Conflict Between Occupy Wall Street Protestors and NYPD Escalating 961
phx_zs writes "Today marks the tenth consecutive day that thousands of protesters have flooded the streets of Manhattan, specifically the financial district. ... Sunday marked a change of events as high-ranking NYPD officers exhibited brutal, unprovoked aggression on the peaceful group, reportedly arresting at least 80 people. Many photos and videos have surfaced of NYPD officers slamming protesters on the ground or into parked cars, and in one well-covered incident a NYPD officer (with pending police brutality charges from 2004) maced innocent female protesters point blank for no apparent reason. Many eyewitnesses and several news articles report that the NYPD specifically targeted photographers and media teams streaming the event live on the internet."
Do any Slashdotters have eyewitness reports to share? There seems to be a lot of misinformation originating from all parties involved making it difficult to know how large the protest actually is at this point and whether or not the police are being quite as universally violent as the protestors imply.
Re:doubt it (Score:2, Informative)
From what I can tell they chose peaceful and leftist. Their organization is terrible.
Re:Lack of news (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Any reliable coverage? (Score:2, Informative)
MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell has an excellent report (Score:3, Informative)
He excoriates the police.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UHsLccXQUY [youtube.com]
Re:Any reliable coverage? (Score:4, Informative)
Protest is in the news & has a goal (Score:5, Informative)
The protesters are actually fairly well organized with planned events, a voting process for making immediate decisions, and a goal of getting Obama to acknowledge the wealth gap and appointing a commission to recommend actions for dealing with it.
The "traditional" media is indeed ignoring it. There's an on-going debate on twitter about whether or not the twitter admins are actively suppressing the #occupywallstreet hash-tag from trending.
Re:So this is the new Slashdot? (Score:4, Informative)
Slashdot is also for "stuff that matters".
Re:have fun protesting (Score:5, Informative)
If you're doing civil disobedience then you know you are breaking the law and, this in an important and, you accept the punishment for doing so if it is brought against you.
Your cause is more valuable than what the punishment takes away.
If you're just trying to get a message out without the civil disobedience being a protestor isn't a magical get out of jail free card for when you over step your bounds.
Actually, I was just there. (Score:5, Informative)
I just took my lunch break off from work to check out the protest in Liberty Square. There seems to be about as many people there - staying with sleeping bags - as the small park can hold. It's no bigger than a block, and a small one at that. The estimates of about 200 people staying in the park are likely accurate.
From my understanding after talking with some of the protesters there, the incidents in New York happened when they attempted to march through the streets. In addition, I found out that the numbers of people over the weekend were not just limited to the people staying in the park; there are a lot of people who are not roughing it in the concerete jungle of NYC and are staying with friends or relatives during 'off period times' of the protest.
I can't speak to any police brutality during my brief visit. The protest was extremely peaceful while I was there (unless you consider a drum circle violent), but I did see several of the officers in the YouTube videos present at the square - although noticeably they were not the ones who perpetuated or committed any act of brutality (although you could argue they did nothing to prevent it). In fact, the officers I did recognize were the ones who had doubtful expressions on their faces in most of the videos. The officers were mostly staying out of it. There were also no "white shirts" there - the higher ranking officers whom, over the weekend, seemed to be largely responsible for the more egregious assaults. I also heard that some 100 officers refused to patrol the protest after the incidents over the weekend. I wouldn't be surprised if the commissioner or someone else "gave the department a talking to".
IMHO, it's really hard to discount the video evidence that there was unjustified force, given the multiple angles of the YouTube videos available.
I've heard some people say that some of the protesters' were "over-reacting" to the actions of the police. I think that is ridiculous. I would love to see how anyone would react to being pulled across a concrete street by four armed men. Additionally, one of the women maced in the YouTube video was deaf , and thats why she was screaming at a great volume.
It's not unheard of for police officers to attempt to arrest people videotaping them - and given a recent ruling in a Federal Appeals Court that declared video taping a police officer a constitutional right, [peacefreed...perity.com] the actions of some of those officers was foolish and irresponsible, a fact probably made more evident to not just the public, but their superior officers, by their absence today.
My personal observations... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Videos I've seen (Score:5, Informative)
You mustn't be looking hard enough. Techdirt has a post with links to at least four videos of the same incident, all from different angles. With plenty of time before the cop comes up and shoots the women directly in the face with pepper spray. Even the blue shirts around him appear surprised.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110927/09480916110/can-nypd-back-up-its-claim-confrontation-that-required-pepper-spray-despite-more-video-evidence.shtml [techdirt.com]
Re:Lack of news (Score:2, Informative)
I work on Wall St (as in, I work on that street, I do not work for a bank). The reason there has been little to no media coverage is because there's very little to cover. The protesters are exaggerating the situation to a degree that has gotten offensive. There are not "thousands of people" marching on Wall St. The largest march has been less than 200 people, and most have been in the area of 20-30. The largest gathering I've seen has been maybe 250 out in the park. They have no message, no organization, and no direction. If anything, the police have been overly lenient with them. They've been marching without a permit, and blocking traffic when they do it. They're squatting in a privately owned park with no permission from the owner. They're blatantly antagonizing the police on a regular basis. The whole thing is pathetic, and the fact that they have the audacity to compare themselves to the situation in Libya is flat out offensive.
Mace versus pepper spray (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Lack of news (Score:5, Informative)
A friend of mine works downtown and has a view of the protest, and the reason it isn't getting coverage, is that it has been quite small. I hear that it has been growing in size each day, but last Friday, the number of protesters was laughable, it looked to be about 100 people from the cellphone picture I saw- the plaza they are protesting in is more crowded during rush hour when people are going to/from work. Not much of a protest, especially by NYC standards. I mean every time the UN meets there are gatherings there many times that size.
I also get within a block of that park on my commute home. They certainly aren't making much of a splash, as I don't even notice them. I think this is a very small protest that is getting national media coverage only because its such a provocative subject.
I live a block away (Score:4, Informative)
Here's the gist:
*) There are no "Wall St" firms on Wall St anymore (nor anywhere close). NYSE trading floor is not that important in grand scheme of things. The neighbourhood became residential about 15 years ago, and now there's 20,000 residents like me.
*) When the protest started (two weeks ago), there were minimal number of protesters (1000) despite the protesters claims to have 20k people.
*) There's "OVER 9000" cops downtown, and it makes getting around quite annoying since I have to navigate police barriers (not a big deal, but just annoying). There's definitely more cops than protesters at any given area. At the beginning of protest, they had a 2-cop shoulder-to-shoulder line blocking Wall St. The only protesters were 6 people dressed in white robes (could pass for either Star Wars freaks or priests), cops were quite bored.
*) Cops are polite and keep to their business (that is, stand there and look serious). I can't say same about the protesters.
*) Protesters themselves...oy. Whatever it is they are protesting, they are an embarassment to their cause. I've chatted to a few, and had a few come over for drinks, and uh...Well, it's exactly what you'd expect, well-meaning but clueless younger people who are looking for attention and "feeling of doing something".
*) They protest evil corporations. Nevertheless, most of them have latest iphone4 (just look at the videos - they are ones taping). It doesn't bother them that Apple is largest corporation in the world who isn't very nice to its users.
*) There's a huge number of DSLRs at the protest - combined with iphone4, means nobody there is really starving.
*) I started speaking to one of protesters about bitcoin. He was very interested in it and buying some if they are likely to appreciate. He was *shocked* when I pointed out that's exactly what "evil bankers" do.
*) Cops don't really give a damn about protesters. They are charged with enforcing certain rules - such as, no "permanent structures". So, every so often, a cop walks through the protest site checking things out. Each time a cop does so, there's 10 people with cameras surrounding said cop to make sure any "brutality" gets videotaped. It gets quite silly since these kids don't really understand they need to move away for a cop to walk through (and since they are looking into their viewfinder, they don't realize that the cop is a foot away, resulting in a cop having to push the photographer out of the way - "omg brutality").
*) Protesters are completely disorganized - there's nobody who is "in charge", which leads to interactions with cops that could go much smoother, if a single person was designated to be liaison to cops. Protesters also can't/won't police their own - so if someone does something illegal, its becomes up to cops to enforce (vs, protesters saying "this is not cool, please do not do it" and avoiding police involvement).
*) When cops walk by, most protesters just ignore them, continuing with conversations etc. However, there are a few who get "in your face" to cops and start shouting/etc - and yes, I'd say that the protesters are trying to provoke conflict, whether they intend to or not.
*) As far as professionalism goes, I'd say cops are generally acting professional, if bored and annoyed at having to deal with hippies who hate their guts.
*) There is serious "victim mentality" among protesters - such as "media is suppressing coverage" (no, its just not important enough - the protest is much smaller than an average union rally).
Re:"White shirt" and "Blue shirt" police? differen (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Actually, I was just there. (Score:4, Informative)
You are deluded about the nature of US government (Score:3, Informative)
You speak as if elections matter in the USA. I think you've not been paying close attention, else you are deluded. The two branches of the Money Party each field a candidate, and you get to choose between them. That's effectively one party government. The (mostly) young people protesting in New York have figured this out. I'm surprised you have not.
Also, I'd like to point out that these kids are using the same non-violent resistance techniques that have toppled multiple governments worldwide in the past 12 years. These techniques were pioneered by Gandhi and have been refined considerably since then. They have proven, time and again, to be an effective technique, if and only if there is a free press. While I'm not suggesting that as isolated protest in New York City will cause revolution in the USA, I suspect the powers that be are more concerned than they care to admit. Please recall Gandhi's quote about the use of non-violent direct action techniques, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
These protests in New York are largely considered practice by the (non) organizers. I suspect that the protesters will learn, through some unpleasant incidents, that they need to engage in more and better non-violent resistance training. The standard mechanism used to stop protests of this sort is to have agent provocateurs incite violence, which is then used as an excuse to crush the public protest with overwhelming force. The way to avoid this is for all people engaging in non-violent direct actions to first practice, in an organized group training environment, how to respond non-violently when confronted with violence or the threat of violence. I don't believe this first round of protesters have had much training.
Personally, I wish the protesters well, and hope they succeed in raising awareness about just how bad the current US system is. Perhaps, then, some practical ways to deal with the current disaster-in-the-making will be seriously considered. Here is a link to a very mainstream article from the BBC [bbc.co.uk] that describes the history of the techniques currently being deployed in New York.
Re:Lack of news (Score:4, Informative)
Anything critical of capitalism - or corporatism, really, 'cause they are not the same - is simply not covered anymore. The protestors are considered pinks by the people who own things, among which are the people who own all the media outlets, and by extension, hire the reporters who cover the events. A reporters who would try to present anti-corporate discussion, other than with derision, would soon be marginalized and then unemployed and unemployable. See what happened 2001-2003 to the very few reporters who tried to disagree with the march to war. They were dumped and disgraced, never to be heard from again. Any reporter knows what happens to any reporter writing to the left of Reagan - you gone.