OccupyOakland Gets Raided

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

This was at 5 am this morning, Oakland police surrounded, and used violently engaged the protesters there. The police used tear gas, flashbangs, and rubber bullets against unarmed, nonviolent protesters.

Supposedly, the police corralled the media in one area and tear gassed them first, possibly as an attempt to limit documentation.

As of this evening, those who have reassembled at OccupyOakland have been tear gassed for a second and third time.

I don’t care about if people agree with the motivations for these protests, but to see such violence towards unarmed, non-aggressive civilians in our own backyard is mind blowing.

Thoughts?

2

[quote]wonderbeard wrote:

This was at 5 am this morning, Oakland police surrounded, and used violently engaged the protesters there. The police used tear gas, flashbangs, and rubber bullets against unarmed, nonviolent protesters.

Supposedly, the police corralled the media in one area and tear gassed them first, possibly as an attempt to limit documentation.

As of this evening, those who have reassembled at OccupyOakland have been tear gassed for a second and third time.

I don’t care about if people agree with the motivations for these protests, but to see such violence towards unarmed, non-aggressive civilians in our own backyard is mind blowing.

Thoughts?[/quote]

Thoughts? There is no violence in that video whatsoever. Stop the bullshit. That’s my initial thought.

3

Thoughts? (Hint ‘riot’ is a euphemism for ‘protest.’)

4

[quote]wonderbeard wrote:

This was at 5 am this morning, Oakland police surrounded, and used violently engaged the protesters there. The police used tear gas, flashbangs, and rubber bullets against unarmed, nonviolent protesters.

Supposedly, the police corralled the media in one area and tear gassed them first, possibly as an attempt to limit documentation.

As of this evening, those who have reassembled at OccupyOakland have been tear gassed for a second and third time.

I don’t care about if people agree with the motivations for these protests, but to see such violence towards unarmed, non-aggressive civilians in our own backyard is mind blowing.

Thoughts?[/quote]

Do some other fact finding to find both sides of the story. The “innocent” aren’t the sheep they appear to always be.

5

Wonderbeard, you are not telling the whole story.

The mayor told protestors days in advance, that they would need to disperse for reasons of safety and cleanliness. There were reports of rats, drug needles, used condoms, and tons of trash that were not removed. The protestors were warned, they didn’t listen.

Some of you need to learn something when dealing with cops, they will wreck your shit if you don’t listen. They tell you to move, it’s not a request. If you don’t want to comply, no problem, just don’t complain when a baton gets shoved up your ass.

6

Well, I can’t watch the videos because I’m on my iPhone and videos posted in the forums don’t show up for me, but will say this.

Thank god.

It’s no secret that I hate this movement, but putting that aside, i live just a few miles from this and the last few protests they had in Oskland turned violent without police involvement, resulting in the destruction of lots of private property. I’m glad they’re nipping this in the bud now.

7

It’s about time some one took action against those fuckers.

8

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Wonderbeard, you are not telling the whole story.

The mayor told protestors days in advance, that they would need to disperse for reasons of safety and cleanliness. There were reports of rats, drug needles, used condoms, and tons of trash that were not removed. The protestors were warned, they didn’t listen.

Some of you need to learn something when dealing with cops, they will wreck your shit if you don’t listen. They tell you to move, it’s not a request. If you don’t want to comply, no problem, just don’t complain when a baton gets shoved up your ass.[/quote]

And it seems apparent that the protesters got violent first. So this was not peaceful civil disobedience. This protest looked an awful lot like squatting; so it was time to end it.
They disbanded it here too, but it was peaceful

9

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Wonderbeard, you are not telling the whole story.

The mayor told protestors days in advance, that they would need to disperse for reasons of safety and cleanliness. There were reports of rats, drug needles, used condoms, and tons of trash that were not removed. The protestors were warned, they didn’t listen.

Some of you need to learn something when dealing with cops, they will wreck your shit if you don’t listen. They tell you to move, it’s not a request. If you don’t want to comply, no problem, just don’t complain when a baton gets shoved up your ass.[/quote]

This.

I love it when people edit the video to take out the countless warnings to disperse…aside from the fact that they are fucking up somebody’s storefront/home front/private park.

10

This:

Was only a year ago in Oakland. Something tells me all the people crying foul about the protest breakup today don’t own any shops downtown…

11

Everyone in Cali is watching, the protestors vow to return to the plaza to protest again at 6pm, and here I thought there was nothing to watch on TV.

12

There are also reports that the homeless have been flocking to these protests too. Perfect place for them to “share” wealth. Apparently the protesters realized what was going on and tried to get the “freeloaders” out. So what’s the message here?

13

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Everyone in Cali is watching, the protestors vow to return to the plaza to protest again at 6pm, and here I thought there was nothing to watch on TV.[/quote]

14

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
There are also reports that the homeless have been flocking to these protests too. Perfect place for them to “share” wealth. Apparently the protesters realized what was going on and tried to get the “freeloaders” out. So what’s the message here?
[/quote]

This is why this entire movement is defunked by now.

At first, you had people protesting the Wall Street greed, but now it’s about homeless, party-loving, drug addicted, hippies sleeping in their own excrement screaming about anything and everything under the sun.

The media is now showing it as protestors against the cops, no longer about protestors against Wall Street.

We are waiting Oakland, or should I say Chokeland, with your worthless Traitors (Raiders).

15

And for the record, Michael Moore is NOT a part of the 1%…

16

A comment from the Occupy Oakland website:

“Did you see ?TEA PARTY? rallies getting tear-gassed? Did the ?TEA PARTY? get evicted from their ?protests?? Because the ?Tea Party? represents the top 1%, it was allowed to continue unimpeded. But the second a liberal-minded cause starts to gather public support, the full force of the police, dogs of the 1%, is brought out upon them. This is a clear, indefensible violation of our 1st amendment right to public protest.”

Is it because we represent the 1% or is it because we got permits, didn’t campout in parks that had curfews, and never threw bottles and feces at police? Hmmm, such a difficult question…

17

I thought the point of civil disobedience wasn’t to pack up as soon as the minions of the government…part of the same collusion between government and big business part of this is a protest against asked you to.

Here’s another interesting video.

18

[quote]benos4752 wrote:
A comment from the Occupy Oakland website:

“Did you see ?TEA PARTY? rallies getting tear-gassed? Did the ?TEA PARTY? get evicted from their ?protests?? Because the ?Tea Party? represents the top 1%, it was allowed to continue unimpeded. But the second a liberal-minded cause starts to gather public support, the full force of the police, dogs of the 1%, is brought out upon them. This is a clear, indefensible violation of our 1st amendment right to public protest.”

Is it because we represent the 1% or is it because we got permits, didn’t campout in parks that had curfews, and never threw bottles and feces at police? Hmmm, such a difficult question…[/quote]

Seems a bit of a worthless protest if you submit to all government regulation if you are protesting said government. Reminds me a lot of some of the guys Patrick Henry looked upon with scorn.

19

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]benos4752 wrote:
A comment from the Occupy Oakland website:

“Did you see ?TEA PARTY? rallies getting tear-gassed? Did the ?TEA PARTY? get evicted from their ?protests?? Because the ?Tea Party? represents the top 1%, it was allowed to continue unimpeded. But the second a liberal-minded cause starts to gather public support, the full force of the police, dogs of the 1%, is brought out upon them. This is a clear, indefensible violation of our 1st amendment right to public protest.”

Is it because we represent the 1% or is it because we got permits, didn’t campout in parks that had curfews, and never threw bottles and feces at police? Hmmm, such a difficult question…[/quote]

Seems a bit of a worthless protest if you submit to all government regulation if you are protesting said government. Reminds me a lot of some of the guys Patrick Henry looked upon with scorn.[/quote]

And what are these people accomplishing?

They’re occupying public parks and preventing the citizens around there who pay for those parks with their tax dollars from using said parks (some people in Oakland are even now talking about occupying the public library, yeah, that helps their fellow citizens).

They’re knowingly breaking laws and then calling foul when the police enforce said law. If you want things to remain peaceful, follow the law. If you you want a revolt, than fucking revolt and have some balls about it, don’t throw a bottle and resist police, than get online and cry about police brutality.

At least the Tea Party got people elected into office, just unfortunately not enough. I don’t know about you, but to me that’s accomplishing something. And it was done without breaking any laws and while being peaceful (and not claiming to be peaceful while holding signs saying ‘Kill the Rich!’)

20

[quote]benos4752 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]benos4752 wrote:
A comment from the Occupy Oakland website:

“Did you see ?TEA PARTY? rallies getting tear-gassed? Did the ?TEA PARTY? get evicted from their ?protests?? Because the ?Tea Party? represents the top 1%, it was allowed to continue unimpeded. But the second a liberal-minded cause starts to gather public support, the full force of the police, dogs of the 1%, is brought out upon them. This is a clear, indefensible violation of our 1st amendment right to public protest.”

Is it because we represent the 1% or is it because we got permits, didn’t campout in parks that had curfews, and never threw bottles and feces at police? Hmmm, such a difficult question…[/quote]

Seems a bit of a worthless protest if you submit to all government regulation if you are protesting said government. Reminds me a lot of some of the guys Patrick Henry looked upon with scorn.[/quote]

And what are these people accomplishing?

They’re occupying public parks and preventing the citizens around there who pay for those parks with their tax dollars from using said parks (some people in Oakland are even now talking about occupying the public library, yeah, that helps their fellow citizens).

They’re knowingly breaking laws and then calling foul when the police enforce said law. If you want things to remain peaceful, follow the law. If you you want a revolt, than fucking revolt and have some balls about it, don’t throw a bottle and resist police, than get online and cry about police brutality.

At least the Tea Party got people elected into office, just unfortunately not enough. I don’t know about you, but to me that’s accomplishing something. And it was done without breaking any laws and while being peaceful (and not claiming to be peaceful while holding signs saying ‘Kill the Rich!’)[/quote]
Well likely it was the police that killed that guy which seems a little harsh for exercising the constitutional right to free assembly…not the right to assemble when the government sees fit or issues a permit or doesn’t need to clean the part etc etc. The Tea Party has done nothing since being co-opted by the mainstream Republicans. Everyone knowingly breaks laws everyday so that hardly seems reasonable to kill some guy over especially if that law might be constitutionally protected. I think some of their goals are stupid as hell, some not so bad and some well wort pursuing, but I’d never say they shouldn’t be allowed to protest. Does the guy with the “Kill the Rich” sign define the movement in the same way the rascist sins defined the tea party?