[Acharis]

Originally Posted by Versus

Why? Because it hurt?

“Because it hurt”? No. Because even a fine cloud caught in my throat and made it hard to breathe for the split second it drifted over me. Because the person who was sprayed in the face was incapacitated. That’s what it’s for, incapacitating people.

Originally Posted by Versus

Again, that is not disproportionate. What you describe is not brutality. Of what the police are allowed to do, nothing short of physical action would get that task accomplished. That much is obvious because they are there in the first place to physically evict people that refuse to comply. If you're going to resist by linking arms (again, not threatening at all to you from your perspective) how else would you expect them to go about it? I mean, really. The police are not some kind of martial artists that can touch you and instantly make you comply, so anything physical they do is going to look rough.
I want you to imagine that you have to physically remove someone from your work because they refuse to and are being very disruptive. How would you do it? Politely tugging on their clothing isn't working, so you have to be more aggressive. Even though they're not being violent about resisting by doing things such as being a dead weight or pulling back, it's clear that minimal physical contact is a luxury you don't have. How do you do it? \

I wish I could find the footage of a young girl screaming as he dragged her face across the ground and pinned her down with his body. And the old woman I spoke to at Occupy was punched in the face after letting an officer pass and while just being nearby.
Face it, some of the officers did get carried away.

Originally Posted by Versus

Again, I remind you that you're not looking at this from any perspective but your own and you're saying "How could anybody possibly think otherwise?" Tell me, do you think that officer was threatening you, or was he warning you that you could get hurt in a matter of fact manner because his day had been far too long and stressful to care about being polite?

No, the reason I bring up my own perspective is to point out (as someone that was there) that the media spin isn’t necessarily accurate. The cameras zoom in selectively on the bad things, but cut out other elements... what you see is chosen ahead. A specific angle is taken, so what you see reported may have a very different flavour to what went down.
(The same happened with Slutwalk – I can tell you the majority of people there were dressed in everyday clothing, the people were more varied and the message clearer than came across in the media.)

As for whether it was a threat or a warning about the horse, I can’t tell. But he sounded pretty shirty. And really – the height/bulk of the horses was intimidating, and I know what happens if you walk up behind one. A warning wasn’t really required.

Originally Posted by Versus

Police are always at risk from the moment they clock in. They were using force to carry out their jobs because their jobs were to remove people who were forcing them to do so by not cooperating. You're just upset that someone got a bruised elbow because you think that it can happen any other way.

Bruised elbow? People were bleeding and lying on the ground, and while I’m not sure what injuries occurred I’m sure that wasn’t the limit. All the possessions from the City Square were gathered up and destroyed. Computers, clothing, tents, phones, I assume wallets... all taken away and destroyed.

Originally Posted by Versus

As I said before, "why" is completely and utterly irrelevant to the police. They follow orders, not think-tank how to thoughtfully engage you so that you'll be willing to compromise. Is it not a decision on their part, so when you compare them to being the henchmen of some police state by slandering them when they take the only course of action to get you to move, you are trying to personify ordinary people as something they are not.

Henchmen? Slander? No. I object to the tactics used and individual officers going overboard. Which some did.

Originally Posted by wolf moon

Are you at all familiar with the concept of civil disobedience or what the movement is actually about? At all? The police are pepper spraying people who are sitting down and linking arms. This has been considered, for decades now, to be a universally understood sign of nonviolence. Prison guards who use pepper spray after an inmate is sitting down, even if that person was actively engaging in violence just moments before, are fired for excessive use of force. Your response to the police using these tactics on seated, nonviolent, nonaggressive protestors is seriously going to be "it's just pepper spray"?
The idea that this violence is justified by the fact that the protestors are not "cooperating" with a request to evacuate a public space is precisely what they're protesting in the first place. "Do whatever we say or we will use violence against you" is not supposed to be how this country works. The fact that you see nothing wrong with this mindset is terrifying.

Thanks wolf moon, that’s what I was trying to articulate.

Originally Posted by Versus

I think that their protest is justified to disrupt any of that. The movement is really important. It's merely an inconvenience for most people, and I don't blame them for using any of it as a tactic to get attention.

I agree. I have been fricking slack, I should get down there again with some cookies or something to keep up morale.

Originally Posted by Grausamkeit

Versus, I'm glad that I'm not the only one that can see a different perspective on these situations.

I do wonder, though. Do these protester's ever stop to think what the vandalism or the street clogging they do in some areas is doing to disrupt the lives of others? Do they give a fuck about anything besides their 'peaceful' protest? If they cause a building to be shut down that they have vandalized and someone can't get medication they need to survive(and that person subsequently dies) will they rightly admit to causing someone's death?

There's no vandalism or blockage in Melbourne, Treasury Gardens is clean as whistle.

Originally Posted by Grausamkeit

I don't think Versus is saying the police have the 'right' to use force on the protestors. He's saying they're just doing their jobs and being demonized for it, to boot.

We’re not demonizing. We’re questioning actions, which is a good thing to do when a person or group has a lot of power.
I’ve been helped a lot by police and support their institution, but am becoming concerned. And just because you’ve never met a police officer that abuses their power or makes a bad call, doesn’t mean it doesn’t ever happen in isolated cases.

Originally Posted by Versus

As adults, the protesters can do whatever they please, and as adults they are also responsible for their actions. The U.S. does not excuse breaking the law for political reasons. Even if their reasons are good ones, they still display criminal intent.
To put plainly, the protesters intend a consequence when they can foresee it happening after certain acts (or omission of acts) continue, and that shows a desire for it to occur. Civil disobedience should be punished because it not only encourages a more general disobedience, but also undermines the law itself.

No, it doesn't show a desire for it to occur and it isn't someone's responsibility if they get hurt. This goes right back to victim blaming, and justifies the whole "Do whatever you're told or you will experience violence".