Re: So a pregnant teenager, an elderly woman, and a priest...
> Einstein wrote:
> The problem here is that there is so much significant evidence the protesters
>have planned, are implementing, and will plan severe acts of violence that the
>police cannot use standard force protocols.
What evidence? I've been involved with my local Occupy movement. There are a few idiots who've suggested that nonviolent demonstration isn't enough. What's happened to those people? They've been completely ostracized and run out of the group. They're not welcome here. What "severe acts of violence" are being "planned" or "implemented"? This is completely at odds with the facts.
>Every police officer fears permament injury. Your protesters are trying to do
>such. This creates issues. And while the leftist controlled media does not report
>such, the police share intel on such extremely well.
Look at what is actually happening. Davis: Police attack nonviolent protestors sitting on the ground who endured brutal pepper spray and showed much greater discipline than the police officers did. Berkeley: Police attack a long line of protestors who had linked arms and refused to budge. Seattle: Police officers pepper spray a priest, a pregnant woman, and an elderly women (who I'm just certain were throwing molotov cocktails at them).
You keep talking about some bizarre fantasy world that is very different than the real world that you and I both live in. When the facts don't suit your ideological passions, you invent your own 'facts' to make things right. It was absolutely okay for cops to pepper spray a priest because he was about to throw a bomb into their midst. We have example after example of police using excessive force against nonviolent demonstrators. It's happened again and again and again and again and again over the past few months and I'm sick of it.
The only people rioting here are the cops.
>A man is seen throwing a bomb. Once the bomb is thrown no ond can shoot him.
>The window to identify the threat, initiate lethal force, verify no innocents in the
>way, and so forth is very low.
Once again we're back to your fantasyland. The protestors deserve to be brutalized because in Fantasyland they're all bombthrowing anarchists and not peaceful demonstrators who don't want to be silenced and shut up by the powers that be. No! That's not how America works. That's the sort of crap I'd expect to see in Russia, China, or Saudi Arabia. We're better than that and we need to act better than that. You don't commit violence against nonviolent protestors just because it gets you off or because you can come up with some stupid ex-post-facto rationalization like "I'm certain that 85 year-old lady was about to start breaking out windows and lighting cars on fire!"
>Then there are protesters who will block access to said lethal attacker.
More fantasyland, especially given the fact that in the few instances where riots actually occurred that weren't perpetrated by the police (like Oakland), you saw a concerted effort by legitimate protestors to stop the black bloc 'anarchists' who just came to break windows and harass innocents.
>Every story has several sides. Some truth may be gleaned by examining it all.
Fantasyland isn't an actually side. It's just your imagination.
>The Occupy crowd started with a minor criminal pretext, and crimes have been
>perpetuated by them, and they have repeatedly sought a violent confrontation.
As evidenced in reality. I guess holding arms and saying that you are not going to be silenced and shut up is seeking a "violent confrontation". Sitting their with a stoic face and saying that you're willing to be beat and brutalized by police officers is a criminal act.
You keep talking about violence and criminal acts by protestors, and I'm certain a few bad apples are doing their best to ruin the whole cause, but the fact of the matter is that protestors in numerous cases acted with much greater restraint and discipline than the police forces assaulting them did.