This Picture Of Occupiers Cracks Me Up!

[saddlebum]

Guess I shouldn't be surprised at the anarchist comments coming out of this. And look! It's the same old crew...............
 
Such a shame. I'm going to hell for being amused at the photo of some young, dumb law breakers getting a grown up spanking. Woe is me..........................

[lakota]

One other thing-had this been a group of gun owners protesting or a TEA party protest with an encampment and the cops showed up and said "you guys cant camp here" that would have been that the camp would have been removed.
 
There is a certain segment of the population that believes that their right to assemble and right to free speech negates all all other rules and they can do whatever they want to do in the delivery of thier message.
 
Also if a TEA party protest or Gun rights protest were pepper sprayed by police it would be portrayed very differently by the media than this incident.

[ironglow]

   These youngsters were defying the law and stomping on the rights of the other 99% who were not interested in participating in this disruption of public access.
  Unfortunately; they will garner sympathy from many, especially those who in their childhood were not taught the meaning of  "NO" when it comes to rude, selfish behavior...

[powderman]

There is a certain segment of the population that believes that their right to assemble and right to free speech negates all all other rules and they can do whatever they want to do in the delivery of thier message.

 
Agreed Sir. POWDERMAN. 

[saddlebum]

What is striking to me is that this all started over trying to maintain public safety by school officials and the police. They refused to allow a "campsite". Not free speech or protesting. The school has rights too. As does the public at large. And they were concerned for the safety and well being of all when they rejected the idea of "camping out". Protesters complain about high tuition, but have no problem costing the school a ton of money to clean up after they have their little "Woodstock".
It seems many think that the protesters were just blocking the sidewalk. They should read the WHOLE story. The police were trying to break up a campsite the protesters errected after being told they couldn’t by the school authorities and police. It wasn’t just a matter of “walking” around them. The kids that got “spanked” with pepper spray were trying to block the removal of the tents and refusing to move. If the cops had manhandled them, I’m sure the un-justified outrage would be even louder. This whole deal was a slow escalation of force, brought on by law breaking resistance of the protesters. They were warned more than once and given a time limit. Their fault, not the police or the school officials. Maybe some would be happier if the school officials had let the protesters have their way. Then those same people could be outraged at the lawlessness that has followed in every OWS “campsite” across the country. Maybe they prefer rape, drug overdoses, theft, vandalizing, sexual misconduct, drug dealing and violence over a little pepper spray and law and order.
(I'm still laughing at the picture and unrepentant,btw)

[Shu]

You're killin me TM7!!! So true a statement you made with the photo, many don't understand.
Unfortunately folks, whether you agree with what is being protested or not, the right to assemble and protest is/was protected. Our First ammendment -the right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble and freedom to petiton the government. Why do you think this was the First? Why do you think the Second was the right to keep and bear arms?
 
Geez all you scholars with out looking it up how much of the bill of rights can you remember. What is the 3rd ammendment? Anyone know without looking it up? My point being just keep allowing your rights to be eroded and you will see the effects of the 3rd.
For the most part this is a pretty conservative site and most anything anti constitutional is decried immediately except when it is someone protesting what we don't agree with.
 
Shall we just quit on our constitution and let it fall quietly into the night or shall we stand and say it is OUR CONSTITUTION DON'T TREAD ON IT.
 
 
 
 

[nw_hunter]

You're killin me TM7!!! So true a statement you made with the photo, many don't understand.
Unfortunately folks, whether you agree with what is being protested or not, the right to assemble and protest is/was protected. Our First ammendment -the right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble and freedom to petiton the government. Why do you think this was the First? Why do you think the Second was the right to keep and bear arms?
 
Geez all you scholars with out looking it up how much of the bill of rights can you remember. What is the 3rd ammendment? Anyone know without looking it up? My point being just keep allowing your rights to be eroded and you will see the effects of the 3rd.
For the most part this is a pretty conservative site and most anything anti constitutional is decried immediately except when it is someone protesting what we don't agree with.
 
Shall we just quit on our constitution and let it fall quietly into the night or shall we stand and say it is OUR CONSTITUTION DON'T TREAD ON IT.

It would appear many, either through ignorance or apathy don't really care anymore.
It's a damn shame! Every day this country of ours looks more like a morphing of Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia.The politicians turned their backs on the Constitution long ago and looks like they have convinced a lot of others to do likewise.

I don't think we've been this divided as a country since the war between the states.

[DDZ]

Unfortunately folks, whether you agree with what is being protested or not, the right to assemble and protest is/was protected. 

I think most everyone here agrees with that. What is the standard for a peaceful protest? Is a peaceful protest a group of protesters that do not break ANY laws, or is a peaceful protest a group that just breaks a few laws. Or for that matter does the 1st Amendment give us the anything goes or else attitude? We do still have the right to assemble and hold a protest. There were many tea party protests, and many of them had little or no involvement from the police. Could it just be that some break laws that require police intervention, and others don't?
Many of these protests anymore display open hatred for the police. Some have even attached posters of Mumia Abu Jamal and Lovelle Mixon to their tents. Mixon is a suspected child rapist, and he gunned down four Oakland police officers while eating breakfast. Now he is an anointed hero of certain protesters. In Atlanta protesters renamed their camp after cop killer Troy Davis. Many of these so called peaceful protests, the police become the target, and are goaded into acting or arresting protesters, so they can then have another complaint about their 1st amendment rights being stepped on. 
I'm all for the right to protest peacefully, and I think anyone, or group of us, can do that without intervention from police officers, but there does have to be a standard for what peaceful protesting is. Some of you have it all wrong in blaming others for not wanting all Constitutional rights given if its something they don't agree with. I see their point is well made in the fact that if laws are broken by protesters, or protesters are affecting other people or businesses, or destroying public property, then the police should, and do have the right to intervene.     

[Shu]

To me a peaceful protest is gathering, carrying signs, and shouting whatever it is that you protest. The refusal to disperse does not count as a sign of not being peaceful. Laying on the ground, sitting or stuffing your hands in your pockets when confronted by law enforcement is still peaceful. When the officer is doing his job and must arrest you, you allow that to happen. You comply with allowing them to put the cuffs on. 24 hrs later you will be back at the protest site anyway.
Throwing rocks, glass or taking a swing is not peaceful.
Yes , I know I live in a world that does not exist.
Yes protests put our law enforcement officers in danger. However the rights given under the constitution should be carefully gurded.
 
Yes I am oppossed to the OWS group, however they have the right to protest. There is a time and place for civil disobedience.

[powderman]

Still no answers to my questions on post #29. Come on guys, what are the majic numbers?? I posted this last night and it disappeared. POWDERMAN. 

[billy_56081]

A lot of posts here disappearing.

I had a post here about how these folks whose "rights" were being violated. What about the rights of the others who want to use this public travel route they are blocking. Ones rights end where another's begins. These "protesters" are violating the rights of others.

The ows movement is no different than the Kmer Rouge mov¥ent of Cambodia. Same ideals same goals. If left unchecked it will have the same results.

[NWBear]

I believe there are a couple of points here that need to be considered carefully.  Most people believe in the rule of LAW and the Constitution.  The police are there to uphold the law which means using "appropriate" response.  I believe the LAPD has stopped high speed pursuits in some cases because the collateral damage exceeds the severity of the original crime.  The police are there to "apprehend" law breakers and prevent "appropriately" further unlawful activity.  What this seems to be is the police becoming the "Judicial" body (courts etc.)  judging guilt and administering punishment.  IMO that is a very slippery slope.  My second point is that the condemnation and dismissal of people you disagree with is dangerous if that results in a breach of rights that then tend to be breached even against those who cheered in the beginning.  As GB poiinted out if you are pro Constitution, you are for it even when it protects the people you disagree with.  I may disagree with many positions taken here and eleswhere but I will and have defended them with my life.
NWBear       

[guzzijohn]

This 84 year old must have been a real threat as she was one of the pepper sprayed folk.

[/font]

[guzzijohn]

Well, that picture posting didn't work worth a crap, sorry.
GuzziJohn

[powderman]

guzzi. Already saw it. She shoulda been home with her loved ones instead of rabblerousing. I read her story elsewhere, it said she's a well known activist for just about anything you can think of. A regular pot stirrer. POWDERMAN. 

[guzzijohn]

Quote from Powderman:
"guzzi. Already saw it. She shoulda been home with her loved ones instead of rabblerousing. I read her story elsewhere, it said she's a well known activist for just about anything you can think of. A regular pot stirrer. POWDERMAN."


Still doesn't deserve a face full of pepper spray unless she was a direct physical threat to an officer. If an officer could not deal with her in a more civil manner than that officer at best is a big wuss, at worst a person that assaults the elderly.
GuzziJohn

[saddlebum]

Up until now I have not seen the video. I only had the pictures in the news article to go buy and thought it was funny. But I just saw the video on TV and have changed my opinion on the matter considerably.
After viewing and hearing the audio from the video I have come to the conclusion that the video is much more funny than the still pictures!....It's side splitting hillarous!!
I mean, you know, all non-constitutional, non-police brutality, non-ethical, and other non-issues asside.   

[guzzijohn]

I guess everyone has their own kind of humor. I just find it very sad and frustrating.
GuzziJohn

[billy_56081]

She and the rest of them were inmpeding the rights of the people wanting that public walk way. They broke the law, they resisted arrest, they got moved. Simple as that.

[saddlebum]

I have some crow to eat. I made the assursion that the photo that TM7 posted, (now deleted), was photoshopped. Well it turns out that only the obvious, not so funny, comment added to the picture was photoshopped. The photograph is actually real and becoming quite the rage on websites and such.
But not for the same reason I like it. The story about the picture is in the link. It might interest the bleeding heart liberals as well as others.
Maybe we could have a caption contest to see who comes up with the best caption for the picture?
Like, "Open wide and say, AH". Or, "Let me help you with your Asthma"
But, maybe not. That might be the reason the photoshopped picture was taken down. Someone didn't like tm7's addition to the pic.
 
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=67a_1321758439&comments=1

[kevinsmith5]

I think that some people need to consider the place this happened. This was a California University. Probably the most liberal institution you're likely to find outside the People's Republic of Massachusetts. The admin there called the police in to remove the "camp" from where they had told people they were free to protest but not "camp". When the police came to remove the camp they obstructed the path if the police and refused to comply. This apparently went on for awhile. Having seen the situation in New York when police simply backed down when the OWS said "no" to public safety orders to decamp the police proceeded to remove them through REASONABLE USE OF FORCE. I say reasonable because they did not use batons or bullets and they did warn then repeatedly that said use if force was coming if they didn't comply.

[NWBear]

She and the rest of them were inmpeding the rights of the people wanting that public walk way. They broke the law, they resisted arrest, they got moved. Simple as that.

"We (the 4 officiers against one person on the ground) administered 'power strokes' ...."  Also known as the Rodney King beat down.  I was in the jury pool but had to be excused.  I guess he broke the law, resisted arrest, and got moved...  Officiers aquited than tried again and convicted - cost the state and city millions.   
 
I am not against use of force, but...  My Father used to say the best way to quell a riot, and he was in the British Army back when they had an "Empire", was to shot and kill a couple of people.  The rest usually dispersed after that.  I hope we are not going there.

[powderman]

That might be the reason the photoshopped picture was taken down. Someone didn't like tm7's addition to the pic.

 
SADDLEBUM. Surely you jest. News just showed the weenies whining about their rights to deny others rights. They said the cops were armed with assault rifles and chemical weapons.
I'll ask again. How many laws should they be able to break before the laws are enforced?? How many other peoples rights are they allowed to walk on and deny before enforcing the laws?? Who should decide when their protest is over?? Is there a majic # that I don't know about?? POWDERMAN. 

[kevinsmith5]

Comparing this to the Rodney King beating is just dishonest.....

[yellowtail3]

I'll guess this might be the pic Guzzi posted:

 

My Father used to say the best way to quell a riot, and he was in the British Army back when they had an "Empire", was to shot and kill a couple of people.  The rest usually dispersed after that.  I hope we are not going there.

I hope not, too, but if we do, it's time to start shooting back.

[wncchester]

Citizens have a 'right' to protest and speak freely; they/we do not have a 'right' to interfer with the normal and lawful activities of other citizens.   Citizens have a right to speak freely about political things without fear of arrest; we do not have an unrestricted right to say anything we wish. anytime or anywhere we wish and demand others listen to our speech without any detremental impact on the speaker; free speech isn't totally unconstrained, nor should it be.  ALL the founders intended in their recognition of a right to speak freely was the offender would not be jailed, not that there would be no consequences!   Let a school teacher/public employee tell students that dope smoking and 'free love' is the right way to live; he/she won't go to jail but will (or should) lose their job.  Ditto, let a Chevy salesman tell his customers to buy a Ford and he won't go to jail but he will lose his job, and rightly so.  When protesting citizens exercise that Contitutional freedom in such a way as to stop or limit other's following their freedoms they have crossed a totally different legal line and it's time for the protestors to be moved. 
 
It's NOT un-Constitutional, in law or intent, for law officers to protect the rights of the many from the clear excesses of the few.  Those idiots have been interferring with others, they had been doing so for some time, the cops had been directed to move them, it wasn't a personal thing by the cops.  That one cop had given them a warning and demonstration; they chose to lock together and refused to move specifically so they WOULD get sprayed and videoed to accuse the cop of 'brutality'.  But the cop didn't act out of malice, only with a casual and professional indifference.  But those kids wanted it, they planned for it, they knew it was coming, they got it ... and I have no symphathy for them.   I do hope they learned something from it but I wouldn't bet a dime that they did.  I know for sure they know nothing of free market economics needed to produce an income! 
 
The gritty/gummy/smelly/mindless chanting OWS mobs are having exactly the national counter effect they should expect.  No "made for TV" video event such as that one is going to make their losing effort into a winner.  I can't imagine me or any of my gun owning friends being so stupid as to hope we might duplicate OWS behavior in hopes of motivating the gun hating public or 'libbrul' politicans to get real about antigun laws. 
 
Protest is one thing.  Being arrogant jack-asses is something wholly different.  Those silly clowns are much "different."

[ironglow]

Wncchester has it right, as the old saying by law profs goes;  "you have a right to swing your arms around all you like, but when they come in contact with my nose, that's where your rights cease".
   Same can be said about protest and free speech..
  " You have a right to protest and sit-in all you wish, but when your protest of sit-in interferes with my free travel and access or hinder my lawful business, that's where your rights cease".
 
  Only common sense.....
 
  As far as granny pictured above, we don't have the full story.  She could have been hit with capsaicin carried on a breeze.
 
    As Harry S. Truman said; ...and this goes for all the OWS rowdies.. " If you can't take the heat...stay out of the kitchen".
 
       ..But the photo makes great propaganda...for those who drank the Koolaid..

[saddlebum]

I'll guess this might be the pic Guzzi posted:

 

My Father used to say the best way to quell a riot, and he was in the British Army back when they had an "Empire", was to shot and kill a couple of people.  The rest usually dispersed after that.  I hope we are not going there.

I hope not, too, but if we do, it's time to start shooting back.

WHOA!!!.......That picture isn't funny at all!!.....Thats messed up!
 
So whats, 'the real', story about this picture? That does not look like it happened at the same incident as this thread is about. I did not see any old ladies in that group of college kids. And the surroundings in the pic don't match. It's night time in a city somewhere, it looks like. If it was the same incident, I'm sure she would be the poster girl for it in the news. As well she should be if she was there. So whats the story?
 
NEVER MIND!
Seattle protester. Not envolved with UC Davis.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/16/dorli-rainey-pepper-spray-occupy-seattle_n_1097836.html

[crustylicious]

Here's a hilarious pic 
 

[saddlebum]

Here's a hilarious pic 
 

To each his own. But my chuckle came from reality instead of fantasy and paranoia.