Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dsteingass wrote:I don't think as many people are "anti-cop" in that strict sense as you may think. You know the old saying "it only takes one bad apple to ruin the whole cart". It is purely a perception thing.

Where I live, the Police force has real crime to fight, so they aren't as oppressive on things like traffic or speeding violations. If you are caught speeding, they give you a ticket, and you pay it and move on. Now, where I grew up, the Ohio State Highway Patrol was a different story! If you got caught speeding there, it feels like you are getting a Gestapo shakedown!
"do you know how fast you were going? Where were you going?, why were you in a hurry to get there?

Well, for one thing it's none of their damn business where I was going! Give me my punishment for breaking the law and move along! That sort of thing doesn't make people violently anti-cop, but it doesn't make them trust them either.

Your first encounter with the cops locks in your view of them. Unfortunately a lot of older cops feel like they need to scare kids into respecting them or some crap. That's strongly discouraged now, but there are 40 years of cops on the street that still think that way.

But really there's another thread for that, let's not get sidetracked.

d-usa wrote:

CptJake wrote:What is happening is cops remove anyone not actually involved in a situation before trying to break it up, you get the media and other rubberneckers outta the way to brevent them getting hurt or getting a cop hurt. Kind of like they clear an area for a couple of blocks before they take down a drug house for example.

"We are going to clear up a shanty-town and tear down these camps, if your cameras can see us you are not safe." Sorry, our news can cover wars from the front lines, they can hande the breaking up of a 'hippie shanty town". Supresion of the media in the name of safety, they are quickly learning that this tactic no longer works.

You are either willfully ignorant, or trying to misrepresent what is going on. Either way, you are wrong.

Embedded reporters in a combat zone sign a crap ton of waivers, are there in small numbers, get some basic training and equipment to keep them safe and so on. And they do not go on building clearing missions, which this action is close to in terms of risk to everyone involved.

Cameras up close and on site do a few things. They get in the way of legitimate law enforcement actions, they encourage the occupiers to do very dumb things that escalate an already tense situation, putting occupiers and cops and the reporters in danger. If you have ever worked crowd control or better yet a riot you would have an inkling of what I am trying to get at. The cops know the occupiers have cameras, those are not an issue because they are not adding extra/neitral bodies in the way and don't have the same encouraging effect a media camera does.

Look at when a camera pans the crowd at a football game. People act like fools. LE don't need that extra hassle when doing an already tense job. Again, media cameras up close and on site, or ANY neutral presence, present a danger to everyone involved.

The park is private property, but the sidewalks and streets around the park are public, and the press should have access to it.

By trying to keep the media away, they try to prevent exposure of stuff like this:



84 year old woman pepper sprayed during a march in Occupy Seattle. You can report that an old lady was pepper sprayed, but without footage it just does not have the same effect.

This is a great example that it does not have to be about "what is the motivation of the cops" or "what is the motivation of the protesters", but about minimizing fallout.

When I was talking about the different police departments coordinating the raids in Oakland and NY I was talking about keeping the bad PR down to one day. If this would have happened on the same day as Oakland and NY then the news would already be covering something else. But it is a new day, a fresh protest, and a fresh crackdown. And this event gets its own day in the news.

I'm not trying to talk about who is right or wrong, I just don't think that both raids happening on the same day was a coincidence.


(Edited to remove continuous argument that is just going to go around in circles, so no point in keeping it going.)

murdog wrote:Thats exactly the kind of post I'm talking about, halo. How can we have a conversation if that is what you believe this to be about? In your opinion, the people there are all whining communists, nazis, drug addicts and cop-haters who run anti-military websites and are getting paid to protest? Yikes! Where do you get your information? Please show me where to find out about all the cop-beating college kids.

Here's a link to college kid-beating cops:

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/11/occupy_cal_39_arrested_in_forceful

And sorry to burst your bubble, but they do represent you, you just don't realize it. Unless of course you are part of the one percent that control most of the wealth and power in the world, and then, would you really be posting on Dakka Dakka?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And yet another post hoping for violence... what's up with that?

No, I'm part of the 53% that's actually going out and working instead of being a BMW because I made some bad choices. They don't represent me at all and anyone who says that they represent them or says that they are Scott Olsen are just d-riding this whole protest because they want to feel like they're part of something.

http://pumabydesign001.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/occupy-wall-street-obamas-ows-pals/

I would certainly come to the same conclusion! That kind of picture should NEVER be censored from the public view! Knowing that the press was told to leave just prior, smells like a cover-up to me. It has nothing to do with the wishes of the cops though, they are just doing their jobs, following orders. It's the principal behind it that pisses me off. You don't get to cancel freedom of the press under any damn circumstances whatsoever! No matter how you want to spin it, this is just WRONG.

dsteingass wrote:I would certainly come to the same conclusion! That kind of picture should NEVER be censored from the public view! Knowing that the press was told to leave just prior, smells like a cover-up to me.

Then get your nose checked.

It has nothing to do with the wishes of the cops though, they are just doing their jobs, following orders. It's the principal behind it that pisses me off. You don't get to cancel freedom of the press under any damn circumstances whatsoever! No matter how you want to spin it, this is just WRONG.

You're aware that "freedom of the press" has nothing to do with this, right?

"Freedom of the press" is the freedom to report upon whatever you can, with no worry of censorship or retaliation for your reporting. There's nothing in there about "freedom to be present whenever the police are doing their job"--and quite frankly, there actually are protections against people utilizing the cover of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" as a means to incite violence or inflame situations.

As for the 84 year old being pepper sprayed...

Quite frankly, I don't give a crap at this point. If you're at these marches--you know what is likely going to happen. The longer these protests go on, the more likely it is that the police get on edge because of working long hours before having to be pulled in on overtime to stand out in the cold listening to some smartmouth college kid running through the checklist of Anti-Authoritianism Insults. The longer these protests go on, the more likely it is that the normal "anarchists" show up trying to get the situation going overboard.

It's a powderkeg with a lit fuse, don't be surprised when it blows.

Kanluwen wrote:
"Freedom of the press" is the freedom to report upon whatever you can, with no worry of censorship or retaliation for your reporting. There's nothing in there about "freedom to be present whenever the police are doing their job"--and quite frankly, there actually are protections against people utilizing the cover of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" as a means to incite violence or inflame situations.

Sorry, I don't follow.
How was telling the media to leave NOT censorship?
And why couldn't the media cover the policework on camera? News cameras are present and rolling at any given time while police are doing their job anywhere in the world.
Why was this time different?
There are no stipulations in the First Amendment about police, or any other government organization with regards to freedom of the press. Secondary stipulations do exist of course in regard to things like National Security, defamation of character, etc. But those are irrelevant here.

The violence by the protestors is a different thing all-together, once the violence starts, the protest ceases to be peaceful, but that is not the same issue as telling the press to leave and cease coverage of the event.

Kanluwen wrote:As for the 84 year old being pepper sprayed...

Quite frankly, I don't give a crap at this point. If you're at these marches--you know what is likely going to happen.

BLAME THE VICTIM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

The longer these protests go on, the more likely it is that the police get on edge because of working long hours before having to be pulled in on overtime to stand out in the cold listening to some smartmouth college kid running through the checklist of Anti-Authoritianism Insults. The longer these protests go on, the more likely it is that the normal "anarchists" show up trying to get the situation going overboard.

Fantastic. I occasionally work overtime and in many stressful situations. I also have to work holidays on occasion. Screwing up my job can have the impact of someone losing potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars. They'd probably claim more. I would be fired if I screwed up, even in the aforementioned situations. Often times, clients exacerbate the situation, piling on more stress with either unreasonable expectations or considering it my fault they gave me bad information to do my job with.

If I complained about my situation, I'd be told that the best thing for me would be to look for a less stressful job, or seek counseling for the stress that I'm getting on the job. Why do cops get a pass?

Being 84 doesn't make you immune to the law. You can resist just like anyone else.

Protesters response to park closing.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/11/16/ows-protesters-calling-for-day-of-action-following-loss-of-camp-in-zuccotti-park/

dsteingass wrote:
There are no stipulations in the First Amendment about police, or any other government organization with regards to freedom of the press. Secondary stipulations do exist of course in regard to things like National Security, defamation of character, etc. But those are irrelevant here.

There don't need to be because the freedom of the press was not infringed upon here.

The press do not have the right to be anywhere at any time. They are still people and they are still bound by regular rules. The movies make it look like a press pass can just get you in any door, but that's nonsense. Everyone is legally a "reporter" as far as freedom of the press is concerned because the government isn't in the business of deciding who is a reporter and who is not.

Freedom of the press does NOT mean you are free to just walk anywhere you want. A reporter can't just cross a police line like they always do in the movies.

Scrabb wrote:Protesters response to park closing.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/11/16/ows-protesters-calling-for-day-of-action-following-loss-of-camp-in-zuccotti-park/

Yeah, that's not good. I'll be the first to say that if he attempts to commit arson, then he should be arrested and tried to the fullest extent of the law.

Your empathy for the situation that the police are in is understandable, that evidently means a lot to you. There is nothing wrong with that. However I think you are arguing essentially that people shouldn't protest because it causes more work and stress on the cops. But we all have our own jobs to do that we voluntarily took on to support families and such.

If they REALLY want to make their point, they need to go to wall street and really shut things down. They'll be arrested by the busload. It'll be the best thing that happened to their message.

dsteingass wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
"Freedom of the press" is the freedom to report upon whatever you can, with no worry of censorship or retaliation for your reporting. There's nothing in there about "freedom to be present whenever the police are doing their job"--and quite frankly, there actually are protections against people utilizing the cover of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" as a means to incite violence or inflame situations.

Sorry, I don't follow.
How was telling the media to leave NOT censorship?

How was it censorship? You can't say it's censorship, except in the most obscure and grasping manner of "But they didn't let them film it!".

If you want to keep crying "censorship! censorship! fascism!" go right ahead. It doesn't mean you're in any way, shape, or form correct.

And why couldn't the media cover the policework on camera? News cameras are present and rolling at any given time while police are doing their job anywhere in the world.

No, they're not. They're not rolling when SWAT are breaching drug-dens in downtown Raleigh. They're only rolling at high profile events, where tension has already been shown to get ratings.

Why was this time different?

Already been addressed. I'll reiterate CptJake's statement here though:
News crews filming the police doing these kinds of actions are not the same as "embedded camera crews". Embedded camera crews have all sorts of waivers going on, meaning that they acknowledge the danger of the situation. They also usually are trained to basic combat standards, and are wearing protective equipment. In many cases, they're also told that if their presence will endanger the troops--they will not be allowed to continue with said troops.

There are no stipulations in the First Amendment about police, or any other government organization with regards to freedom of the press. Secondary stipulations do exist of course in regard to things like National Security, defamation of character, etc. But those are irrelevant here.

No, they're not. If cameras rolling means that a police officer will potentially be injured or the protesters are going to get violent--then guess what? That's "incitement". It wouldn't hold up in any court of law, naturally--but cops aren't stupid and they know that is the case.

The violence by the protestors is a different thing all-together, once the violence starts, the protest ceases to be peaceful, but that is not the same issue as telling the press to leave and cease coverage of the event.

No, it's not. The violence by protesters can usually be traced back to the fact that news cameras are rolling and one idiotic protester gets it into his head that he can do more for "The Cause" by provoking a cop into beating him upside the head.

daedalus wrote:If I complained about my situation, I'd be told that the best thing for me would be to look for a less stressful job, or seek counseling for the stress that I'm getting on the job. Why do cops get a pass?

Does your job involve people throwing bricks at you in an attempt to cause you physical harm?

No?

Now you know why cops get a pass.

Rented Tritium wrote:The press do not have the right to be anywhere at any time.

I really want to understand where you are coming from, but where is this written?

OWS isn't being hassled for protesting, they're being hassled for breaking the law.

Anyone who doesn't understand this distinction is either willfully missing the point or simply not paying attention to the issues.

dsteingass wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:The press do not have the right to be anywhere at any time.

I really want to understand where you are coming from, but where is this written?

It doesn't need to be written, it's not a negative right, it's a lack of a positive right.

It's not written anywhere that the press CAN go anywhere they want. If it's not granted to them, then they are just like anyone else.

Read the first amendment carefully. There's nothing in there about press going anywhere they want, just that congress can't make laws abridging their freedoms. It doesn't grant any special freedoms, it just says that their speech is protected.

The only way to assume it does is if you interpret "freedom" in the amendment to completely unrestricted movement, which is silly because the press can't come into your house either.

dsteingass wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:The press do not have the right to be anywhere at any time.

I really want to understand where you are coming from, but where is this written?

Why does it need to be written?

The framework of the Constitution was established when "freedom of speech" was concerned with the freedom of individuals to criticize their governing body without having to worry about reprisals.

It's also worth noting that "freedom of the press" wasn't really established until much later--and even then, it's still accepted that the press isn't necessarily free to do whatever they want. It's why if a press agency were to write something that amounted to encouragement to kill another individual--they'd be able to be held accountable.

The press is free to report on and print ANYTHING they want and it's 100% protected (except like libel etc)

But the constitution doesn't give them any special powers with regard to GATHERING that information. They are still subject to all the same laws as everyone else.

Kanluwen wrote:
No, they're not. They're not rolling when SWAT are breaching drug-dens in downtown Raleigh. They're only rolling at high profile events, where tension has already been shown to get ratings.

Sorry dude, but this is just rhetroric and a hasty generalization.

Kanluwen wrote:
If cameras rolling means that a police officer will potentially be injured or the protesters are going to get violent--then guess what? That's "incitement". It wouldn't hold up in any court of law, naturally--but cops aren't stupid and they know that is the case.

Possibly, but not every time, another hasty generalization.

Kanluwen wrote:
No, it's not. The violence by protesters can usually be traced back to the fact that news cameras are rolling and one idiotic protester gets it into his head that he can do more for "The Cause" by provoking a cop into beating him upside the head.

I'd like to see the numbers on this subject. Usually implies more than half of the time.

I'm not trying to be a total jerk here, but you are expressing your opinions as if they were facts. You should try to avoid logical fallacies when making a valid argument for debate. Opinions are strong, and you have every right to have opinions and share them but it isn't arguable.

Yeah Kanluwen, I don't think that's actually very common.

More often it happens by chance or someone just being an old fashioned hot-head with the cops and then LATER they decide to really run with it for the cause.

Rented Tritium wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

d-usa wrote:So you might call me paranoid, but I fully believe that the police department in these cities coordinated a mass raid against #occupy in order to dilute the negative impact these actions would have.

Ignore list achieved

Behold the power of having your world view challenged

Dude, you think all the police departments got together to conspire against a protest that's not even aimed at them and you're face palming ME for not wanting to talk to you anymore? You have straight up hopped the train to crazytown.

Just to add relevance to this post, it appears the train to crazytown has more riders than me:

'Occupy' crackdowns coordinated with federal law enforcement officials

examiner wrote:Over the past ten days, more than a dozen cities have moved to evict "Occupy" protesters from city parks and other public spaces. As was the case in last night's move in New York City, each of the police actions shares a number of characteristics. And according to one Justice official, each of those actions was coordinated with help from Homeland Security, the FBI and other federal police agencies.
.....
According to this official, in several recent conference calls and briefings, local police agencies were advised to seek a legal reason to evict residents of tent cities, focusing on zoning laws and existing curfew rules. Agencies were also advised to demonstrate a massive show of police force, including large numbers in riot gear. In particular, the FBI reportedly advised on press relations, with one presentation suggesting that any moves to evict protesters be coordinated for a time when the press was the least likely to be present.

Mayors, police chiefs talk strategy on protests

Las Vegas Sun wrote:As concerns over safety and sanitation grew at the encampments over the last month, officials from nearly 40 cities turned to each other on conference calls, sharing what worked and what hasn't as they grappled with the leaderless movement.

In one case, the calls became group therapy sessions.

While riot police sweeping through tent cities in Portland, Ore., Oakland, Calif. and New York City over the last several days may suggest a coordinated effort, authorities and a group that organized the calls say they were a coincidence......

So while they deny that the big crackdown was coordinated, it does appear that (using your own words) all the police department got together (on conference calls) to conspire against a protest (on how to shut down the #occupy campsites, protests, etc....)that's not even aimed at them. The mayors of these cities also have been in conference calls regarding the same situation. They must all have straight up hopped the train to crazytown...


(and again, not talking about the right/wrong reasons for the protests and the right/wrong reasons for the crackdowns. Just talking about how it appeared to me that this was a coordinated effort (and I will admit that I am speculating on the reason as to why) to shut it down.)

Kanluwen wrote:
It's also worth noting that "freedom of the press" wasn't really established until much later--and even then, it's still accepted that the press isn't necessarily free to do whatever they want. It's why if a press agency were to write something that amounted to encouragement to kill another individual--they'd be able to be held accountable.

Um...no, the First Amendment (freedom of the press and all of it) is part of the Bill Of Rights and has been official since December 15, 1791 by ratification of 3/4 of the States.
You should really look up your facts man. the press "doing" anything they want is not the same as the press "being" anywhere they want.
There are stipulations against the press "doing" anything they want, many have already been mentioned, libel, defamation of character, National Security, etc.

Kanluwen wrote:

dsteingass wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
"Freedom of the press" is the freedom to report upon whatever you can, with no worry of censorship or retaliation for your reporting. There's nothing in there about "freedom to be present whenever the police are doing their job"--and quite frankly, there actually are protections against people utilizing the cover of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" as a means to incite violence or inflame situations.

Sorry, I don't follow.
How was telling the media to leave NOT censorship?

How was it censorship? You can't say it's censorship, except in the most obscure and grasping manner of "But they didn't let them film it!".

If you want to keep crying "censorship! censorship! fascism!" go right ahead. It doesn't mean you're in any way, shape, or form correct.

And why couldn't the media cover the policework on camera? News cameras are present and rolling at any given time while police are doing their job anywhere in the world.

No, they're not. They're not rolling when SWAT are breaching drug-dens in downtown Raleigh. They're only rolling at high profile events, where tension has already been shown to get ratings.

Why was this time different?

Already been addressed. I'll reiterate CptJake's statement here though:
News crews filming the police doing these kinds of actions are not the same as "embedded camera crews". Embedded camera crews have all sorts of waivers going on, meaning that they acknowledge the danger of the situation. They also usually are trained to basic combat standards, and are wearing protective equipment. In many cases, they're also told that if their presence will endanger the troops--they will not be allowed to continue with said troops.

There are no stipulations in the First Amendment about police, or any other government organization with regards to freedom of the press. Secondary stipulations do exist of course in regard to things like National Security, defamation of character, etc. But those are irrelevant here.

No, they're not. If cameras rolling means that a police officer will potentially be injured or the protesters are going to get violent--then guess what? That's "incitement". It wouldn't hold up in any court of law, naturally--but cops aren't stupid and they know that is the case.

The violence by the protestors is a different thing all-together, once the violence starts, the protest ceases to be peaceful, but that is not the same issue as telling the press to leave and cease coverage of the event.

No, it's not. The violence by protesters can usually be traced back to the fact that news cameras are rolling and one idiotic protester gets it into his head that he can do more for "The Cause" by provoking a cop into beating him upside the head.

daedalus wrote:If I complained about my situation, I'd be told that the best thing for me would be to look for a less stressful job, or seek counseling for the stress that I'm getting on the job. Why do cops get a pass?

Does your job involve people throwing bricks at you in an attempt to cause you physical harm?

No?

Now you know why cops get a pass.

Wells from what you are saying the american police force consist of a bunch of pussies(no offence). The protesters are teens, seniors and adults that lost thier jobs due to greed. The italian police face real protesters. They have to face molotovs, violent gangs and rocks. The american ones get called pigs and hit old ladies because of that. Many are fat to.

d-usa wrote:
So while they deny that the big crackdown was coordinated, it does appear that (using your own words) all the police department got together (on conference calls) to conspire against a protest (on how to shut down the #occupy campsites, protests, etc....)that's not even aimed at them. The mayors of these cities also have been in conference calls regarding the same situation. They must all have straight up hopped the train to crazytown...

Ahhh! My noncognitive dissidence! Nooooooo!

daedalus wrote:

d-usa wrote:
So while they deny that the big crackdown was coordinated, it does appear that (using your own words) all the police department got together (on conference calls) to conspire against a protest (on how to shut down the #occupy campsites, protests, etc....)that's not even aimed at them. The mayors of these cities also have been in conference calls regarding the same situation. They must all have straight up hopped the train to crazytown...

Ahhh! My noncognitive dissidence! Nooooooo!

I didn't mean to inflict mental and/or physical suffering, I shall offer my sincere apology over tea and crumpets.

d-usa wrote:

daedalus wrote:
Ahhh! My noncognitive dissidence! Nooooooo!

I didn't mean to inflict mental and/or physical suffering, I shall offer my sincere apology over tea and crumpets.

Nah, it's okay. Turns out the pain wasn't lasting. Tea sounds good though. Might get some and go for a smoke.

dsteingass wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
It's also worth noting that "freedom of the press" wasn't really established until much later--and even then, it's still accepted that the press isn't necessarily free to do whatever they want. It's why if a press agency were to write something that amounted to encouragement to kill another individual--they'd be able to be held accountable.

Um...no, the First Amendment (freedom of the press and all of it) is part of the Bill Of Rights and has been official since December 15, 1791 by ratification of 3/4 of the States.
You should really look up your facts man. the press "doing" anything they want is not the same as the press "being" anywhere they want.
There are stipulations against the press "doing" anything they want, many have already been mentioned, libel, defamation of character, National Security, etc.

You'll notice the bolded part.

When the First Amendment was established, the "press" was part of the upper crust of society and consisted of individuals who were reputed to be of high integrity. The "press" was also consisting of nothing but persons who had access to printing presses: which were relatively expensive to maintain and use.
So please. Continue telling me to "look up my facts", when in fact "the press doing anything they want" is the same as the "press being anywhere they want".

Sorry dude, but this is just rhetroric and a hasty generalization.

Negative. When the Raleigh Police Department rolled a SWAT team on a crackdown against several drug dens at the same time as the Duke Lacrosse case, guess which one the press were at?

Hint: It wasn't the one that would net ideas of "So what?".

Possibly, but not every time, another hasty generalization.

Again, no. Cameras make protesters stupid. Look at what happened in Vancouver.

I'd like to see the numbers on this subject. Usually implies more than half of the time. I'm not trying to be a total jerk here, but you are expressing your opinions as if they were facts.

They are facts. I suggest you look into the behavior of these diehards for "causes". They have no problem taking one for the team.

You should try to avoid logical fallacies when making a valid argument for debate.

You should also have some clue when talking about things, rather than talking about how something "smells like a cover-up".

Opinions are strong, and you have every right to have opinions and share them but it isn't arguable.

Except when I have knowledge of these kinds of situations, huh?

I've been to several protests over the years. Almost every time I've seen the police "get violent", it's because a protester starts throwing crap at them or attacks them. Police strike back--and the cops get called on it as the aggressors.

Space Crusader wrote:
Wells from what you are saying the american police force consist of a bunch of pussies(no offence).

Yes...because that's not offensive?
I'd suggest you have a fething clue before running your mouth off again.

The protesters are teens, seniors and adults that lost thier jobs due to greed.

Not every single one of them. Most of "the protesters" are teens and young adults who are in college and running with ideas they have no clue about.

The italian police face real protesters. They have to face molotovs, violent gangs and rocks.

Because that's totally not what happened in Oakland, right? Or the threats being leveled by a "spokesperson" for Occupy Wall Street?

The american ones get called pigs and hit old ladies because of that.

You really don't know a thing, do you?

Many are fat to.

Fat to what? Fat to slim?
The stereotypical "fat American police officer" is bs. There's some that are overweight yeah, but not to the comedic excess you see in film or television. Most are ex-military or obsessive athletes.

halonachos wrote:No, I'm part of the 53% that's actually going out and working instead of being a BMW because I made some bad choices. They don't represent me at all and anyone who says that they represent them or says that they are Scott Olsen are just d-riding this whole protest because they want to feel like they're part of something.

http://pumabydesign001.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/occupy-wall-street-obamas-ows-pals/

Hey look, I can do the same thing! One sided stories are the best!



Protests are a power of the people, regardless of who you are. If it weren't for protests against established laws, in America, the Consitution would still only be protecting land owning White Males.

I support protesting in all it's forms. People generally only protest when something is inherently wrong with the system, whether legal or morally. People just don't form mobs and protest something for no good reason.