Unless the government decides that actually they don't like that after all:
http://myoccupylaarrest.blogspot.com/

Usually the government decides to arrest people for breaking laws, such as illegally pitching tents and camping out in public places for an indefinite amount of time. People like to moan about how the cops hate OWS or the corporations rule the government or whatever, but often times these occupy movements are illegally camped out and quite often public health hazards as well (buckets filled with feces = unsanitary). The difference with the Tea Party is that they throw a rally, clean up, and go home. That's why the police haven't pepper sprayed them.

I think you missed the thrust of the article: the unnecessary use of force, intimidation and deliberate destruction of property.

If there was unnecessary use of force (I am loathe to make that call without less biased evidence), then it is due to the nature of the police, not the movement. The point is, if those losers hadn't been breaking the law in the first place, then they wouldn't have to deal with these problems. The police are justified in breaking up their little circles because they are in violation of the law.

@dumbducky: How about this?

Oh ya, makes total sense, just like why shouldn't a cop run over a jay-walker with its car to prevent him from restarting this outrageous infraction!?

You are rejecting his relate of the actions because you think he is "biased"? Holy crap... it's not like there aren't literally hundreds of videos of abusive conducts and unnecessary use of force during the arrests of occupiers from different regions all around the world, including the United States.
... And not to mention that I've seen many cops on YouTube not following the proper procedures of arrest among occupiers. Should a cop be allowed to unlawfully detain or arrest someone? No. You nearly seem to be thinking the contrary.

In the case of the occupy movement, clearly just asking them to leave won't work. If it is determined they are breaking the law, and it is determined that this should be enforced (the police have complete discretion whether to enforce a law), then all-out destruction of property and brutality is still not warranted and certainly not the methods that should be first used to disperse the protest.

In your rather horrid little world view, the ends always justifies the means. Who cares if you injure someone permanently when it was completely unrequired to do so - as long as those "losers" get what's coming to them.

You authoritarian, bible-bashing idiot republicans make me sick.

Quote from Lanthanide

You authoritarian, bible-bashing idiot republicans make me sick.

And your broad classification makes me sick. I'm a republican. I am not authoritarian. I am sorry, but I could classify you as a anarchist, atheist idiot communist, but not only do I have better grammar, I'm not quite the insular person you are.

I wouldn't call you authoritarian. However dumbducky is an authoritarian, and a bible basher, and a republican. I don't see the problem.

If you called me an anarchist or a communist you'd be wrong. I'd disagree with 'idiot' but that one is more subjective than the others.

The s on "republicans" is what I was referring to. You're branding all republicans as those traits, which isn't true

As a Canadian that hasn't studied United States' political parties much, would it be possible for me to obtain more specifications as of what involved being a republican? I heard basically, they are the "conservatives".

Hmmm, I can see how you took it that way, but that is not how I meant it. It's more about the type of republican that particularly makes me sick, not republicans in general (although I disagree with their politics, particularly the party being hijacked by the tea party).

I don't know about you, but having watched a handful of police videos Ari posted, as well as my own experience, it seems to me that police seem to rely on violence far too often. More often than not, I see them approach a situation with an intimidating demeanor and threats of physical harm.

I do not know if this is what they're taught to do, but it may be. In any case, any psychologist can tell you if you approach someone by trying to be intimidating, it is likely only going to exacerbate the situation. It's no wonder you see OWS people outright refusing to comply with the police. The police's strategy seems to be, "do what we say, or else" and I don't understand how this sort of behavior could possibly encourage diffusing a situation.

Does the law serve the people, or do the people serve the law?

I'm a bible basher. Gonna get mad about it?

payne> "Conservative" is just another word for jet fuel. Now me, I'm more curious what the fuck this "Tea" party is all about. Is it about downing tea all day? And the Pirate party, is this run by my good friend Davey Jones? We should be voting for these guys, they sound swell.

Sac> I agree. I think force should be delivered immediately and without the foreplay of intimidation. Blood for the blood god and all that.

SIGN THE PETITION TO STOP NDAA Section 1031 Citizen Imprisonment Law!!

http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-ndaa-section-1031-citizen-imprisonment-law-before-dec-13

I am not authoritarian, I am not a "bible-basher" (did you mean bible-thumper?), and I am a Republican. Glad we cleared that up.

Oh ya, makes total sense, just like [bad analogy constructed with poor grammar].

When you search for examples of police abuse, are you surprised that you find examples of abuse? That in a nation of hundreds of millions of people, there are a plethora of examples of such abuses? Not that this matters at all. You've attacked me with a straw man. I said the arrest of the OWS folks is justified because they are in violation of the law. You rhetorically ask if someone should be arrested unlawfully. Of course not! But that isn't the matter being discussed. By raising such a question, you imply that the OWS folks are not in violation of the law, which I pointed out they were.

Anecdotal evidence, even when presented with lots of it, it still just anecdotal evidence. That hardly proves that America is a fascist police state. And of course the police's strategy is "do what we say, or else". Should they say "Please stop breaking the law. Here's why you should follow it"? They can only enforce the law through force. It is juvenile to suggest that they should not arrest people. And the law is supposed to serve the people, but that doesn't give a small group the right to ignore laws simply because it is convenient to them. They mistakenly believe that anything they do while they express a political opinion is as protected as the political opinion itself. They are wrong.

The police do not have discretion whether to enforce a law. They are duty bound to enforce all laws to the best of their abilities. As you note, asking them to leave does not work. However, you fail to realize what this means. This means they must make use of force to clear out the camps. This means something like tear gas and pepper spray (brutality!) or arresting people (fascism!). I can see how actually viewing the methods police use may shock you, but can you think of a way method in between forcibly pulling someone out of the human chain and arresting them that would still work? I can't.

No, I just have no sympathy for people who complain that they were punished for breaking the law.

They do. You're flat out wrong.

From the internet: "The amount of force to be used by police officers is usually described in police manuals as no greater than necessary and reasonable in a given situation."

The amount of force described in the blog post is both greater than necessary and unreasonable.

Did they have to push the guy to the ground on his face after they wrenched his arms behind his back and he flinched? No.
Did they have to use bindings so tight they permanently damaged his hand? No.
Did they have to destroy personal property (tents, etc) in order to arrest people who were sitting outside in a circle? No.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Dec 12 2011, 1:47 am by Lanthanide.

In NZ we say Bible-basher for people who use the Bible to tell them they're committing sin; people such as myself

There needs to be a precise definition of necessary force and reasonable. You might think it's unreasonable for a parent to hit their kid enough to make them cry, I might think that's perfectly reasonable.

No, no precise definition necessary. The most precise this type of thing gets here is precedent. So have fun finding that out. That's why police officers are trained to know what adequate force means, and everyone prays that they have good discretion and are of sound mind.