gut;957966 wrote:Straw man argument. Different rules apply, as it should, to maintaining order with a much smaller number of officers. When the mob becomes physical you've already failed at your job in large part allowing things to progress to that point.

An order is given to disburse, and when the mob refuses that order then other means are certainly justified - "small" and "insignificant" point being glossed over in this debate. Follow a simple order to disburse and there's no need for officers to "assault" anyone.

We weren't talking about that though. Can none of you read? We were talking about whether taunting, and that alone, gives police the right to assault citizens. The answer is of course no.

I Wear Pants;958005 wrote:We weren't talking about that though. Can none of you read? We were talking about whether taunting, and that alone, gives police the right to assault citizens. The answer is of course no.

The correct legal answer to this was given in post #1001.

I Wear Pants;958005 wrote:We weren't talking about that though. Can none of you read? We were talking about whether taunting, and that alone, gives police the right to assault citizens. The answer is of course no.

Then it's a ridiculous hypothetical. An officer isn't going to respond with physical force against a taunt. They will order you to cease and desist, or to disperse. If you continue on, the officer is fully justified in the use of physical force to restrain (i.e. arrest) you. You can stand there and taunt the officer, and you can be arrested for disorderly conduct.

http://www.myohiodefenselawyer.com/criminal-charges/disorderly-conduct-laws/
"Offenses categorized under “offenses against the public peace” in Ohio are broad and far reaching. Including disorderly conduct, failure to disperse, and inciting, these are the laws that keep neighborhoods quiet and people under control. However, they are not always applied correctly."

"There are many circumstances that may have led you to a disorderly conduct charge. And you are more likely to be charged if you particularly annoy the police or they don’t like you, given that the criteria are often very subjective.

If you were believed to have done any of the following you may be facing this charge:
Recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm by:

• Fighting, threatening, or engaging in violent or turbulent behavior,
• Making unreasonable noise or communicating abusive language,
• Insulting or taunting another where it is likely to cause a violent response,
• Preventing or hindering movement of others, or
• Creating a physically offensive condition that present the risk of physical harm"

I Wear Pants;957842 wrote:Several posters on here said it's okay for police to assualt citizens for insulting them. We weren't talking about people attacking cops or refusing to move out of an area but people insulting cops. If all you are doing is taunting an officer (in an area you're allowed to be in and doing nothing wrong) and he assaults you that officer should be arrested. It's that simple.

I was only talking about taunting. Nothing else. Taunting is not and should not illegal

Who ****ing cares? "Oh no, the mean protesters are calling me names. I need to assault them now"

Again, if the person is doing something else illegal then that's a different discussion. But what I was talking about and made clear was that taunting is not illegal and there is no grounds for the use of force by our government (police in this case) against people for calling them names. None at all.

You're smarter than this, dude.

They aren't getting smacked down for "insulting the cops." They're getting smacked because they're deliberately trying to provoke and escalate the situation in the middle of a protest. In the vast majority of cities/towns across the country, that IS illegal. Whether they're using bottles, guns, or witty rhetoric doesn't matter in the slightest. You're getting all persnickety when this is SOP for virtually every police force in the country.

You can argue until you're blue in the face, but you'd be hard pressed to find a judge who would rule in your favor.

gut;957858 wrote: I find it somewhat comical and puzzling that these "protestors" are clashing with police to begin with. Do they even have a beef with police, or just venting frustration at them? Evidence, IMO, of a passion for protesting/stirring the pot more than an actual passion for change. A hard-on for mayhem, if you will.
"Down with corporate greed! And, oh by the way, FU pig" ???

There are definitely other forces at play here. for the most part, in NYC it was peaceful. then some knuckleheads in Oakland decide to take it to the next step. they want a confrontation with authority.

fish82;958246 wrote:You're smarter than this, dude.

They aren't getting smacked down for "insulting the cops." They're getting smacked because they're deliberately trying to provoke and escalate the situation in the middle of a protest. In the vast majority of cities/towns across the country, that IS illegal. Whether they're using bottles, guns, or witty rhetoric doesn't matter in the slightest. You're getting all persnickety when this is SOP for virtually every police force in the country.

You can argue until you're blue in the face, but you'd be hard pressed to find a judge who would rule in your favor.

I don't care if they were trying to murder the police with their words. They are words. Police should never assault someone for taunting them.

A bottle and a gun are tangible instruments of violence if used that way. Someone shouting that your mother is a whore and you're a filthy scumbag is not. It's quite rude but it certainly isn't/shouldn't be illegal. Ever.

Glory Days;958361 wrote:There are definitely other forces at play here. for the most part, in NYC it was peaceful. then some knuckleheads in Oakland decide to take it to the next step. they want a confrontation with authority.

So the police should avoid giving them what they want if at all possible. Unless and until people do something violent/illegal the police shouldn't escalate the situation.

After it's already escalated by the people (throwing shit,etc) then the discussion switches to the appropriate level of force because of course the police are justified in that situation. But there is no way for protesters to escalate a situation, no matter how much they might want to by yelling insults/curses/whatever. They can do it until they're blue in the face but yelling will never kill or harm the person you're doing it at.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7A28MD20111104?irpc=932

This thing is starting to fall apart. Polls are now showing americans disapprove of whats going on. It was a nice try but this thing is not going to change a thing.

I Wear Pants;958691 wrote:So the police should avoid giving them what they want if at all possible. Unless and until people do something violent/illegal the police shouldn't escalate the situation.

After it's already escalated by the people (throwing shit,etc) then the discussion switches to the appropriate level of force because of course the police are justified in that situation. But there is no way for protesters to escalate a situation, no matter how much they might want to by yelling insults/curses/whatever. They can do it until they're blue in the face but yelling will never kill or harm the person you're doing it at.

shouting and cursing by itself no, but you dont understand mob mentality. very rarely do mobs just start throwing shit, it starts with the shouting and yelling and once the crowd gets fired up, some ass throws a bottle. its a chain reaction.

Glory Days;958715 wrote:shouting and cursing by itself no, but you dont understand mob mentality. very rarely do mobs just start throwing shit, it starts with the shouting and yelling and once the crowd gets fired up, some ass throws a bottle. its a chain reaction.

That's a slippery slope. Violence starts with the shouting. Outlaw shouting. Shouting starts with crowds. Outlaw crowds.

You get the point. Even though shouting is sometimes followed by violence that doesn't mean that it always does. And until it is the government has no right to assault it's citizens. Shouting and yelling aren't what cause violence otherwise every protest would be violent. There's plenty of shouting and anger at, for instance, Tea Party protests. Didn't see bottles thrown there. Should the police have started beating Tea Partiers because crowds that are yelling and angry sometimes turn violent? Of course not.

The Occupy movement needs to just end. The longer it goes on, the more violent it is going to get. The actual people who had good intentions at the beginning probably already have left and now it is going to be run by the fringe idiots, much like what happened with the Tea Party.

In all honesty what has this movement actually accomplished? Got Bank of America to waive its $5 dollar Debit Card fee...OMG.

If you want people to pay for their crimes, blame Obama and Holder for not prosecuting these Wall St Criminals.

The idea is that the blame is on the system and not a specific party or person. Our system is skewed to benefit the wealthy more than the poor as is always the case when you can buy influence.

The 20 year olds in 1944 have significantly more to do with the problems facing our country right now then the current 20 year olds. They've only been voting for 2 years, the 20 years in '44 have voted for deficit after decifit. Give the 20 years today 16 trillion to work with, like the previous generations have had, and we'd already have everything we'd want.

The problem is you cannot fix the system unless you fix the causes for the system. It would be like trying to fight Cancer by treating the symptoms only. Give Medicine for the headaches, Stomach issues..etc instead of actually attacking the tumor.

The problem in this country with the government, Corporations and the American People is debt and spending. You can tax the rich all you want but when you have a spending/debt problem, more income does not solve the problem. You just end up spending more money. If you cannot handle money when you are poor, you wont be able to handle it when you have more of it. We all had a hand in creating this system. We have given these people power because we rely on debt and credit to make it through our daily lives.

Look, there are smarter people on this forum when it comes to economics than myself. But I try to live my life by the philosophy of living within my means and not spending more money than I bring in. I also cannot blame someone for a decision that I made, whether it was taking out a mortgage , taking out a student loan, or getting a credit card. I personally choose not to have any debt whatsoever other than my mortgage.

At the end of the day , I am a solutions guy as opposed to an Excuses guy and all I am really hearing out of the Occupy movement is Excuses and not solutions.

The real problem is expectations have not kept up with reality. Consider this. The life expectancy for my great grandfather was 35 years. He had a son, that son grew up. Ggdad died, son took over house, farm, and money; he and his wife cared for GGmother for a few years till she died. He continued to build on the wealth of the previous generation.
Today you have three or four generations alive. All requiring food and shelter. There is no building on the past.
Not only that but 20 year old's today want nice cars, and nice houses today not down the road after they have established an income and a savings. Divorce also adds to this with two households instead of just one. This higher demand results in inflation which results in the need for higher wages. It is a continual cycle.

Go Falcons;958863 wrote:The real problem is expectations have not kept up with reality. Consider this. The life expectancy for my great grandfather was 35 years. He had a son, that son grew up. Ggdad died, son took over house, farm, and money; he and his wife cared for GGmother for a few years till she died. He continued to build on the wealth of the previous generation.
Today you have three or four generations alive. All requiring food and shelter. There is no building on the past.
Not only that but 20 year old's today want nice cars, and nice houses today not down the road after they have established an income and a savings. Divorce also adds to this with two households instead of just one. This higher demand results in inflation which results in the need for higher wages. It is a continual cycle.

Lol.

I Wear Pants;958750 wrote:That's a slippery slope. Violence starts with the shouting. Outlaw shouting. Shouting starts with crowds. Outlaw crowds.

You get the point. Even though shouting is sometimes followed by violence that doesn't mean that it always does. And until it is the government has no right to assault it's citizens. Shouting and yelling aren't what cause violence otherwise every protest would be violent. There's plenty of shouting and anger at, for instance, Tea Party protests. Didn't see bottles thrown there. Should the police have started beating Tea Partiers because crowds that are yelling and angry sometimes turn violent? Of course not.

And flashbangs are just light and noise...like shouting and yelling.

Glory Days;959505 wrote:And flashbangs are just light and noise...like shouting and yelling.

No they aren't. They can cause burns and eye and ear problems.

I Wear Pants;959509 wrote:No they aren't. They can cause burns and eye and ear problems.

and crowds can incite violence.

Glory Days;959532 wrote:and crowds can incite violence.

So now it's crowds that you think should be disallowed?

And flash bangs always lead to explosions that have dangerous levels of light, heat, and sound. Crowds do not always or even most times lead to violence.

pmoney25;958695 wrote:http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7A28MD20111104?irpc=932

This thing is starting to fall apart. Polls are now showing americans disapprove of whats going on. It was a nice try but this thing is not going to change a thing.

"There have been reports, which are equally as disturbing, that when people in Zuccotti Park become aware of crimes, instead of calling the police, they form a circle around the perpetrator," Bloomberg said.
People in the park then "chastise him or her and chase him or her out into the rest of the city to do who knows what to who knows whom," the mayor said.

LOL. Who the heck are these people?

I Wear Pants;958774 wrote:The idea is that the blame is on the system and not a specific party or person. Our system is skewed to benefit the wealthy more than the poor as is always the case when you can buy influence.

I am not even close to wealthy and this statement is 100% bull crap.

You need to really gain some understanding of how the system in the US works if you believe this to be true.

jmog;959925 wrote:I am not even close to wealthy and this statement is 100% bull crap.

You need to really gain some understanding of how the system in the US works if you believe this to be true.

Actually, to some degree, this is true, but only in how we have failed in fleshing out what was intended.

The buying of politicians and/or votes would indeed lend more benefits to those with money. However, that is not capitalism, so if that is the sort of behavior to which people object, then they're not objecting to capitalism.

For what it's worth, however, in that scenario, the "fat cats" are only half to blame. The other half are corrupt politicians, so "Occupy Wall Street" should be "Occupy Wall Street AND Washington."

If history tells us anything on this matter, it's that as governmental involvement in the private sector increases, so does collusive corruption, bureaucracy, and a lack of efficiency.

I Wear Pants;959555 wrote:So now it's crowds that you think should be disallowed?

And flash bangs always lead to explosions that have dangerous levels of light, heat, and sound. Crowds do not always or even most times lead to violence.

of course flash bangs lead to those things, however they dont always lead to injury.