Pepper Balls, Mace and 20 Arrests at Occupy Denver

The Denver Post has excellent photos here of Saturday's unpleasant encounter between the Occupy Denver protesters and the police, during which 20 people were arrested. Police say they were attacked and reacted, the protesters say police over-reacted and attacked them. Westword has more and additional photos.

There was a peaceful march by 2,000 protesters earlier in the day. It moved to the state capitol where tensions began to rise:

A group of the marchers advanced toward the building and some tried to make their way up the steps. About eight officers scuffled with a group of protesters and police confirmed that they used Mace and fired pepper balls — hollow projectiles filled with the chemical irritant — to break up the crowd. Protesters told the paper at the time that they believed police used rubber bullets.


"Hollow projectiles" filled with pepper spray sounds closer to rubber bullets than "pepper balls" to me, but I'm no expert.

[A police spokesman said] Protesters kicked police and knocked one officer off his motorcycle. He said five protesters were arrested, including two for assault and one for disobedience.

The protesters then moved to the park where they started to set up tents, which the city has disallowed as being against the law. Police say they gave multiple warnings. In all, there were 20 arrests.

< Anonymous Takes on the Zetas | Sunday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Apparently, (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Makarov on Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 02:45:13 AM EST
    the "Protesters kicked police and knocked one officer off his motorcycle" line has already been partially debunked.

    A story I came across stated a police motorcyclist ran over the foot of one protester who instinctively shoved the officer. While the individual was arrested, he was later released without charges.


    It seems to me, many of the reasons given for police violence in recent crackdowns are the standard lines used for decades when force is employed against crowds. Also, the actions against overnight camps seem to come from anti-homeless actions common to basically all urban police forces and city governments.

    Still in jail... (none / 0) (#80)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 08:26:01 PM EST
    ...on charges of felony assault of a police officer.  Apparently, not part of the protest:

    A man arrested Saturday for allegedly knocking a police officer off his motorcycle appeared to have little connection to the protesters who keep the effort alive. John Sexton, 33, remained in jail Monday in lieu of $20,000 bail, facing a charge of second-degree felony assault on an officer.

    Sexton, who Occupy Denver regulars said wasn't part of the small nucleus of die-hards, is a convicted felon with a history of violence toward police officers.

    He was arrested by both Denver police and Federal Heights police on lesser, but similar, counts last year.

    Apparently (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Rojas on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 08:41:44 PM EST
    knocking over a motorcycle merits more attention than selling a democracy down the shit hole.

    Nice Governor and Mayor you've got out there (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by BDB on Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 09:31:15 AM EST
    Doesn't sound to me like this was some sort of spontaneous action by the police.  This was planned, which means most likely it was ordered by the Governor and Mayor.  I tend to agree with Richard Kline that the police actually don't like these kinds of things because the Department knows it's going to look bad.  Heck, it's being set up to look bad so that it takes the anger instead of the civilian elected officials who ordered the action in the first place.  And Kline later in that mini-thread also notes that there appears to be coordinated action in areas with Democratic civilian leaders to crack down (Chicago, Denver, Oakland) or otherwise back away from the movement, even the LA mayor has suddenly started to back away from his support).  And it all follows a NYT story about how localities were "losing patience".  

    I highly suggest reading the Kline comments, I think they give a lot of food for thought.  I also think, whatever the problems with the Denver and Colorado State Police (as I understand it, the State Police are the lead agency because the protests are on State ground, but I could be wrong about that), they are merely links in the chain. The real problem is that there's a Governor and Mayor who feel they have the power to send in the police to take this kind of action.  

    I should add (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by BDB on Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 09:53:12 AM EST
    that while I believe the bigger problem is the elected officials giving these orders, that doesn't mean criticism shouldn't also be aimed at the police.  The more uncomfortable the police become - the clearer it is that they are going to take a lot of the blame for orders given by the political leadership - the more likely you start to see friction between the police and the leadership.  

    It seems the goal is to (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 10:31:03 AM EST
    change the subject:  from Occupy Wall Street to keep the media  occupied---confrontations between protesters and police are hoped to be covered more sympathetically for the police  than the banksters.  "The Tony Baloney approach" did not work out too well, so the "running out of patience with the dirty hippies" is their try de jour.  

    My husband wonders this morning (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 12:17:08 PM EST
    Who is behind this new running out of patience media tour?  It is the same message on every news station,  I wasn't aware of that but if he isn't busy at work he has his television on in his office. He says it can't be the same message channel after channel unless someone is pushing a "media agenda".

    I never thought about all of this from a military analyst perspective, but one of our friends is retired out of that area and he said that as an analyst....if we were a foreign nation he was analyzing he says that the society to government equation now equals riots if the people are ignored or attacked.  He gives it about four to six months if we stay on this path.


    310 million people (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Edger on Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 12:35:19 PM EST
    if ignored or attacked, are going to run out of patience too.

    watch t.v. news during the fall - especially in (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by seabos84 on Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 03:05:15 PM EST
    even years where big offices are up for grabs -

    I've been watching it since ... '80 when I was 20? and it is amazing how the stories get reported the same way from channel to channel -

    look at the deficit hysteria in the last 6 months.

    it drives my wife nuts - I skim skim skim click click click at the top of the hours & at the 1/2 hours to see what the lead stories are - invariably it is some right wing crap.

    HOWEVER - this is reason #34304738947394783908 I'm fed up with Dim-0-Crap "leaders" -- I could figure this out when I was 4 buck an hour or 7 buck an hour or 9 buck an hour cook in the 80's in Boston, and, here we are decades later and the same DLC-DNC-third Way- New Dem yuppie sell out Ivy'd slimeballs are making fat paychecks telling me how mean meanies are mean and how liars aren't truthi.




    Your husband is wise to ask that (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Towanda on Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 03:47:05 PM EST
    as I have to say, since I have been asking it all week as well. :-)

    The massing of forces from 18 municipalities in Oakland and the hours-long orchestrated attack after attack after attack after attack after . . . yes, I watched at least six tear-gas attacks . . . . and the terrible outcome for one victim masked attention from this question that a lot of us were asking, tweeting, etc., that night as reports came in of attacks on Occupiers in several cities at once.

    And all, all are cities with Democratic mayors.  Now, cities tend to be Democratic, of course.  Still.  And that all attacked at almost the same time . . . yes, this appears to be coordinated.

    Now, let's ask, as ever:  Who was that for?  Who benefits by coordinating the Democratic mayors to attack in so many cities?  Who sent out the meme that they are so impatient?  Etc.

    I don't think it's coming from the association of mayors. . . .


    I was talking to a friend about this last night (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by sj on Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 04:58:52 PM EST
    In about a 48 hour window, suddenly all the municipal governments were oh-so-worried about sanitation and about ignoring curfews.

    Of course it's coordinated.  I'm not a military analyst, but I see the world as a puzzle pieces and those pieces locked together really quickly.  I wonder, though, what he means by "it" when he gives "it" four to six months?

    These are brave and hardy souls, these occupiers. Brave and hardy, as well as knowledgeable and focused.  I'm sure they realized winter is coming and either planned for or around it.  Either there is a plan or they knew that there was no time to delay.


    One thing that worked well in Crawford (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 07:58:07 AM EST
    was having a small house to work out of.  I told my husband that if we lived near a protest our home would be such a place, people coming and going from the bathroom and sleeping all over the living room floor when it is cold, getting a hot meal and protesting in shifts.  We have done a few things strictly for our country, I can't see how that would be any different.

    I hope they have a few such outposts this winter.  I would not be surprised if some residents in the area were helping out in this manner.  If carpeting or flooring became heavily worn or dirty with all the traffic the protests could arrange that some of their donated funds went to replacing it when the time came.  Or one diary on DailyKos could accomplish that as well likely.


    That would be good (none / 0) (#34)
    by sj on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 10:15:46 AM EST
    I wish I could provide such a thing also.

    Ironic (none / 0) (#14)
    by cymro on Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 11:04:40 AM EST
    A primary cause of the OWS protests is that people are running out of patience with the state of governance in this country, namely that authorities serve only the interests of the top 1%. Now authorities are trying to use "running out of patience with the protestors" as an excuse for suppressing the protests!

    It won't work, because too many people sympathise with the protestors, and attempts at violent suppression just stir even more people to protest.


    They'd be pretty hard pressed (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 11:34:02 AM EST
    to get people out their to protest the protesters, wouldn't they?

    Poor saps. I wonder when they'll figure out that shooting themselves in the foot repeatedly in public isn't going to help them.


    On Tuesday, October 25, over a thousand people flooded the streets of downtown Oakland to protest the eviction of the #OccupyOakland tent city early that morning. Riot police fired tear gas and flash bombs to disperse the crowds.

    In this video, a single navyman faces off against riot police - standing amidst the tear gas, holding a flag that reads: "veterans for peace" and a copy of the US Constitution.

    Some of the protesters also sat down on the ground in lotus positions in front of the police, and pleaded for them to shoot more tear gas.

    The cops are standing there looking completely befuddled. They've been put in an untenable position by the police chief and mayor. I think we'll see more and more of police siding with the protesters across the country.


    This (none / 0) (#2)
    by lentinel on Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 07:11:04 AM EST
    is what I feared would happen.

    The ugly side of government brutality would once again reveal itself.

    And the media will portray the protesters as provocateurs, hippies, drug addicts and derelicts.

    "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson

    It was the OWS strategy. (1.00 / 2) (#3)
    by jpe on Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 07:43:30 AM EST
    Refuse to obey the law and egg cops into confrontation.  Looks like it's working.

    OWS strategy... (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by Dadler on Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 10:28:43 AM EST
    ...is to peaceably assemble in order to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  You honestly think OWS wants to get violent with armed cops?  Really?  Maybe a few, a very few, but overall, come on, this is about the First Amendment not existing in this country unless the "authorities" tell you it exists for a short amount of time in a specified area that won't cause anyone too much embarrassment.  

    The minute cops march in with riot gear and weapons, against unarmed civilians, they are the instigators.  The authorities, I have no doubt, have plants in the group and love when things get out of hand, because that is the ONLY thing the police understand how to deal with.  You think the police have enough institutional intelligence to simply talk to these protestors?  They are told not to even be human, to act like statues.

    If the police departments across this country hadn't become so militarized, these problems would not be occurring.  But 9/11, as it did with most aspects of our government, has rendered the authorities collectively mentally retarded when it comes to dealing with Free Americans peacefully using their first amendment rights.


    Excuse (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by lentinel on Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 02:33:13 PM EST
    my plain language, but you are doing exactly what I said.

    People are exercising their constitution rights to peacefully assemble wherever the hell they please and express whatever the hell they want.

    Who needs cops?
    Who sent them in?

    And when they get abused and bruised by armed police, they are framed as people who are "egging" on the police.

    It is absolutely idiotic to say that.

    And, lost in the shuffle is the fact that even if some protesters "egged" on the police, the police are supposed to be professional. They are supposed to receive training and act like adults.

    In similar events in years past, the few who "egged" on the police were planted there by establishment forces specifically to discredit the movement.

    And, of course, lost in all this is the content of what the protesters are saying about how we have been abused by economic interests which control government policy.

    All people wind up talking about is the confrontation.

    That's how the media treat the people, as I said above.


    That is not what the Constitution says (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 09:18:10 AM EST
    People are exercising their constitution rights to peacefully assemble wherever the hell they please and express whatever the hell they want.

    From Amendment 1:

    ....or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    So two points.

    1. People do not have the right to assemble wherever they want. Private property is an obvious example. Use of public property that denies others the right to use it is another example. That's why permits are required. Can the permits be denied without good reason? Sure, but I think that would be overturned.

    2, "peaceably" doesn't mean "some are" and "some are not."  Peaceful is peaceful.


    Are you seriously suggesting ... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 05:13:55 PM EST
    "peaceably" doesn't mean "some are" and "some are not."  Peaceful is peaceful.

    ... that if any member of a group of protesters is not doing so "peaceably", that the government has the right to deny the remaining protesters the right to assemble?


    Are you seriously claiming that (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 10:34:37 PM EST
    peaceful is not peaceful??

    Not an answer (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 06:32:46 AM EST
    But I understand why you wouldn't want to answer it.

    You seem to think I (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 12:53:58 PM EST
    am suppose to answer your every whompy sided question.

    Trust me on this.  I'm not.

    Lewis Carroll aside.

    My point was that peaceful means peaceful. It doesn't mean partly peaceful or sometimes peaceful.


    "Trust you"? Heh (none / 0) (#72)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 01:36:55 PM EST
    Not even slightly.

    Putting aside the definition of "peaceful", you appear to be arguing that everyone at the demonstration must at all times be "peaceably assembled", or all of the demonstrators have no right to "peaceably assemble".  The police can (and have) removed protesters who are not "peaceably assembled" ... and some who were.  Surely, no one would try to argue that because a single demonstrator is not "peaceful" that the entire group may no longer engage in an assembly, ...

    ... because that would be ridiculous.


    You understand, you just want to argue (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 02:40:32 PM EST
    But I will restate.

    1. The government has the right to require permits.

    2. The police have the right to determine what is "peaceful."

    If there is a disagreement over item 1 and/or 2 we have courts.

    STILL not an answer (none / 0) (#77)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 02:46:43 PM EST
    ... and the reason is obvious.

    SITE VIOLATION _ SPAM (none / 0) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 09:28:11 AM EST
    Please delete uggbootstrade user ID - spammer

    SITE VIOLATION _ SPAM (none / 0) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 09:28:38 AM EST

    why are the cops there in full force anyway? (none / 0) (#8)
    by kgoudy on Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 09:29:53 AM EST
    News stories around the country keep quoting cops as saying "we are out of patience".  Why are they all hanging out there to look for trouble? Provocation appears to be on the law side, not the Occupy side.

    Because they're being ordered to be (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by BDB on Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 09:32:16 AM EST
    by their civilian, elected leaders.  

    - the same leaders who report to the one percent. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 11:39:33 AM EST
    Who are you kidding? Yourselves? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 03:26:59 PM EST
    Every commenter here knows what will happen.
    It happens every time.  It is the plan!

    The demonstrators will push until they get a reaction, an overreaction.  That is the plan.  Not everybody of course is in on the plan, but the leaders are for sure.

    The police will "act professionally" until they get tired or mad, and then they will "push back."

    Then we have headlines and pictures at 6PM which is what the demonstrators want.  Always.

    Just like last time, and the time before, and the time before, ...

    The only real question is whether it is working.  I think not.  
    The demonstrators aren't focused enough like the tea party people were.

    Thanks, Donald, for (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Towanda on Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 06:39:23 PM EST
    the moral and practical replies, and thank for putting those replies in the appropriate order.

    I am so impressed by the military veterans who do get that and are doing the military proud.

    p.s.  Have you seen the slogan of the OccupyMarines, the vets organizing to protect citizens?  "Semper Occupare."  Excellent!


    you make me just feel tired (none / 0) (#23)
    by sj on Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 04:51:38 PM EST
    Read the words please. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 01:21:23 AM EST
    I only said what would happen.  What always happens.
    The shock, the surprise at the confrontation is only occurring among the people like yourself that wish to be shocked and surprised.

    Secondly, I asked what would happen since there is no focus and really no effect.  Actually not even much commotion.  

    I think you wish to believe that these actions will work to some end that you wish to happen.

    I don't think these actions will do much.

    That doesn't mean that I am not sympathetic to some of the aims of the protest.  I am just realistic.  


    A question (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 09:22:44 AM EST
    The protesters are expressing
    ... discontent and unhappiness with the prevailing status quo, particularly regarding the manner in which Big Finance and Big Money have continued to be coddled, rather than be held to account for the damage they willfully inflicted upon this country and its people.

    Why aren't they in Washington? That is where regulations are written and laws passed.


    I'll bite, against my better judgement (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 10:09:15 AM EST
    Theoretically those people writing laws in Washington are listening to their local constituents. (yeah, sometimes I crack myself up)

    Also, it takes some resources to travel and stay in Washington for any length of time. \

    did you really need to be told this?


    They're here in DC (none / 0) (#36)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:57:42 PM EST
    In a park across the street from where I work.  The numbers seem to have grown, and I havent' heard of any dustups, but mostly people not associated with the movement walk through the park on the way to do their business, business people and laywers in suits are having lunch today on benches in front of tents, and tourists are taking pictures.

    So, while there may be a message, it mostly just seems to be a "Oh, isn't that interesting to look at."

    I have a feelingz this push peters out by the end of the year.  Oh, you'll have some hangers-on and die hards, but once it gets really cold, I don't think you'll see some of the numbers we've been seeing.


    The point being I haven't seen (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 03:42:42 PM EST
    any effort by the Occupy Wall Street folks to come to Washington.... as did the Tea Party.

    They all seem to be content to be in NYC, Oakland, etc.

    When I see 20,000, 30,000 on the Washington Mall I will believe they have some small amount of traction.

    Until then, no.


    The point being (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by sj on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 03:53:26 PM EST
    that this is an Occupy movement. Not a protest march.

    Some people just can neither let go of nor expand the existing paradigms.

    Your "point" makes no sense.  None whatsoever.  Moreover, I believe that if 20K-30K marched on DC you would find plenty to criticize in the crowd.

    Personally, I'm glad that Occupy isn't listening to people like you.  But here's what's funny.  You say Occupy has no "traction."  And yet here you are discussing it.  By your very participation (even the complaining) giving it that traction.  

    I love, love, love how they are confounding existing patterns and paradigms.  I'm smart, but this is something else altogether.  It's brilliant and simple and completely unexpected.


    Well, if we discussed only things that had (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 10:31:03 PM EST
    traction the discussions would be short indeed.

    As I noted below, the Tea Party has elected people.

    OWS'ers have not.

    And as well as not producing any protest, or whatever you want to call it, I haven't heard of any OWS'ers bearding our elected reps in town hall meetings, etc. The Tea Party has done that time and again.

    Frankly I am reminded of the old saw, "Tastes great! Less filling!"


    The Tea Party (none / 0) (#58)
    by sj on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 01:18:42 AM EST
    is funded by those oh so populist Koch brothers.  And the tea party has delivered for them.  They've gotten people elected who give give give to the corporatists and take take take from ... themselves, though they don't see that.  I don't consider that a huge accomplishment.  Both the Democratic and Republican Parties have been doing that for years.  They're just another spoke in the same old wheel.  

    This is a completely different vehicle.  But you, like so many really, keep trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.  Just keep ignoring them.  That's fine.

    Oh wait, you've already progressed to ridicule and the authorities have progressed to fighting them.  If they can persevere through the winter (which I admit I am too faint of heart to do, although I'll do what I can) it remains to be seen what they'll accomplish.

    While they haven't gotten anyone elected in the last two months, they've changed the narrative.  I think that's huge.


    Gee, I didn't know the Tea Party was (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 08:58:47 AM EST
    funded by Koch.

    At the next meeting of our local Tea Party I will be sure and send Koch the check for my dinner.

    Also, can you please provide me an organization chart?? I have several complaints I would like to see addressed at the highest level,

    I thank you in advance.


    It's amazing (none / 0) (#63)
    by sj on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 10:24:08 AM EST
    that you go to the meetings and still manage fool yourself about it all.  Even with all the information provided to you here.

    It's really paid off for them.


    There's a phrase ... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 10:45:36 AM EST
    ... the right-wing loves (often falsely attributed to Lenin) that springs to mind, particularly when they ignore the obvious.

    Yeah, I guess when OWS takes over (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 11:00:49 AM EST
    Congress and I'm asked, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Tea Party?" I will have to take the Fifth.

    Of course there was quite a bit of that going around 60 or so years ago.



    Exhibit ... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 12:14:15 PM EST
    ... A.



    You sometimes become (none / 0) (#69)
    by sj on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 12:48:21 PM EST
    such a self-parody.  When you reach the point that you just start spewing comment after comment there's no point in talking to you.  You make comments as if people had actually said what they said in your mind.  That doesn't promote any kind of honest discussion.

    So have at it.  I'll start reading your comments again soon.


    The question I asked was: (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 10:53:37 AM EST
    Show me some proof.

    In the meantime:

    Here is a list of organizations funded, partially or fully, by Soros.

    And you know what? That doesn't bother me. As long as they follow the law re NGO's, etc., they should be let alone.

    You, on the other hand, appear to think that the unorganized and independent Tea Party groups should be shut down.

    Who is the liberal here?


    David Horowitz?!?! (none / 0) (#68)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 12:19:23 PM EST
    Heh, heh, heh ...

    Show me some proof.

    All you need to do is click on the link I provided.


    Uh, I found no mention of the (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 12:49:23 PM EST
    Tea Party's national organization in your link.

    In fact, I found no mention of the Tea Party.

    You wouldn't try to slip one by, would you??


    YOU found "no mention" ... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 01:46:00 PM EST
    ... of the Tea Party"?!?

    Heh, heh, heh ...

    The issue must be with the first word of your sentence, since "Tea Party" is mentioned on almost every page of the 10 page article (including the first), and it's listed as a keyword for the article.  Maybe if you actually tried reading it.

    But at least the David Horowitz list is funny stuff.


    The article (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 02:52:17 PM EST
    does not provide a national organization, just claims that various people met with various people.

    Get over it. There ain't no national organization that's recognized as controlling the local groups.


    Of course their isn't (none / 0) (#79)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 06:42:18 PM EST
    So what?  That doesn't mean they haven't been funded by the Koch brothers, which is clearly explained in the article.

    But at least you've figured out the article not only mentions the Tea Party, but is about the Tea Party.



    Soros.. (none / 0) (#75)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 02:17:29 PM EST
    the evil, shadowy, puppet master of the left..

    Committing the ULTIMATE sin in the Right's eyes: being a traitor to his class..

    The key word in there is "partially". Soros is to the point with Planet Wingnut, that if he blows his nose, he's just made an evil alliance with the handkerchief industry..


    you also didn't know (none / 0) (#74)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 01:55:54 PM EST
    Sun Yung Moon and Richard Mellon Scaife funded the Washington Times and the Heritage Foundation respectively.

    If you're not afraid of what you'll find, it's not hard to follow the money trail.


    You mean, the Tea Party which was a (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 03:57:05 PM EST
     creation of the Koch brothers and Dick Armey, and co-opted to a fare-thee-well by every right-wing talking head looking for more publicity?  That Tea Party?

    And, while the numbers are not up to your standards, the Occupy movement is in DC.

    Oh, and refresh my memory, but did the Tea Party generate any solidarity protests around the world?

    Because OWS did.


    I'm really not concerned (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 10:26:19 PM EST
    about "around the world."

    But, in case you haven't noticed, the Tea Party managed to elect enough Repubs to take control of the House and almost take control of the Senate.

    Let me know when the occupy what evers come even close to doing that.


    Why 20,000-30,000? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 07:50:35 PM EST
    Seems like a rather arbitrary number.  is that the number you think was at the DC Tea Party rally?

    Quite a drop from the original estimate of 1-2 million.


    I picked the number out of the air (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 10:22:40 PM EST
    As usual you are late and wrong.

    Strange - such a relatively narrow number ... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 06:34:35 AM EST
    ... range, chosen for no reason at all - just "picked out of the air" as an arbitrary threshold to be considered legitimate.



    BTW - How can a question ... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 06:36:21 AM EST
    ... be "wrong"?

    They are in DC (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 01:02:52 PM EST
    occupydc.org is in McPherson Square, and october2011.org is in Freedom Plaza...

    Stop me if you heard this one... (none / 0) (#32)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 09:41:37 AM EST
    On a fine Sunday morning, three guys walk into a bar. Occupie orders a beer, Tri-corner orders a Long Island Tea, and Wally orders Champagne.  The beverages had no sooner touched their lips but 5000 cops equipped with riot gear and Uzis poured into the bar and started pepper spraying and beating Occupie.

    What did I do, asked Occupie?  We have blue laws and you are a law-breaker with whom we have run out of patience, said a officer while wielding his baton.  Well, what about Tri-corner and Wally, you are leaving them alone.  That's different, said another cop--Tri-corner is a real American--and very focused, he is against a lot of things--abortion, gays,and  government except for his Medicare.  

    OK, said Occupie, but what about Wally?   Another officer, his white shirt peaking out from under his steel breast plate, began stumbling around about how Wally was really going to mix the Champagne with orange juice, sort of a breakfast drink, not a drink, drink, but was bailed out by a guy at the end of the bar named Timmy, who said that his boss said that Wally might be immoral but he is not a criminal.  The beatings then resumed--on Occupie.

    2 cultures at OWS (none / 0) (#38)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 01:30:16 PM EST
    The true believers / actual protestors - and everybody else. And that's how problems start. And it's only going to get uglier.

    And there's the rub: The "model" civilization that's sprung up at Zuccotti is itself increasingly divided between the stakeholders in the nascent movement who feel invested in the emerging economic, social and cultural causes of "the 99%," and hangers-on, including a fast-growing contingent of lawbreakers and lowlifes, many of whom seem to have come to Zuccotti in the last week with the cynical encouragement of the NYPD.


    Every protest scene or dissent park draws from a dark carnival element, and Zuccotti has had members of this group since the first week of its occupation. But the swelling ranks of freeloaders and disturbed characters in the last few days has pressed the working group members who've organized the protest and so far kept it from going off the rails to refine their ideas about just how open their movement should be.


    The number of non-participants taking advantage of the resources that the activists have provided -- free food, clothing, tarps and sleeping bags, hand-rolled smokes and even books, not to mention a sense of protection from the police, who have increasingly left the park to protect itself - has exploded over the past week, and is threatening to define the occupation itself and overshadow its political and social ambitions. Despite those resources, "spanging" (spare-changing, or panhandling) at Zuccotti has become commonplace, as have fights, near-fights and open-air drug sales.


    The watch, though, has only powers of persuasion and pressure to try and enforce the rules, and no way to remove people from a public park. The police, whom many occupiers see as the enemy and who work under a mayor who's made no secret of his distaste for the occupiers, have little reason to help them maintain order, and rarely seem to have entered the park over the last week for anything short of an assault. When officers have gone in, a wave of people carrying drugs (or with other reasons to fear arrest) moves away from them while others circle tightly around, cameras out. Even when organizers have requested their intervention, police enter to a mixed chorus of "brutality" and "pig" calls side by side with chanted reminders that "you are the 99%."

    But while officers may be in a no-win situation, at the mercy of orders carried on shifting political winds and locked into conflict with a so-far almost entirely non-violent protest movement eager to frame the force as a symbol of the oppressive system they're fighting, the NYPD seems to have crossed a line in recent days, as the park has taken on a darker tone with unsteady and unstable types suddenly seeming to emerge from the woodwork. Two different drunks I spoke with last week told me they'd been encouraged to "take it to Zuccotti" by officers who'd found them drinking in other parks, and members of the community affairs working group related several similar stories they'd heard while talking with intoxicated or aggressive new arrivals.

    It strikes me that those who are (4.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 01:59:05 PM EST
    "freeloading" are quite possibly the homeless, and if there is any demographic that better represents the least among us, isn't it the homeless?

    That they may not be strictly part of the Occupy movement, they certainly are a reminder of just how many people have been left out, or turned out, onto the margins of society.  

    And I guess the irony is completely lost, that while the media looks down its nose at the "lowlifes and lawbreakers" who may be in among the occupation participants, there is no real interest in holding accountable those "lowlifes and lawbreakers" who are largely responsible for and so deeply involved in why so many no longer have jobs, homes or anything that resembles a decent standard of living.

    Imagine that.  It's like Exhibit A(1)(b) in "What's Wrong with This Picture?"

    And for the life of me, I wish I could disabuse myself of the notion that you all but cheer the kinds of negative articles you keep posting here and on other threads, so repulsed do you seem to be by those seeking to be heard, or by those who seek shelter and a hot meal in a society increasingly ruled by people who just don't care about them.


    Disabuse yourself (none / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 02:16:24 PM EST
    But I also am not naive, nor blind, enough (as many are) to believe that all people at the protests are of pure heart and have pure interests, nor do I believe that those that want to impose rules on them are all tyrants. And I believe that many here get thrills up their legs when they can show

    I firmly believe that many people at the protests that are causing trouble are those planted there by fringe groups because the protests don't get much news coverage unless craziness erupts.  As I said before, I walk by and through the DC protests every day - it's basically become a tourist attraction or a place for curiosity seekers because everyone is getting along - protestors, business people, police officers, park rangers, etc.

    So, think what you want.  I know differing opinions aren't necessarily welcome here, but I see things in gray, as opposed to black and white when it comes to who is causing trouble.


    Come on, jb, your pattern suggests (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 02:53:53 PM EST
    that this shade of gray you see is through a decidedly authoritarian lens; can you really not even admit that much?  I don't think I'm yet over your comments the other day about the Patriot Act.  

    Do you support the Occupy movement?  I can't recall whether you've ever said that you do, but since you've not - to my recollection - ever reported on any engagement with the protestors, any conversations with anyone there - even to the extent of commenting on a sign that you thought to make a much-needed point - how almost anxious you are for the whole thing to peter out, and how sure you are that it won't matter, won't work, well, it colors my perception of where you seem to be coming from on the subject.

    I'm not suggesting you have to support it, you don't; but a little more honesty and a lot less disingenuous talk about shades of gray would help.


    Oh, jb (none / 0) (#45)
    by sj on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 02:57:07 PM EST
    I have regard for you, I do.  But I didn't realize you thought you think in terms of shades of grey.  

    Wait a minute, that's not fair of me.  I'll take your self-assessment and stipulate that you think in shades of grey.  But you comment in terms of black and white.  With more black and less white.  You don't have much good to say about your fellow human beings, and are very often suspiciously searching for troublemakers.


    With this was hardly unexpected, was it? (none / 0) (#43)
    by sj on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 02:46:56 PM EST
    Agents provocateurs* have a long -- and documented -- history of use by the US/state government

    * Thank you, brodie, for the plural.  I figured I would be needing it.


    Same was so in the '60s (none / 0) (#50)
    by Towanda on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 06:21:32 PM EST
    with a lot of hangers-on for lack of somewhere else to go, something else to do -- or they were plants by the police, FBI, etc., as we only know for a certainty in my locale, with release at last of long-sought documents from the FBI.

    I'm still glad that the committed activists marched for civil rights and against the war, all while they had to cope with druggies, crazies, and agents provocaeur (some of whom, paid by the government, were druggies and crazies, of course).

    Are you?


    wow. (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 07:23:01 PM EST
    When they can show (none / 0) (#42)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 02:17:22 PM EST
    Rogue police officers being jacka$$es.  Who, by the way, should also have the book thrown at them when they cross the line.