home

Downtown Denver: Police Cars Everywhere

By Jeralyn, Section Colorado News
Posted on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 02:56:49 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Downtown Denver is a mess. 30 minutes ago there were police cars everywhere, blocking traffic, even driving the wrong way down one-way streets without using their sirens. Buses couldn't move, every street between Stout and Larimer on 14th and 17th had 4 to 5 police cars. There were no protesters I could see, just a mess of police cars and lanes blocked. Not one news station is reporting on it.

Anyone know what this is about?

< Gingrich Time | Occupying Earth: City by City >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Downtown Denver: Police Cars Everywhere | 55 comments (55 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Can't speak... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 03:13:30 PM EST
    to the exact situation in the Mile High city, but the nationwide situation is massive police presence to deter dissent and protest.

    A blatant attempt to intimidate the people hitting the pavement for change, and turn the non-protesting public who is generally sympathetic against the protestors, citing bullsh*t "disturbance" and "unrest" and "health and safety hazards" concerns that are overblown or non-existent.

    If it's happening everywhere (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 04:45:29 PM EST
    I'd think it means someone is expecting a nationwide revolution.

    Or trying to force one to happen.

    Good thing this revolution is happening in America. If it was Egypt or Libya or someplace it would get no support at all from Washington.

    I mean... ummmm... uhhh... oh, never mind.

    Parent

    On the other hand (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 04:49:37 PM EST
    Maybe the heavy police presence all over the country is to ensure the safety of protesters and protect their right to dissent and free assembly?

    Maybe?

    Never mind.

    Parent

    Edger (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by womanwarrior on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 09:29:34 PM EST
    Just want to say:  Great!

    Parent
    Except (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 03:21:52 PM EST
    Here in DC they are planning a march to Key Bridge in Georgetown.  Major traffic delays are expected in much if the business downtown area during rush hour.  That's not a way to win people over to be sympathetic to your position.

    Just read that in NY, some people were taking the barriers down and charging forward and there are reports of injuries.

    Hopefully, these protests and marches  will all remain peaceful,  it only takes a small number to make things get out of control.

    Parent

    You realize, of course, (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by sj on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 03:25:13 PM EST
    that it is typically the actions of "law" enforcement that push it over the edge.  

    Parent
    In your biased opinion, of course (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 03:33:17 PM EST
    A link to actual facts, perhaps?

    Do some police get out of control?  Absolutely and they should have the book thrown at 'em.  That should never be tolerated.

    But a most of the time?

    Prove it.

    Parent

    So I take it you fall for the (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 03:41:03 PM EST
    "someone threw a bottle"  line that gets thrown out when the police get violent against protesters? Even though there never seems to be any proof?

    And speaking of biased opinions . . . . and links to facts . . .

    Parent

    In some cases, yes (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 03:45:41 PM EST
    Unlike some, I don't see one side as always evil and the other as pure and noble.  There are a lot of people out there who like to cause trouble for the sake of causing trouble and they are attracted to things like peaceful protests, even when they don't care about the issue.

    And yeah - sometimes there are a$$ wipes who think they're smart and will do stuff like throw bottles.

    Parent

    That is a patently false representation (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by sj on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 04:04:22 PM EST
    Unlike some, I don't see one side as always evil and the other as pure and noble
    You are building a strawman so that you can nobly fight it.  Find that "some" that "always see one side as evil and the other side as pure and noble".  Prove that.

    You -- you personally -- have always given more credence to authority than to "rabble".  Although I could be wrong, I have yet to see you refer to anyone in authority as a$$ wipes.  Even if there is evidence that they fired the first shot or swung the first baton.  

    Parent

    there was a time when this sort of thing (none / 0) (#52)
    by cpinva on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 08:07:20 AM EST
    only rarely happened, and was quickly rebuked by everyone. of course, this was when the police actually seemed to take their universal motto of "to protect and serve" to heart. that time pretty much ended with bull connor. anyone who thinks that the police are there to "protect and serve" anyone but themselves is either very naive, or totally oblivious to the last 50 years of US history.

    take your pick.

    Parent

    jb (none / 0) (#14)
    by sj on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 03:48:50 PM EST
    Seriously, you're being ridiculous.  How many links will satisfy you?  I'm talking about when police and crowds interactions escalates.  Yes, it is usually police action that takes it too far.

    The one event that I can think of where the crowd initiated hostilities with no/little provocation from the police/authorities were the riots after the Rodney King verdict.  There may be others but I can't find of record of them.  Can you?  You prove otherwise

    One on one interaction is different matter.  You prove otherwise.

    Parent

    sj, jbindc actually wrote: (none / 0) (#40)
    by NYShooter on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 06:28:13 PM EST
    "That's not a way to win people over to be sympathetic to your position."

    Jbindc, lecturing the protesters as to how win "hearts and minds.

    No, really!

    Lol, lol, lol


    Parent

    Okay that made me laugh (none / 0) (#41)
    by sj on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 06:33:01 PM EST


    Parent
    May not win them over, but the (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 03:26:39 PM EST
    point of a march is to get the attention of the decision-makers and those citizens who are asleep at the wheel (so to speak).

    Parent
    Hmmm.... Those decision makers (none / 0) (#12)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 03:42:22 PM EST
    Who, since they work on Capitol Hill, which is at the exact opposite work end of the city and more than likely won't be affected by any traffic tie ups at rush hour?  Or the regular people, whose hearts and minds they are trying to win over - those same people trying to get home, many for the start of the weekend?  Or do you think Obama is going to be stuck in any traffic jam?

    Who are these people you think will see this and change their minds and see the error of their ways?

    Parent

    We get it (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by sj on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 03:50:22 PM EST
    They're not going to win you over if you're a little inconvenienced.  But you were going to be hard sell no matter what.

    You can't please all the people all the time.

    Parent

    i just saw a sign (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by CST on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 03:56:25 PM EST
    from Union Square that someone posted on fb:

    "sorry for the inconvenience, we're trying to change the world"

    Parent

    Love it...smart, direct, wry humor (none / 0) (#20)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 04:01:30 PM EST
    CST:  Any updates on the mediation in Boston?

    Parent
    nothing in the news today (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by CST on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 04:05:56 PM EST
    that I saw.  The injunction that was granted was temporary and both sides are due back in court on Dec. 1.  Not sure if the mediation would happen before or after that date.

    Parent
    inconvenience (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by womanwarrior on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 09:44:16 PM EST
    Hey, I had to drive into center city Philly today, and Occupy Philly was marching onto a bridge and traffic was a mess.  But I felt like, "thank you for being out there for all of us."  I want change, and it seems my generation just didn't do it in our time.

    Parent
    tell you what jb, (none / 0) (#53)
    by cpinva on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 08:12:45 AM EST
    as one who lives and works in the richmond-dc corridor, and has for the past 50 odd years, i have been "inconvenienced" more times by some siren blaring motorcade, carrying some political/military/business bigwig, then i ever have by citizen's protesting. at least with protests, i might actually learn something.

    Parent
    define peaceful? (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by CST on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 03:52:12 PM EST
    IMO, they have already gotten violent.  Just not on the part of the protesters for the most part.

    People taking barriers down and "charging" (aka walking) forward?  That's "violent"?  But hitting someone with a baton is not?  Pepper spray?

    I'm wondering what you would consider a violent action.

    Parent

    Anybody who doesn't lick their jackboots is (none / 0) (#29)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 04:37:28 PM EST
    a terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrist!

    Parent
    There are worse things that can - and have - (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 05:53:28 PM EST
    happened to people than getting stuck in traffic; seems to me, most of the times I get stuck, there's never any discernible reason for it: one minute, you've been crawling along, or stopped, and the next, everything's moving again.

    Some of the worse things that have happened to people are the kinds of things that Occupy speaks to with its signs and banners, and I have to think that there are a lot of people who see those signs and realize that the messages they're seeing are ones they have been feeling themselves.

    And, believe it or not, they are glad someone has the courage and the energy and the interest to vocalize about it.  

    Speaking only for myself, if I'm going to get stuck in traffic, I'd much rather it be because of an organic, citizen-driven movement that is speaking to the failures of the establishment than because of an accident or construction or someone screwing with the timing of the lights.

    But that's me.  And yes, I know there are people stuck who will be late to pick up kids from child care, or late to an evening job, and it will cost them something.  But maybe these are also people who are working more than one job because they lost their good full-time job because of the crappy economic policies and actions that haven't extracted any price from those responsible for them.  Maybe these are people who have their kids in day care because both parents have had to cobble together some kind of living when they used to be able to afford for someone to be home with the kids after school.

    I don't know what is in your background that makes you so antagonistic toward the challenge to authority and establishment, that makes you so negative about everything to do with Occupy, but I can almost picture you holding your nose and trying not to get too close to the great unwashed who have "taken over" parts of DC.

    Sometimes, jb, the people need to assert their right to express themselves, even if it makes some people uncomfortable.  This is not a violent movement - the Occupy participants are not armed with anything but their voices and their signs; in Baltimore, the city has let the Occupiers alone, for the most part, the Occupiers have complied with city ordinances and requests, and there has been no violence.

    Like I said, of all the things people have experienced and endured over the last several years, getting stuck in traffic because there are people trying to advocate for the unrepresented seems pretty far down on the list of things that are worth being enraged about.

    Parent

    this was not a traffic jam (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 07:57:47 PM EST
    It was a shutdown that went for blocks, with no one providing information or direction. There were cop cars parked in the center lane of downtown's major streets -- with no cops in them and their doors open. Three to four lanes of cars and buses had nowhere to go or turn. And to have police cars driving the wrong way on a one way street with so many cars is just dangerous.

    One block might indicate an incident of some sort. For this to go on for 1/4 mile or more was ridiculous. And not one news station, or Sirius Traffic had anything about it.

    One bus got jerked into another lane and almost collided with a car that had just turned onto the street. The bus then swerved back into the bus lane. It was like being at an amusement park playing bumper cars (only thankfully no accidents that I saw.)

    It wasn't the lost time I minded as much as not knowing what was happening or what we were supposed to do. There were no signs of protesters anywhere. (Apparently, they were an hour or so before.)

    Parent

    In NYC... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 11:59:12 AM EST
    they seem to close streets in a pre-emptive fashion sometimes, whether protestors are actually around or not, whether there is a "disturbance" or not.

    iow they close streets for no good reason, and blame the inconvenience on OWS.  More smear tactics.

    Parent

    I was responding to jb's comment (none / 0) (#46)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 09:11:02 PM EST
    on what was being planned for DC, not what was happening in Denver.

    Parent
    Ok, I understand (none / 0) (#54)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 10:56:56 AM EST
    I thought you were taking my post as complaining about OWS -- I get it now.

    Parent
    Holy cow... (none / 0) (#50)
    by sj on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 11:41:45 PM EST


    Parent
    Thousands have converged on Foley Sq (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by shoephone on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 04:40:05 PM EST
    in NYC. Police in full force. I've been watching the live feed of marches in different sections of the city going to Union Sq, and now on to Foley. Shoulder to shoulder says the guy producing the live feed. He's been there reporting since 7 am EDT today! Starbuck's locked their doors today. Cowards. Howard Schultz lets nutbag Tea Partiers come in with guns strapped to their hips, but he's afraid of peaceful protestors. The ba$tard really exemplifies the 1%.

    Let's see what Bloomberg tells his riot police to do now.

    Oh, and here in Seattle (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by shoephone on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 04:42:52 PM EST
    protestors are planning on occupying the University Bridge around 6 pm PDT. If you ususally take the bridge getting home from work, choose an alternate route. Or just join in the protest. Be careful if you're an 84-year-old woman, however, The cops may just pepper spray you for something as horrible as... standing on the street.

    Perfect example today of why the (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 06:43:11 PM EST
    rich should be paying a lot more taxes than the rest of us. Who are these police 'protecting', if not the rich?

    Practicing for The Big One? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 03:19:53 PM EST
    Seems to me our police personnel act very afraid in these large crowd situations and use over the top aggression to hide behind. Could be some practice might help them feel less out of their element. Then, I'm not at all sure what has happened or been threatened during these peaceful marches to earn such heightened force.

    What has been threatened (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by sj on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 03:27:19 PM EST
    is the unbridled greed that has been indulged right out in the open.  The police are being sent out to crack some heads and many of them have conflicting perspectives.  That won't end well.

    Parent
    Indeed, but the police are part of the 99% (none / 0) (#8)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 03:30:27 PM EST
    and the marchers are there for them, too. The threat that is being cast upon the police by the marchers is what I questioned. At some point, they may just lay down their weapons and join the march :)

    Parent
    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by sj on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 03:38:45 PM EST
    I think that's where I was going mentally with what I was saying.  But, like MT, I am fearful about it may take for that to happen...

    Parent
    A retired police captain did so today (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Towanda on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 04:05:12 PM EST
    in Philadelphia, marching with the Occupiers and explaining to his former cohort that they were part of the 99 percent.

    That was reported to have reduced cops' reaction.

    Would that he had been around to stop the pepper spraying of a pregnant woman, an elderly woman, and others I'm reading about elsewhere.

    Pepper spray was approved in cities only because cops claimed it was a safer alternative to having to shoot back at people with guns.

    Parent

    I had to read your last sentence a couple of times (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by sj on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 04:09:36 PM EST
    I kept seeing:

    Pepper spray was approved in cities only because cops claimed it was a safer alternative to having to shoot people in the back with guns.

    Parent

    I'm waiting (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by NYShooter on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 09:34:08 PM EST
    for some of the cops' children to join the protesters.

    There will come a time (soon, I hope) for the police to decide whose side they're on.

    As they say, "gut check" time.

    Parent

    I was thinking about that today. (none / 0) (#51)
    by sj on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 11:42:36 PM EST


    Parent
    Posted: 11/17/2011 01:32:37 PM MST (none / 0) (#5)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 03:26:33 PM EST
    Sounds like Occupy to me.

    Posted: 11/17/2011 01:32:37 PM MST
    Updated: 11/17/2011 02:13:04 PM MST By Tom McGhee
    The Denver Post

    Occupy Denver protesters converged on the 16th Street Mall early Thursday afternoon. (RJ Sangosti, The Denver Post)

    "Let's take it to the man," one of the march's leaders yelled into a bullhorn as he led the protest toward the park.

    The crowd of about 100 protesters blocked the RTD mall shuttle from moving down the busy pedestrian center as they shouted "Mayor Hancock, we are here to shut your city down."

    Police so far today have not moved against the slow march down the 16th Street Mall. For a time, one lane of mall vehicle traffic was blocked by a police car at one end and shuttle at the other and protesters are filling the other lane in front of the Federal Reserve Bank near Arapahoe Street.
    Early Broncos game at 6:30 local time (none / 0) (#18)
    by magster on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 03:58:00 PM EST
    Cops are going to be having to deal with drunk football fans, 75,000 people, impatient fans leaving work early to get over to the stadium, etc.

    Occupy could really cause some havoc if they set their sites on blocking pedestrian football fan traffic, blocking Bronco shuttle buses etc.

    probably the real answer (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by CST on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 04:01:22 PM EST
    Oh God I hate football traffic around here.

    Which brings up a decent point.  Traffic is often terrible, whether it's because of a football game, or construction, or because they shut down a freaking bridge to film a movie (I'm looking at you RIPD - who's brilliant idea was it to let you do that on a holiday weekend???).  We manage to deal with it, in some cases on a regular basis.

    But if it's for protesting instead of entertainment, what jerks!

    Parent

    The difference, at least with a movie, (none / 0) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 04:19:58 PM EST
    is that they are paying to close a street/bridge/whatever, unlike the protesters.

    I make no judgements about either, just pointing out the difference...

    Parent

    I did not personally receive (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by CST on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 04:34:49 PM EST
    Any money for sitting in traffic :)

    It's a valid difference, and an important one in another way.  We will shut down a bridge for entertainment and $$.  $$ talks.  Occupy is talking about the outsized influence of money.  It's so meta I can't stand it.

    Parent

    $$ talks. Yup! (none / 0) (#32)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 04:41:38 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm confused by your comment (none / 0) (#28)
    by sj on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 04:35:50 PM EST
    Typically, "the public' doesn't care whether or not the city has been paid for a street closing.  I'm not sure what your point is...

    Parent
    Hmmm. It is getting to be time for (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 04:20:09 PM EST
    For Mayor Hancock to show himself at a press conference or a direct talk designed to calm the situation. At a certain point, we Denverites might ask where the mayor is.  Seriously, it is sensible and more for a mayor to address us.  And, it would be even wiser for him to offer a type of outreach for mediative talks or something. While the Occupiers at Civic Center may be suffering an "image" problem in Denver these days, Mayor Hancock may soon be regarded as one hiding in his office unable to respond to an increasingly threatening situation for all involved.

    BTW, What has happened with the honking prohibition mentioned this morn on Sirota? If drivers are to be ticketed for honking in support of OWS, that has to be one of the most foolish tactics imaginable.

    Parent

    Seriously? (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by sj on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 04:37:48 PM EST
    A honking prohibition?  If I didn't know differently I would think that they're trying to increase the ranks of the occupiers....

    Parent
    They did this a month ago in downtown Seattle (none / 0) (#34)
    by shoephone on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 04:45:00 PM EST
    a ridiculous move by the police. What do you expect? There ain't no such thing as free expression where the authoritarians are concerned.

    Parent
    this just reminded me of something hilarious (none / 0) (#37)
    by CST on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 04:52:45 PM EST
    on Newbury Street in Boston there is a quacking prohibition.

    That's right, you cannot quack on Newbury Street.

    The reason being that the "residents" were tired of the tourists in the duck boats quacking at them everytime they turned the corner, so they actually managed to ban it.

    Newbury Street is where all the upscale shopping is.  Although in it's defense it's also home to the original Newbury Comics which is a kick@ss music store.

    Parent

    See... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 04:59:43 PM EST
    here.

    Parent
    Police to protect citizens? (none / 0) (#42)
    by diogenes on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 06:41:09 PM EST
    At least in Oakland there was looting, so maybe the police presence is there to prevent that.

    Looting? (none / 0) (#44)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 07:05:15 PM EST
    Gotta link?

    Parent
    Downtown Denver: Police Cars Everywhere | 55 comments (55 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment