Police are members of the 99%, but lackeys for the 1%. They act on orders from the 1%.
The only exception, would be instigators, who are placed in the 99% rallies, by the police, and the 1% to make the 99% look bad.

is a bit of wishful thinking.

My guess would be 90% are definitely peaceful protesters... so I will give you some leeway.

For the record, OWS shuns the non peaceful type.

(Oh and that 10% is actually pretty high)

Anyone who makes OWS look bad is an agent provocateur, hm? So last night's kerfuffle must mean Occupy Oakland has more infiltrators than protesters. Hmmm, what to make of that...?

... (fill in the blank)

Throw rocks, start a fight, be irresponsible, put out a message that isn't in accordance with "the message" etc.. etc..

It's all things to all people

just disavow anyone who reflects badly on the movement? Just as I will readily agree that there are bad cops who just want to bash heads, can't you agree that some OWSers think the ends justify the means? You even find support here from staunch OWS supporters for illegal and violent actions.

... or I wasn't laying it on thick enough.

Of course there are OWSers who cause problems. I think the idea that you expect the government just to throw out the concept of private property because you want something is ridiculous and a response should be expected.

In order to "discredit the movement."

That was pretty much the point when I could no longer take the OWS "true believers" seriously.

Riiiight.

Last edited Sun Jan 29, 2012, 04:38 PM - Edit history (1)

Exactly what I would expect...

You just spewed the semantic equivalent of "nuh uh"

Next time go with the classic "I am rubber, you are glue" retort...

The truth is ALWAYS somewhere in the middle.

is not welcome in this discussion?

...implying it.

If one person is telling a lie and another, the truth - the truth does not lie "in the middle."

nt

What should they do when rocks and other objects are thrown at them?

not generalities. And I don't know what your definition of harass is.

I have family members who are cops and they are not evil. They do not go out every day looking to fuck someone over. They go out wanting to come home alive and help and serve the community. Believe it or not, there are actual criminals out there who need to be arrested. That said, I do realize there are some cops who need to find a different profession. But, just like the OWS supporters, the good ones far outnumber the bad.

at some time. Harassed a Innocent citizen. Arrested someone for "Disorderly Conduct" just because they could and then the charges were dropped later. Was rough on someone just because they pissed them off. Or covered up for another cop doing the same shit.

All cops do this shit at some point.

And this "come home alive" stuff is mostly from TV and Movies. There are many more dangerous jobs than cops. And most cops die in traffic accidents, not getting in gun battles.

Sure some of the protesters are assholes but how many videos did you see from NYC that the cops were on the wrong side of the story and NOTHING happened to them?

Police in this country are beyond questioning because of people like you who blindly believe all they say.

How in your mind does that translate into "blindly believe all they say." And, I guess it depends on where you live. But in major metropolitan areas like where I live, yes, cops do get shot at and/or killed every year.

Where did I say cops should harass people? And, sorry, enforcing existing laws, such as not allowing private property to be seized, is their job. But I guess it should be OK for groups of people to take over wherever they want.

And firemen die of collapsing buildings, etc. Construction workers die from management incompetence and lust for profit, miners die from explosions and cave ins. And each of these jobs have higher mortality rate than cops.

A worker in the service of the capitalists is not a worker, but is a bourgeoisie cop.

The abuse is rampant and sheep just sit and watch like fatted cattle. Time to wake up America!

Police should switch sides and join the protest.

They should start questioning orders more.

From the bottom up. The street cop should question orders from his sergeant, and straight up the chain to the chief and the mayor.

They should question and resist to whatever extent possible orders to fire into crowds, or to use gas on crowds. People have a right to assemble.

or right to take over unoccupied buildings?

As far as the convention center from last night, and I assume that's what we are talking about, we all know what happened.

The protesters decided to "appropriate" the convention center.
They are claiming the authority to take over this space even though they do not have the authority or right to do so under our laws.

That's a common protest tactic around the world and in US history.

They are probably trying to turn it into some kind of anarchist-commie base/homeless shelter.

The cops should help them and protect them instead of shooting at them.

It's not as simple as you make it out to be.

I don't think it's simple.

It would take a lot of courage and integrity for a police officer to turn to his boss and say "Sorry boss, I'm not going to shoot at these kids today."

Or it would take courage for a police officer to quietly bring up the subject with a co-worker to say "I don't feel right about what has been going on".

Just like it takes courage to stand in a protest line and get shot at.

I don't want police to quit their jobs and I'm not "against cops".

The protesters see the system is rigged for the rich and are taking a stand. The police should stand with them.

He quits his job.

He or she would face disciplinary action up to & including termination.
That is not the same as quitting.

That is called refusing to shoot political protesters.

If a small but notable number of police would refuse to brutalize protesters, those officers would be looked at as heroes of great courage. Really even if one cop would do this it could have a huge effect if it were covered enough by the news media.

They would have support from thousands of sympathizers in their community and millions more from around America.

I know not every officer could do this, for various reasons. Health reasons, family reasons, money reasons etc.

But people sometimes have to stand up to their boss when he tells you to do something that is just wrong.

And that's not just for cops. The same could be said of a banker, a nurse, a McDonalds cashier.
Sometimes people have to tell their boss "no", when it's the right thing to do.

With lots of idealistic, romantic notions.

The fantasy world is pretending that we can just keep doing what we are doing now and everything is going to be fine.

Reality is the system is rigged for the rich. The middle class is disappearing.

If we want our kids to have decent lives we ought to take control of our country back from the big corporations and billionaires.. And spread the money around to the people a little more. Cops should help.

and never said I did. I am not defending the system or the rich.

So, what? We just seize corporations and dole out money? And the cops should no longer defend the laws and carry out the directives of OWS?

And according to a couple on the thread, the police should just ignore them or join them and fight against the man.

The problem lies in occupation.

I can go to the square in Yougstown every day of the week to protest, and no one will ever stop me. I can do this for months on end, and that's been done, but once I say I'm setting up a home there and never leaving, my protest will attract undesireable attention. Pols know occupations become shanty towns, and those shanty towns become unsightly slums that adopt the name of the governor or president in charge (see Hooverville).

Occupations have always suffered bloody and fruitless defeats in America. From the aforementioned Hooverville to the Bonus Soldiers and Indian occupation of Alcatraz, the problem always arises when a protest files for it's own zip code. When does public land become one's personal property with a front porch and kitchen?

I think the OWS should spawn a new public union with dues, political influence, and most importantly, a leader. Structure and direction is waht the movement lacks, and we have to remember that unions built the middle class to begin with. Our economic decline began when Corporate America tipped the balance with anti-union propaganda and right to work laws. The rise and fall of the working class tracks perfectly with the rise and fall of organized labor in America.

Occupation is a political nuisance. A well organized national strike is a feared tool of the working class. Wall Street will scream at their political pawns to resolve the issue if this country is shut down for even one day.

I agree with most of that. They(we) ought to get organized and flex some political muscle and economic muscle. Maybe form one big labor union.

The Occupy people have done a great job of changing the national conversation to the subject of inequality. And I liked when they were talking about shutting down the west coast ports, that's flexing muscle. But there is going to have to be more organization and power to make it a real success.

It should expand to a wider group of working class people. People like their unions because their unions protect them from the boss. If Occupy is going to make big changes it has to find a way to form or work with labor unions more.

When he rises from the ranks, I hope OWS doesn't shun him to preserve the pointless "leaderless movement" status. Movements without a leader lack true direction and the organization needed to affect real change.

Of course I don't suggest the movement disband, I just want to see some good come of the intial momentum before too many people give up and go home. By then it'll be too late, and Wall Street wins again. The 1% know this and are patiently biding their time while the govt discourages participation.

To me the current OWS strategy is like a local WalMart with 200 employees all bargaining their angered demands separately with management.

I ask because what you are saying has been happening for months. My local occupy not only has support from the Central Labor Council (that be Unions), but it has a sub-committee concerned with Labor issues... they meet once a week. They also have a facebook page, and it is through them that the port action (and May First Action) is being coordinated

My support basically consists of bitching about it on web forums. I get alot of info from sites like this. For example I usually try to read things you post about it. I'm glad you guys have that going on and keep making progress.

a protest over the cuts, was organized by labor members. The specific organizer was David Gutierrez from Teamsters Local 542.

The Central Labor Council also sent a speaker, Cindy, to speak about why the Unions are needed for this, and why they are in the thick of this.

I know "bitching on line" has it's level of satisfaction, but I highly suggest making contacts with your local occupation

And the state consists of far more than just a few people who want to occupy it.

The OWS, with hundreds of thousands of $ in their account could very likely buy the property if they really want it.

. . . for the police abuses based on the fact that someone nearby was breaking the law. The police were obviously waiting for something to happen (or arranged it) to justify their planned crackdown. The cops have all the weapons; and carry with all of that a responsibility to mete out their authority with care. That failure is completely the department's fault. We can't blame the movement for their brutality; nor use the acts of provocateurs as some sort of equalizer in determining blame and assessing accountability.

But anyone who didn't know this was going to happen when a large group of people try to take over a building is either stupid or naive.

You have revealed the elephant in the room!

I know of other countries which actually tolerate squatting without the beatings and shootings, so I'm not prepared to declare this group's actions as some sort of threat that deserved to be met with this degree of police brutality.

What don't you get about that? They were trying to take over a building! That's not protesting, that's anarchy. So guess what? MORE anarchy resulted!

Who could have foreseen?

. . . not something that needed to be defended against with such force. That force was a result of the police animosity toward the Occupy protestors. The 'takeover' was a mostly peaceful exercise and the movement in that state and town is correct in drawing attention to these abandoned properties and highlighting their potential for accommodation for public use. That worthwhile effort didn't deserve to be met with all of the pent-up resentment this force (the police leadership and government officials) has been harboring toward the movement. This is the wrong response to that 'sit-in' and it's an unjust one, as well.

and more about punishment than dealing with the actual problem of protestors taking over an abandoned building.

Who's starting things here?
http://mercphotos.slideshowpro.com/albums/044/363/album-299375/cache/eoak0129occupy07.sJPG_800_450_0_95_1_50_50.sJPG?1327837360

And now the battle lines form:
http://mercphotos.slideshowpro.com/albums/044/363/album-299375/cache/eoak0129occupy19.sJPG_800_450_0_95_1_50_50.sJPG?1327837360

http://mercphotos.slideshowpro.com/albums/044/363/album-299375/cache/eoak0129occupy08.sJPG_800_450_0_95_1_50_50.sJPG?1327837360

The protesters came armed for battle:
http://mercphotos.slideshowpro.com/albums/044/363/album-299375/cache/eoak0129occupy23.sJPG_800_450_0_95_1_50_50.sJPG?1327837360

Is it really appropriate to trash city hall?
http://mercphotos.slideshowpro.com/albums/044/363/album-299375/cache/ecct0129occupy05.sJPG_800_450_0_95_1_50_50.sJPG?1327837360

trying to make the movement look bad. Those are all plants so people will be fooled into taking the facists' side.

. . . doesn't require defending by a riot squad.

The building is owned by Oakland.

The Occupiers had previously stated that they intended to occupy a building for their own use. They also announced that they'd hold a party after they took it over, and then they were going to turn it into some sort of community center, which I imagine was going to be for the use of their own community and maybe the homeless.

I have asked the question a number of times. Do you think the Occupiers have the right to seize a public building for their own use?

. . . and to expect the police to respond with appropriate force. I don't believe these officers responded with appropriate force.

I notice that as the crowds shrink, the actions get more extreme.

Most of the country isn't going to support these actions by the OWS, and all the posters here who are ignoring the attack on city hall, the breaking down of the fence and the attacks on the cops are so far away from the mainstream that it is depressing.

I don't know what to think about all this, except that OWS Oakland is hurting the image of the OWS national movement.

Most of the US population are extreme moderates. They will never condone what is being done by OWS even if they are distraught at what has happened to the country and even if they strongly suspect that the police are often over the edge.

Most people don't think that destruction of property is appropriate, because they don't want their own destroyed. And people don't like pictures of crowds and fires, because they think it is too dangerous.

have always been easy to paint as villains when they do stuff that isn't popular. But when stuff goes down, the cops are always who people call for first.

I don't agree with a lot of stuff that was done by the NYPD during the tense beginnings of the OWS movement. However, I know people there on BOTH sides. So, I've heard different stories non step. Nobody wants to admit wrongdoing, whether they're Police or Protesters, but I actually have heard some from the people there in the trenches. So, yes, it's somewhere in the middle.

There are some Police Officers who were there to flaunt their power and abuse authority (that's universal, if you're a douche before you go into the academy, there's no reason why you won't be when you come out), but there were also protesters there who were willing to sacrifice others to gain attention. A Protester friend of mine said that she had heard a shout of "Let's stab them!" from behind her at a human barricade facing down the Cops, and then a huge shove from behind her surging a group forward as if charging the Police, who responded in kind. I also know of NYPD who used any flimsy excuse to arrest and use excessive force (Not just for the disgusting Tony Balogna, but he's the poster child for it.)

There are two sides to every story, but it's easy to villify the Police and Romanticize the OWS movement. Whether you agree or not, it's important to realize that they're all just individual people who do the right thing or stir the shit (so to speak) rather than generalize. There are good people there who are really doing the right thing and opposers of either side sadly seem to be too hesitant to see that.

That's the word I was looking for. Thanks.

who do the right thing but because they act like repressive thugs with a habit of killing black people.

And the NYPD better watch out, especially of the lasted revelations about the many abuses against the Muslim community, up to an including airing hate material for their trainees on a loop.

But that's not saying the truth is in the middle.

Almost 100% of the protesters have been peaceful.

Instead of a "leaderless movement", I think they should evolve into a national union with structure, dues, and most important, political clout. Instead of trying to tear down and rebuild the system anew, they could focus their energy to work within the existing system for worker's rights and a living wage.

It was the unions that built the middle class to begin with, and the decline of that middle class of the greatest generation coincides exactly when corporate interests started winning the fight by demonizing unions and the passage of "right to work" laws.

"Leaderless movements" have historically always ended the same. The "Bonus Soldiers", "Hooverville", and the American Indian protests at Alcatraz all suffered bloody defeats when they announced they weren't leaving public land. They also all shared a lack of national organization.

Government officials know that occupations become tent cities that morph into shanty towns. Those shanty towns become unsightly slums that adopt the name of the mayor, governor, or president in charge at the time. The math isn't hard to do on this, and it should be evident that no one wants to stop a protest, it's the occupation that won't ever be allowed to survive.

Somewhere there's a Samual Gompers waiting to organize the OWS people into unified political action, and I hope they don't turn their backs when he rises among them.

On edit:
While an occupation may be frowned upon and considered a nuisance by politicians, nothing can be as effective as a national strike. Wall Street alone will scream for speedy resolution from the govt, and you can bet they'll listen to them.

what is the support of Labor. No, I am not kidding here.

Suffice it to say that my LOCALS have full support from the Central Labor COuncil, who have a committee to support OWS, and who was in the thick of organizing the Port Action and now in the thick of organizing the May First action.

Leaderless does not mean there is no labor involved.

SHEEESH

It was more a protest than occupation that only lasted a long weekend and consisted mostly of union leaders and local party officials. I admit that at 58 years old, I'm not going to live on a sidewalk for any length of time at all, but I would be interested in joining a national union that collects dues and garners much needed political clout.

The problem as I see it isn't that labor is not involved, it's that the movement speaks with a million voices. It's like a local WalMart where 200 workers air their complaints to management on an individual basis. The company surely hears everyone, but listens to no one. Eventually, they fire disgruntled employees one worker at a time until the others get the message.

One day soon, OWS has to take assessment of it's accomlishments to date and make a decision whether change is being affected. I hope before that day arrives a unifying voice comes forward and organizes the movement into a political force that works within the system to make forward progress before it's too late and people just go home. One person at a time.

I'm not discounting the movement or it's causes, I just strongly disagree with strategy.

a few concessions.

As to a national union, my personal dream is not a national union... but a continental one. Alas Samuel Gomper's dream, it is time for it.

What I have seen is that through the GA's you have actions that are approved nationwide, or at least West Coast wide. (That be technology, as fast as it is happening)

We will see this evolve. My guess is that you will see some sort of soft leadership emerge, but a hard hierarchy... no, that is not what OWS is about. As to it becoming a union... my guess, NOT this cycle, is that it is slowly evolving into a party, as in a political party, as well. Here we already have three OWSers running for office, and challenging BOTH democrats and republicans.

A part of it might form an umbrella organization for labor.

narrative then you may be on the wrong board.

It's always more subtle and more complex than that.

Oh, maybe that was sarcasm.

Because it is inherently non-progressive if so.

Boy, you got me pegged.

not progressed past that of a 10th grader, or (b) these ARE 10th graders.

You will learn who the non-binary thinkers are here. A great way to get a clue is to see who DOESN'T call you a
freeper.

Although, I do apparently support police brutality.

are the result of orders passed down by our "corporate overlords," and all
cops are drones who follow those orders without question.

And when you point out the lunacy of that assertion, someone will be right there
to write a 5000-word post about some poor guy that some cop clobbered, and
contrary to everything we know about logic, that post is meant to burnish the
idea that all cops are bad, and anyone standing against a cop is good.

(Unless that cop is frogmarching a Republican into a jailhouse - then we know that
all is correct in the world)

your open mind, as opposed to the rest of the folks expressing their view here, is so superior that I'm certain now that you're not a '10th grader; or have the value system of a 10th grader.'

No way a '10th grader' would resort to the superior level of name-calling and ridicule you've used to make your point.

. . . mind without taking into account the reports at the scene.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002238123

A values system devoid of anchor points is not a sign of maturity at any age. Often, it is nothing more than avoidance of responsibility for one's principles to be ethically flexible, it allows responsibility to be shifted to circumstances.

Easy to do. Not at all productive of fact.

police action involving the Civil Rights Movment was wrong. But the Civil Rights Movement was right and those who opposed it were wrong.

...

Sorry, had to jump in with that.

Everytime I post that...someone follows up with the rest of it!

And after reading some of these threads...it might become my standard reply.

Society breaks down when the economic system does not allow the movement of resources and abject poverty is created.

400 people have more resources than the bottom 150 MILLION (give or take). The top 1% as a whole dominates further and top 20% (which by most indication includes much of DU's membership) has a substantial resource advantage to the 80%.

When combined with money equalling speech in this country the political balance goes completely out of whack and the politics are skewed to protect those interests and the bottom 80% are further plundered because the pie is only so big and the demands of avarice are unending.

Pooh pooing this situation is truly a "you can't be serious" moment, going on as we have is not tenable and the systemic entropy a far greater threat to individual freedom and broad prosperity than even the poison of Jim Crow and it isn't even close though much more closely related than will ever be admitted. Minorities will continue to take the biggest hits and have the least chance for anything like upward mobility.

And tell me exactly how what happened last night that furthered the goal?

I've taken part in many peaceful protests. However, I did not come armed with shields and gas masks and cover my face. I did not scream and taunt cops in an effort to get them to react. I did not throw rocks. I did not destroy property. The Constitution allows the right to assemble. It does not guarantee the right to set up semi-permanent encampments wherever you want or occupy private buildings or make a mess in city hall or steal flags and burn them. (They need to bring their own flags.)

Contrast this with the success of the civil rights movement. The protesters were peaceful and came unarmed. When action was taken against them, the brutality was evident. To many Americans watching those scenes, the cops were responding to aggression and provocation and simply enforcing laws. How does that gain support? How does that further our goals?

that long post.

You seemed to be the one implying that somehow this fight isn't as important as the 60's Civil Rights battles and I wanted it to be clear that not only is it just as critical but in many important ways it is the continuation of the same war.

Thanks for evading the content and for more dismissive snark.

The OP is just flamebait...have fun playing in the circle jerk. I see that is all some people are good at.

You have a problem with that?

but I certainly do with some of the tactics. No one has been all right or all wrong in what has gone on.

Who is most right and who is generally wrong? Why on both would be cool too, to understand your perspective.

the mild aggressions allegedly committed by Occupy Oakland.

Given the hypocritical, corrupt, and malevolent actions repeatedly perpetrated by the RWers and RW interests that have traditionally supported the tyranny of the banksters/1%, as plainly evidenced so very many times, it would actually surprise me if they had not planted agitators in the crowd.

And also, having been the victim of completely unwarranted police violence several times in the past, I totally understand how someone might react out of a sense of outrage and injustice in the heat of the moment. I've had to make intense focused preparations, mentally and emotionally when "going into battle", so that I could maintain total calm and self-control when police tear gas us or surround us or hit me in the back with their billy clubs.

I do very firmly believe that engaging in aggressive or violent acts against persons is not the way that Occupy will achieve our goals.

In my experience, this is generally understood by most every Occupier, and instruction in non-violent direct action and resistance is generally offered by most Occupy groups as approved by consensus in General Assemblies.

IMO, the police should simply defer to the needs of the 99%, and go about their business of preventing real crime, and allow Occupy to go about the business of the 99%.

Historically, police everywhere have almost always supported the needs of those in control, be they long established tyrannies or occupational governments set up by foreign invaders. Indigenous national police acts of repression in service of the current masters against their own native population/neighbors in various countries occupied by the Germans in WWII are clearly illustrative of this phenomenon. The Germans has assumed the position of power, control, and authority. Therefore, that's who the cops served.

They're "just doing their job" is the ancient and universally repeated meme of police everywhere, and in every age, when they are using force in service of tyrants in order to crush the righteous struggles of People's seeking to be free from tyranny.

It could be argued that they are ignorant, and/or that they are just following orders, and doing their duty the best they know how, but:

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
Nuremberg Principle V

The good ones, the honest ones, will always refuse to commit acts of violence and aggression against the people in the face of justified non-violent direct actions undertaken by their fellow citizens struggling against tyranny. Finding another source of employment is the avenue that a decent person would take rather than injure or take aggressive/violent actions to imprison fellow citizens engaged in non-violent struggle against established tyrants.

They do have a choice. Decency, ethics, and morality, or money and illusory security.

The really good ones, the ones that choose the former, will walk away from committing acts of aggression and violence against us, and never look back.

The good cops will refuse to serve the tyrants, and will support/join us long before we achieve our goals.

These cops will be on the right side of history.

Anybody that tries to break the law, march toward police, throw firecrackers, and rocks, etc., should simply get their own movement. Some imbeciles of some OWS splinter group should not be allowed to bring down a worthy movement.

There's nobody to disavow it publicly. Each occupy is it's own thing. People will disavow it, but there's not one press office that speaks for the entire movement.

This is where Tea Party comparisons are apt. I don't think there were a whole lot of people wearing three-cornered hats with tea bags hanging from them, but there were some and they made good photo ops (even Glen Beck eventually asked people to stop dressing up in colonial outfits because it looked stupid). And there's nobody to say who is an who isn't part of the movement, because it's open to everybody who shares the basic principles.

Same thing here. The number of people burning the flag was small. But it made a good photo. And who's to say that those people aren't really part of the movement? They oppose the one percent and they were there. So that makes them part of it. That they acted like asses and can damage the OWS brand is unfortunately part of the cost of doing business. It's a risk you take with an open movement.

eom

So one person in the group does a bad thing and the whole group is tainted? By that same logic, OWS is just as tainted.

eom

And I personally despise that old "the truth lies somewhere in the middle" excuse because it hardly EVER is true. There is almost always a true side and a false side when that old claim is thrown out which only serves to excuse the guilty and confuse the innocent.

How about asking the people who are there?

and it appears a lot of people took it, sadly.

Why doesn't anybody ever consider how much the Chinese pissed off the Japanese Imperial Army?

Some times . . . many times in fact . . . the truth is NOT in the middle.

Your statement strongly implies that such "truth" is actually in the middle when it's entirely possible it's weighted far more heavily to one side or the other. Ugh, it's this kind of "balanced truth" bullshit that's made a mush of our culture. Why is it bad? The initial assumption that both sides in such an exchange start at a position of good faith and honesty. It's poor reasoning. If you don't believe me, try substituting the above parties with various others and see how absurd it looks. Imagine if the above said Stalin and the kulaks or slaveowners and slaves. It would be taken as ridiculous at face value because those are extreme examples to which value judgments are attached. For less extreme subjects, though, this type of argument is less apparently wishy-washy because those subjects don't involve strong value judgments (usually).

I'm really not referencing any police or Occupiers. I'm just tired of reasoning like the OP because it's weak and based on unreliable foundations. Plus, it smacks of "fair and balanced" in the way it makes sure to equitably spread the "blame."

Out of all the posts above, yours is the one that really puts it honestly. Shades of grey are in every arguement, it's always how grey is it? I too, have known many on each side of the argument (there are almost always more than two sides). I am currently in the play, "12 Angry Men" and play the juror who is a foreigner and appreciates our Constitution and trial system, #11. Juror #3 is the bully and wants the kid to die(burn in the chair) and is portrayed by a person who is a retired NYPD and lives up here rather than stay in The CITY. He is perfectly cast for the part. While at times he is a reasonable person, other times, it's like, whew. On top of it, I strongly suspect he is in the closet. I know several in law enforcement, and many of them were either bullies or cowards in school and saw law enforcement as a natural occupation. Not saying all. But a lot of those whom I have contact with.

The problem is that, while most coppers are decent people (my brother-in-law is one), the directives they follow are mostly written by the 1% who are being protested against. It doesn't help that there are a few on both sides who act like thugs.

add that one

These statements were to point out the extremes on both sides. It came after reading numerous comments defending the actions of OWS, no matter what they were. But, apparently they are above reproach. And if it is warranted, it is the media's fault, law enforcement's fault or simply a set up.

Neither side is completely sin free but only one side enforces power over the powerless.