport, process, and burn.

But the occupiers are not from all walks of life, just from those walks that slope downwards -- from debt, joblessness, and foreclosure -- leading eventually to pauperism and the streets. Some of the present occupiers were homeless to start with, attracted to the occupation encampments by the prospect of free food and at least temporary shelter from police harassment. Many others are drawn from the borderline-homeless “nouveau poor,” and normally encamp on friends’ couches or parents’ folding beds.

In Portland, Austin, and Philadelphia, the Occupy Wall Street movement is taking up the cause of the homeless as its own, which of course it is. Homelessness is not a side issue unconnected to plutocracy and greed. It’s where we’re all eventually headed -- the 99%, or at least the 70%, of us, every debt-loaded college grad, out-of-work school teacher, and impoverished senior -- unless this revolution succeeds.

[nowandthen]

Next time one thinks of Vacationing in Hawaii, pause, watch this and reconsider how that supports the occupation of Hawaii.

[persiphone]

Originally Posted by nowandthen

Next time one thinks of Vacationing in Hawaii, pause, watch this and reconsider how that supports the occupation of Hawaii.

i loved this thank you

[nowandthen]

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/loc...cc4c002e0.html

[Toughy]

well the Mayor certainly is talking out of both sides of her mouth. Her tune has changed in less than 48 hours. I'm pissed I voted for her. I also want to know where the City Council members were when Tuesday happened and what they knew about it and what they are going to do about it.

There are re-call the Mayor petitions being circulated right now.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by nowandthen

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/loc...cc4c002e0.html

This article says he was struck with a tear gas canister but also says that is "what is believed." Here in the bay Area of CA, reports have said it was either a rubber bullet or bean bag bullet. Wonder when the actual facts are going to be publicized?

He was hurt badly no matter what hit him or how. This says he is in "fair" condition- others say "critical." All reports I know of say he is in an intensive care unit.

This just plain sux!

[Corkey]

Lets be clear. The Oakland police department came armed with several riot options. They encountered a peaceful protest and after being taunted with paint and a few rocks, which they were fully capable of protecting themselves from, lobbed tear gas in the direction of a person in a wheelchair, and used a flash bomb on a person who was UNarmed. Upon which Unarmed civilians trying to remove injured civilians from the scene were again flashed bombed. There is NO reason for any of this to have happened. The Mayor needs to answer to the people of Oakland and the police chief needs to answer why his officers used lethal force on unarmed civilians.

[Toughy]

The Oakland Police Chief flatly denies his officers used rubber bullets. He says they are not in the inventory. He says it must have been police from other jurisdictions that used them, in spite of the agreement that no rubber bullets would be allowed........

snort..........

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Corkey

Lets be clear. The Oakland police department came armed with several riot options. They encountered a peaceful protest and after being taunted with paint and a few rocks, which they were fully capable of protecting themselves from, lobbed tear gas in the direction of a person in a wheelchair, and used a flash bomb on a person who was UNarmed. Upon which Unarmed civilians trying to remove injured civilians from the scene were again flashed bombed. There is NO reason for any of this to have happened. The Mayor needs to answer to the people of Oakland and the police chief needs to answer why his officers used lethal force on unarmed civilians.

Just saw info on the person in the wheelchair- WTH?? I agree about the police being able to protect themselves against rocks and paint- they wear shields.

Good luck with the Mayor of Oakland answering for this! The Chief of Police just quit in Oakland last week due to poor relations with City Hall in Oakland.

What a mess.

[Sachita]

Originally Posted by AtLast

Just saw info on the person in the wheelchair- WTH?? I agree about the police being able to protect themselves against rocks and paint- they wear shields.

Good luck with the Mayor of Oakland answering for this! The Chief of Police just quit in Oakland last week due to poor relations with City Hall in Oakland.

What a mess.

you would think by now that all law enforcement would be prepped to handle this in a non-violent way.