9 replies to this topic

[Connor MacLeod]

http://www.washingto...Y9jvM_blog.html

By Washington Post staff
Occupy DC protesters in Washington have grown “increasingly confrontational and violent,” D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said in a statement Monday.
The statement, and a related press conference, came after a series of incidents downtown Friday.

Six people from the Occupy D.C. movement were arrested or ticketed in the chaotic moments after a driver struck protesters in front of the Walter E. Washington Convention Center on Friday night, police said. In addition to the vehicular incident, people and police have reported shouting and shoving at the site of a dinner held by a conservative group.
“Prior demonstrations had been peaceful,” the statement said. “However, the aggressive nature of Friday’s demonstration prompted the Metropolitan Police Department to adjust tactics as needed to ensure safety.”
Lanier did not detail how she intended to adjust police tactics regarding the protesters. But she said that at least five people were injured Friday, said demonstrators have grown “confrontational and violent toward uninvolved bystanders and motorists” and have “jeopardized the safety of their own children by using them in blockades.”
“The Metropolitan Police Department supports an individual’s right to assemble, we do not condone nor will we tolerate violence or aggression,” Lanier said.
It’s unclear if or how Lanier’s statement might affect the protesters’ ability to maintain their downtown camps. David Schlosser, spokesman for the Park Police — which oversees federal parkland, such as McPherson Square, in the District — said his agency is in contact with the D.C. police.
But “we don’t have any issues with these folks in the areas of D.C. that we patrol,” Schlosser said. “If there’s something that needs to be addressed by us, we will address it.”
Lanier said police continue to investigate what she called an alleged hit-and-run. Anyone with information is asksed to call (202) 727-9099 or 1-888-919-CRIME (1-888-919-2746).
Post staff writer Allison Klein contributed to this report.

[Ben]

"“jeopardized the safety of their own children by using them in blockades.”


I'm not surprised, these people are fascists.

[niner]

I'm not condoning the violence, but this "using the babies as human shields" meme is just a load of crap. What's the evidence that children were put in actual danger by their parents? Probably nothing, other than the opinion of some safety nanny. I'd be proud to see my kids at a protest if it was on the side of moral good. I took my son to a protest against the Iraq war in 2003. Ben, do you know what a fascist is?

[Mind]

At least they are now focusing some of their attention where the real problem lies - Washington DC. Now they just need to march on the White House and the Capitol.

[Connor MacLeod]

I'm not condoning the violence, but this "using the babies as human shields" meme is just a load of crap.

The D.C. chief of police said that some of the protestors "jeopardized the safety of their own children by using them in blockades.” Why is that a meme? I assume there were D.C. police in the area and that police reports were filed.

I'd be proud to see my children at a protest if it was on the side of moral good.

These children were being hauled around in a red rider wagon. I doubt they had much idea what was going on, and probably would have preferred to stay at home and play

[niner]

Why are we talking about children in grave peril? Why are we watching Right Wing "Art" videos that start with a creepy closeup of some kid's pierced nose, immediately followed by a scary reverse zoom n' pan? Could it be to distract people from the real point of the OWS protests? Probably.

"babies as human shields" is a meme because it worms its way into peoples brains and gets a lot of water cooler talk. It's a memetic story. I think it's a load of crap because a) I seriously doubt that those kids were in any real danger; cops are famous for being mindless nannies when it comes to "safety". and b) because it is derailing the discussion from what we ought to be talking about, which is the way our system is owned and operated by the wealthy. The Right seems to be fully down with that. RIP, original Tea Party.

[Connor MacLeod]

I posted a story from the Washington Post with several quotes from a statement made by the D.C. chief of police. Nobody is talking about "babies as human shields" in this thread except for you.

Edited by Connor MacLeod, 10 November 2011 - 03:29 AM.

[Connor MacLeod]

I posted a story from the Washington Post with several quotes from a statement made by the D.C. chief of police. Nobody is talking about "babies as human shields" in this thread except for you.

If you think the story is distracting or untruthful you should probably take it up with the editorial board of the Washington Post.

Edited by Connor MacLeod, 10 November 2011 - 03:32 AM.

[maxwatt]

I posted a story from the Washington Post with several quotes from a statement made by the D.C. chief of police. Nobody is talking about "babies as human shields" in this thread except for you.

Niner's comment on babies-as-shields was a response to Ben's post here not to the OP. In Oakland, before police attempted to remove demonstrators with tear gas and batons, the announced that parents with children should leave, which they did.

The Occupy DC witnesses claimed the car that struck protestors "clearly did so intentionally, and had struck another pedestrian some minutes earlier, unbeknownst to police on the scene. The protestors did surround the car and prevent it leaving until police arrived, at which point they questioned the drive and let him drive off, despite conflicting statements from other pedestrians to the effect the driver ran a light to to strike the victims." The fact that the driver was white, the victims black may have had something to do with it.

Also, the protestors repeatedly invoke non-violence, yet their demonstrations become violent. There is a group of putative anarchists who appeared at the Oakland march to shut down the port, clad in identical black clothing, wearing black ski masks. who break windows, set fire to stores and cars. They have repeatedly shown up at G20 demonstrations, and are beginning to appear at other Occupy locations. None of them ever seems to get arrested. Would it be left-wing paranoia to think these "anarchists" might be police provocateurs, providing an excuse for a violent crackdown by police, and stories and editorials in the press to frighten the public and obscure the OWS message? No, I must be imagining it.

OWS march on 125th street and the police precinct there to protest New York's "stop and frisk" law, saw some rock and bottle throwing which was contained by the marchers. One man who threw a bottle through a store window was stopped and held by the demonstrators, who summoned the police. Despite their account of his actions, the man was not detained by the police, who quickly let him go. This account was told to me by a witness I spoke to as the march continued south through my neighborhood on the way to Columbus circle. This version also appeared in a number of press accounts, though not on Fox news or in Murdoch owned papers. The tactic of using agents provocateurs against labor and left wing demonstrations is older than Czarist Russia, and was used against the IWW strikers in western mines and factories of the US a hundred years ago, was used by Henry Ford's security force in Detroit, and in the anti-war demonstrations of the sixties.

As far as OWS turning their attention on Washington where it belongs. that is where it has been all along: Wall street controls Washington to an extend that is unbelievable, a not so invisible Gorilla in the House and Senate. One party is completely owned by the financial and fossil fuel interests, the other kowtows to them too. The problem is not government per se but who's controlling it. Frankly I do not see an alternative to becoming serfs on a corporate plantation, except by using a strong and truly democratic government to counter their power. But I am too pessimistic to think this is likely to happen.

Edited by maxwatt, 10 November 2011 - 04:12 AM.

[niner]

Nobody is talking about "babies as human shields" in this thread except for you.

You posted the "human shields" video in a different OWS thread. Using the term "babies" for "children" is a bit of hyperbole, I admit. We use the word "babysitter" to mean child sitter, usually. Anti abortion people usually refer to fetuses, if not embryos, as babies. Sometimes they say "child". Even Mississippians are not willing to go as far as constitutionally calling a fertilized egg a "person", so maybe there's hope for us.