Occupy protesters disavow Oakland violence - Polidicks

Its scary how out of control shit is in Oakland at the moment.

[QUOTE=eatdembeanz;33163473]Yeah, uh... Fuck da poleez. dey never dun nuthin 4 uzz and just shot our petzz. Seriously, the mentality of you guys is getting mighty sensationalist and judgemental. OH WAIT[/QUOTE] everyone i disagree with is stupid because i say so grr i hate you guys

Here is a interesting comparison of the tea party and the occupy movement [IMG]http://www.accelerated-degree.com/wp-content/plugins//2011/11/faceoff-occupy-wall-street-vs-tea-party-movement-infographic.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Kopimi;33161816]are you ever going to address the fact that there are undercover police proven to be there, and that the police chief that is organizing these operations said in 2003 that he wants to and has the ability to infiltrate and influence these groups when he needs to?[/QUOTE] I realize there's undercover cops and that the police chief in 2003 said those words, I guess I'm just being optimistic to assume it was a small minority of the protestors who committed the acts of vandalism, rather then the police. Just like I recognize the wording of the police chief was fishy and there are undercover cops, I hope you also know it could've very easily just been some protestors who broke those store windows.

can't say much about those broken windows and graffiti, but those "random fires" actually had a purpose and were set mostly to counteract the tear gas grenades (the smoke breaks apart the tear gas)

[QUOTE=Canuhearmenow;33169285]I realize there's undercover cops and that the police chief in 2003 said those words, I guess I'm just being optimistic to assume it was a small minority of the protestors who committed the acts of vandalism, rather then the police. Just like I recognize the wording of the police chief was fishy and there are undercover cops, I hope you also know it could've very easily just been some protestors who broke those store windows.[/QUOTE] Yes the violence grows with mob mentality. But what the fuck do the cops think is going to happen when they dress in black clad, carry rocks and hand out dangerous items. Yes there are some to blame among the protestors but it sometimes if not often gets incited by police infiltrators. The police dont actually do anything. They just get it started/

Hold on...are the Police power hungry retards or crafty bastards? You guys can't even get your stereotyping right.

[QUOTE=Canuhearmenow;33169285]I realize there's undercover cops and that the police chief in 2003 said those words, I guess I'm just being optimistic to assume it was a small minority of the protestors who committed the acts of vandalism, rather then the police. Just like I recognize the wording of the police chief was fishy and there are undercover cops, I hope you also know it could've very easily just been some protestors who broke those store windows.[/QUOTE] like i said, i'm not claiming that the police did anything to incite violence, i'm just annoyed by everyone that instantly jumps past all of the evidence that shows there are undercover cops there and that the police chief has intent and ability to subvert these groups from within, so that they can call someone a funny name and pretend they won the argument. all i'm asking is that you be logical and understand that it is possible, and that there is evidence showing that. [editline]7th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Swilly;33171337]Hold on...are the Police power hungry retards or crafty bastards? You guys can't even get your stereotyping right.[/QUOTE] you're really bad at attempting to generalize and insult other people's posts/arguments, maybe you should just stop.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;33171767]like i said, i'm not claiming that the police did anything to incite violence, i'm just annoyed by everyone that instantly jumps past all of the evidence that shows there are undercover cops there and that the police chief has intent and ability to subvert these groups from within, so that they can call someone a funny name and pretend they won the argument. all i'm asking is that you be logical and understand that it is possible, and that there is evidence showing that.[/QUOTE] Ok then, I accept the fact that it is possible but that doesn't necessarily mean that's the case right now. It's equally possible, if not more likely, that some anarchists and out-of-touch protesters are stirring up trouble. In fact, I strongly believe that the original message of these protests has been lost or barely hanging together. There's too many independent parties under the guise of being in a unified cause but it's not anymore.

Look, Kopimi is just trying to point out that there [I]is[/I] evidence of police infiltration, and that they may be motivated to manipulate the protests. I don't think they did incite it, but the possibility is there and people shouldn't be dismissive of that. As for the 40 second video with the guy getting hit with the rubber bullet, that was [I]one[/I] cop's actions. I didn't hear an order to fire, and by the way he was moving he was probably fed up with people yelling at him. Not to say that it's justified, it isn't. But that was one pissed off cop who got no order (at least as far as we can tell) to do that. For all we know, the cop next to him shoved him back asking "What the fuck was that?"

[QUOTE=Kopimi;33171767]like i said, i'm not claiming that the police did anything to incite violence, i'm just annoyed by everyone that instantly jumps past all of the evidence that shows there are undercover cops there and that the police chief has intent and ability to subvert these groups from within, so that they can call someone a funny name and pretend they won the argument. all i'm asking is that you be logical and understand that it is possible, and that there is evidence showing that.[/QUOTE] It is possible, however the possibility that the police are there to gauge the general mood and motives of the protest is more likely then police trying to cause violence or violent actions, since the chances of someone getting hurt naturally go up (either protestor or police) when there's a confrontation. Police are just as human as the protestors, so incidents where 1-3 cops do something stupid, while should be subject to the necessary investigation and prosecution, can't be considered the orders of the police force in general. As Spooter mentioned in the Occupy Oakland thread, would you consider this to be the actions of a few cops who make a bad decision (due to stress or just being dicks) or a coordinated police response that it accepted and carried out by all levels of the force?

[QUOTE=Kopimi;33171767]you're really bad at attempting to generalize and insult other people's posts/arguments, maybe you should just stop.[/QUOTE] Father and son reunited :zoid:

[QUOTE=Kopimi;33171767] you're really bad at attempting to [B]generalize and insult other people's posts/arguments,[/B] maybe you should just stop.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0[/media]