[Acharis]

I lol'd at the policeman being 'surrounded'.
In Melbourne it was us that was surrounded by police, and if ugliness had broken out every single one of us would have been at risk of a beatdown regardless of what we were/weren't doing. Literally penned in without escape.

Originally Posted by Versus

No, I agree with you. It's a great abuse of power and largely is hypocritical to hurt the people you are supposed to protect needlessly. It's just wrong in every way.

It’s a relief to see that you realise that.

Originally Posted by Versus

That was my initial qualm with saying anything at all. I am acutely aware that somethings don't bother me as much as they should - like an 84 year old woman getting pepper sprayed. In that instance, I don't think it's justified to do so, but my rationalization for it - that I'm positive she wasn't the only person who the police used pepper spray on - draws a more likely conclusion in my mind. My problem is that people specifically look at that instance, and those like it, and draw conclusions. Yes, on it's own and without context, it's awful. Excessive violence is wrong, and there is no justification for it. I can plainly circumvent my own desensitized viewpoint to see that.
But I think it's more likely that that is not the whole story, and unless someone can conclusively say "Yes, this officer identified an old woman who was not involved in any crime and decided to use pepper spray on her," I won't agree that that was excessive. The same is applied to any instance I look at. The confines of the law extend to everybody, and the police's authority to use force in pursuit of upholding the law also applies to everybody.

The use of aggression seems to be fairly indiscriminate, and these incidents distressingly common.

A pregnant woman miscarried after she was pepper sprayed and assaulted by police at a demonstration in Seattle. [ http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/pregn...g-sprayed-with ]
Another Seattle activist, an 84 year old woman, was also severely pepper sprayed. [ http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...rainey18m.html ]
Uni of California President does not approve of having to submit to police brutality on their own campus. [ http://thinkprogress.org/special/201...nt-protesters/ ]
Also noteworthy is Scott Olsen, an Iraq War vet, who was struck by a tear gas cannister fired by cops and sustained brain damage in Oakland some weeks prior. [ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...oakland-review ]

Originally Posted by Versus

I would ask you to ask yourself what the police can do differently to enforce the law in those instances. If people do not comply with the police who enforce the law, the police MUST uphold it.

Obviously the police can’t disobey direct orders. But they can use lesser force. They can go in without the biased expectation of violence which leads to their heavy handed tactics. Considering the possibility, yes – but acting as if it’s already occurring will backfire.

Originally Posted by Versus

It is not the job of the police to discourse with anyone. They are only there to uphold the law, and if a protest is in violation of that law, even unknowingly as seems to be the case, they must intervene. To say it differently, what is to become of the rule of law if the police or judges are entitled to rethink it's wisdom in every circumstance in which it applies?

I meant the people who sent in the police should have first bothered to open their ears.

But more importantly, I’m noticing a common theme here.
You seem to think the law should be sacrosanct and never questioned/altered regardless of how it’s functioning or what effect its having in the real world. I can understand the need for laws to retain their authority and not be undermined, but really?

There have been all sorts of laws. Laws are passed, amended and written out all the time. Inhumane ones like slavery, laws now archaic but still in effect like it being illegal to cross some boder without a bale of hay in the boot... Some made up on the spot for personal agendas or a weapon to avoid dealing with an issue – it’s the ultimate “BECAUSE I SAID SO”.

Also there’s such a thing as the spirit of the law rather than the letter. Laws are blunt instruments, imperfect as the humans who made them.
Rather than being slavishly adhered to, it pays to look at what a law is doing to the populace and refine rather than simply blocking your ears and screaming like a broken record “BUT IT’S THE LAW. STEP OUT OF LINE AND YOU TAKE WHAT YOU GET”. Potentially beneficial things will come about, like r@pe shield legislation did.

Originally Posted by Versus

In fact, I had this same argument on g.net a while ago when the Westboro Baptist Church won their case in the supreme court. I expressed resentment that they were allowed to picket at the funerals of soldiers, but was reminded by Kontan that it was a dangerous line of thinking to suppress anyone's freedom of speech. The reasoning is, of course, because if it is allowed to stop there, then who will draw the limit?

I remember that... it was seriously off, I agree and resent that too. If people asked me I wouldn’t say that was a protest, I’d say that was harassment or vilification. But off topic.

Originally Posted by Versus

Nobody is being denied freedom of speech or a right to protest. The reason that police are involved is because they are violating the law while they do it. I can't tell you specifically what laws, but obviously there is something if they are involved. I can't call the police and say "This man stole my girlfriend."

Occupy is protesting by occupying. And that something is that nobody in charge wants to lift their game.

Originally Posted by Versus

Similarly, as I have said, you cannot stop the law on a case by case basis, so then who will draw the limit? If one were to say "Well, this case of civil disobedience is alright because I agree with it, even if it violates the law," then how are you going to justify preventing or punishing other violations? "This woman was continually beaten by her husband, and anticipated that he would eventually kill her, so she was justified in preemptively killing him because it was a case of self-defense."

Hmm... You don't agree with that, but you do agree with “These police saw a bunch of people and anticipated that they’d turn violent, so they were justified in pre-emptively kicking the crap out of them”.

(Though off the top of my head - there may have been instances where the judge was more lenient in the case of domestic violence, because of the real possibility that he may have killed her otherwise.)

Originally Posted by Versus

How would I recommend that protesters avoid individual rebellion? Have a clear and concise purpose for the protest, ensure that it is protected by the law, and have representatives tell the police when someone is violating that.
What? Are you saying that because they are upset, they are allowed to break the law? That doesn't sound like a peaceful protest.

They’re not simply ‘upset’, they’re seeking justice the Government won’t give them. And the law can be made to serve the lawmaker – goalposts are easily moved.

Originally Posted by Versus

You are being beaten to death. I stand in the way of the police so that they cannot move me, but do not violently resist them. You don't see my actions as a crime?
How? Do what instead? We've already established that you understand what NOT to do. What SHOULD be done? I've already explained, as well as Miss Absynthe, that it is not the job of the police to engage in a political discourse with you, so keep trying.

No, I meant those giving the orders to the police. I’ve already told you what the police should do. Lesser force, more discriminate. And er... peaceful protest is the same as blocking the way while beating someone to death? Wut.

Originally Posted by Alan

Speaking as probably the only individual here that lives in a city where police brutality is commonplace, I will say that I can understand why some people say using pepper spray isn't 'really' police brutality, but it is still unwarranted aggression which should not be tolerated.
I have seen friends getting shot for protesting and I kind of wish protests in America would escalate to that point, but not because 'then it would be a real protest', rather because Americans would never tolerate such acts of aggression on the part of police and it would wake up people into realizing that they ARE part of the 99% and they DO feel solidarity with the OWS.
And the reason they would get riled up that badly by having one person killed by the police, in contrast with us who just accept it as an inevitable tragedy of marching against the state, is precisely the same reason that you people still get upset at the mere use of pepper spray. So I commend that.

Yes. I realize Australia is a lot more fortunate in that regard, but you’re right – it’s good to have an outcry over pepper spray so it doesn’t get to people being shot.