Police Use Pepper Spray, Rubber Bullets on Occupy Denver Protesters Trying to Storm Capitol | Video | TheBlaze.com
Police used pepper spray and rubber bullets to try to quell an Occupy Denver demonstration Saturday as protesters attempted to occupy the state Capitol building.
The Denver Post reported seven arrests were made, including two for assault and one for disobedience. Police confirmed pepper spray and either rubber bullets or pepper balls were used to break up the crowd, which may have numbered up to 2,000.
Lt. Matt Murray with the Denver Police told the Post some protesters received medical treatment at the scene, but no one had been taken to the hospital.
Police and protesters clash on the steps of the state Capitol building. (Denver Post)
Murray said one officer was knocked off his motorcycle and others were attacked and kicked by protesters...
This violence has got to stop. These people need to calm down and do something productive instead of provoking the police.
A rational argument. Keep trying....Oh, for God's sake. What do you want? Forensics?You have provided no evidence of any violence (except by the police).
P.R. statements by police spokesmen are not evidence of violence.
Death for non-violent protest.[...] Finally, if you had been in a less free country it wouldn't be simple injury you would be complaining about because they would have used real bullets, chlorine gas, or military vehicles to clear you out, that isn't simple injury......that's DEAD. So maybe.....just maybe stop whining because you are wrong, very wrong, and if you hadn't gone over your freedom of speech line you wouldn't be bleeding.
I believe he was pointing out that the system that many of the protesters want to overthrow is the very system that keeps them from being truly "punished", this dramatic victimhood **** is getting annoying.Death for non-violent protest.
Welcome to right wing Amerika, where the police -- not the courts -- determine the limits of your rights.... and your punishment.
There has been no evidence presented here that anyone was trying to "storm" the capital.I wonder why the US doesn't respond more forcefully. Even the Tea Partiers aren't/weren't this violent. I mean, trying to storm the capitol?
There has been no evidence presented here that anyone was assaulting the police.Assaulting the police?
There has been no evidence presented here of any fights (other than those initiated by police), public indecency, drugs, or armed revolution (well, not with the OWS folks, at least).Fights, public indecency, drugs, where's the limit? Armed revolution?
There has been no evidence presented here to support that.Those people are crazy.
There has been no evidence presented here that police have even been injured, much less intentionally.They intentionally injured the police [...]
You can always dream, eh?Worthless ********ing brats. They should be thankful that the US isn't Iran or North Korea or a ROKMC camp.
Well, I believe he and others are pointing out that the protesters should be severely beaten or killed, given the many comparisons to other totalitarian countries that have been posted. In other words, the protesters should be happy to be living in a free country, and damn well stop trying to exercise that freedom -- or suffer the consequences.I believe he was pointing out that the system that many of the protesters want to overthrow is the very system that keeps them from being truly "punished", this dramatic victimhood **** is getting annoying.
In any case, it seems clear to me that the protesters are complaining about greed, not the government (government inaction, perhaps). Of course, someone with a totalitarian bent may certainly twist the protesters message to be one against the government, which they would then use to justify government (police) action to quell the protests.
Walk me through the logic of your post:As with all protest groups, individuals have different agendas. If they are protesting greed, they'll never accomplish a darned thing. They need to protest the government...the government that's been bought-and-paid-for by Wall Street...the government that has failed to regulate them to the detriment of every homeowner, every saver, everyone except The Street itself.
If they ever figure that out, they may have staying power. Protesting greed?? Pullleeze.
It's always amusing when people complain about the very thing they are.
Who are you referring to? People who technically are not in the 1% but don't approve of the actions of these protesters?
Or something else?
As with all protest groups, individuals have different agendas. If they are protesting greed, they'll never accomplish a darned thing. They need to protest the government...the government that's been bought-and-paid-for by Wall Street...the government that has failed to regulate them to the detriment of every homeowner, every saver, everyone except The Street itself.
If they ever figure that out, they may have staying power. Protesting greed?? Pullleeze.
It's all about Time Place and Manner. Under normal circumstances public offices are generally of open access to the public but under circumstances such as closed office hours, unrest, disaster protocols, and other emergencies cities do have the right to shutter their facilities to authorized personnel, this is for safety. If the city closed off city hall the police were in the right to remove the protesters. As far as the guy in his own yard in your example, it sounds like the police were wrong in that case, but the court seems to have corrected it.It isn't always that black and white. We had the story a couple weeks ago where a police officer told a person standing in their own yard to leave the area and quit filming him.
The person didn't. Yes, they were arrested but the charges were dismissed. My point is to know your rights. Nobody has the right to tell anyone they can not enter a city building. A city official may very well instruct police officers to intervene. They may arrest you but you will have been perfectly within your rights. I agree that being violent is only going to backfire. It's never going to work. Showing the government falsely arresting people will do far more for the arguement.
Public officials often times forget that they are public officials.
Bingo. That was exactly my point.I believe he was pointing out that the system that many of the protesters want to overthrow is the very system that keeps them from being truly "punished", this dramatic victimhood **** is getting annoying.
Death for non-violent protest.
Welcome to right wing Amerika, where the police -- not the courts -- determine the limits of your rights.... and your punishment.
There is a reasonable argument to be made to that effect. The anti-government Tea Party was embraced by the corporatists (the right), while the anti-corporate OWS is being vilified by the right (the corporatists). Coincidence?Protesting against corporate greed would seem silly if you are assuming OWS is about government reform, but not if they are after a socialist revolution. Put complaints about corporate greed together with complaints about wealth inequality, claims that Wall Street owns the government and that the police are just tools of oppression, and what have you got? The old left wing rhetoric that capitalism is fascism.
That seems to be a prevalent theme. Of course it is of little consolation to those brutalized in the process.[...] As far as the guy in his own yard in your example, it sounds like the police were wrong in that case, but the court seems to have corrected it.
Early today [Nashville TN] Night Court Magistrate Tom Nelson sent an email to Davidson County’s General Sessions judges explaining why he refused the THP’s [Tennessee Highway Patrol] request to sign criminal trespassing warrants against Occupy Nashville protesters.
In the email, obtained by The Tennessean, Nelson said he ordered all of the protesters released from custody because the state had not given the protesters adequate notice that it was changing the rules regarding how and when they could assemble on Legislative Plaza.
Nelson said “until the new rules and regulations were promulgated there was no crime of Criminal Trespass pertaining to this group of persons for the past 3 weeks.’’
He noted “It is of particular consternation that the rules and curfew were enacted after a protest movement and occupation of Legislative Plaza had been tolerated for just over 3 weeks, with no notice that the group members were involved in criminal activity.’’
Night Court commissioner slams state for Occupy Nashville arrests | The Tennessean | tennessean.com
Oakland police denied using rubber bullets or flashbang grenades to quell demonstrations, though admitted to firing tear gas canisters into the rioting crowd. Protesters claimed police shot rubber bullets and bean bags, and photos of Olsen taken when he was first injured appear to show flashbangs may have been used.
Update: Iraq War Vet Injured in Occupy Oakland Awaiting Brain Surgery | TheBlaze.com
Well, then, that is two of you wrong. Surprisingly and blatantly wrong. Here is the group who wants to overthrow the system:Bingo. That was exactly my point.I believe he was pointing out that the system that many of the protesters want to overthrow is the very system that keeps them from being truly "punished", this dramatic victimhood **** is getting annoying.
You think showing me a picture of a bleeding criminal is going to sway me? Hardly.That seems to be a prevalent theme. Of course it is of little consolation to those brutalized in the process.
This proves you don't get it. I don't think protesting is all that useful, but the guy holding a sign quoting a founding father isn't breaking any laws, the idiot bleeding in the other picture disobeyed lawful police commands. If you don't understand the difference or are trying to make a dishonest comparison I have nothing further to tell you.Well, then, that is two of you wrong. Surprisingly and blatantly wrong. Here is the group who wants to overthrow the system:
Tea Party protester. Armed. Advocating the spilling of blood. Government blood, given their overall ideology.
That seems to be a prevalent theme. Of course it is of little consolation to those brutalized in the process.
Well that's just an unfortunate incident that occurred in the process of trying to dispel the crowd.
I'm sure they didn't aim at him - in fact - you can't actually aim those things accurately when fired. They're not scoped and rifled, you know.
It's all about Time Place and Manner. Under normal circumstances public offices are generally of open access to the public but under circumstances such as closed office hours, unrest, disaster protocols, and other emergencies cities do have the right to shutter their facilities to authorized personnel, this is for safety. If the city closed off city hall the police were in the right to remove the protesters. As far as the guy in his own yard in your example, it sounds like the police were wrong in that case, but the court seems to have corrected it.
There is a reasonable argument to be made to that effect. The anti-government Tea Party was embraced by the corporatists (the right), while the anti-corporate OWS is being vilified by the right (the corporatists). Coincidence?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?