Raze said:
Kasz216 said:
Raze said:
Kasz216 said:
Raze said:
Kasz216 said:
Basically every single article i've read on brutality has basically been proven false by bothering to check another news sites articles.
So i'm extremely wary of any claims of brutality. |
Hope you're not reference checking with Fox.
Here, check this out, this is raw unedited footage from one of the protests. The truth is right in front of you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU9Dx0x9h4A
|
No largely CNN and BBC.
As for that video, uh it's not raw unedited footage. It's been edited, you'll notice that it starts well into the police aprhending her and doesn't mention WHY she was being arrested.
Funny accusations though coming from soemone being force fed strategically edited videos youtube videos.
It's basic viral campaigning.
Provoke the shit out of the cops and then when they need to use force to do their jobs, only show that part and ignore everything leading up to it.
It's literally one of the oldest propaganda tricks in the world. Which is why when you bother to read third party accounts of the events not tied to people directly into the movement, you see why more often then not force was justified.
For example the guy who got punched by a cop... nobody from the occupy movement bothers to mention that the guy tried to elbow the cop in the face first, the cop got knocked down and then sprayed with liquid that could be anything from water to a dangerous chemical compound...
THEN he punched the guy after he lunged toward him... yet all you see is the punch for some reason?
Yeah, that's not edited footage at all.
For every one legitamite case there are something like 30 manufactured cases... that goes for any protest.
|
Did you even watch the video? It starts off earlier than that, with protestors being arrested,
|
That was exactly my point. It starts with the protesters being arrested.
AKA everything before that is ignored.
The Pepper Spray case by the way is the one proper incident to be upset.
It's the only one i've seen of someone complaining.
Outside that, if you aren't listening to the police and are getting people in the way "IE corraled" the cops are going to force you back with force, with good reason... and when being outnumber by 10 times or more you can damn well bet they're going to put expiedence over gentleness because if the protesters turn things violent they're fucked doing things the slow way.
Simple moral of the story? When the police say move back, you move back quickly and orderly so you aren't hindering other peoples way.
I've been a part of more then one protest and I know what makes them orderly and what makes them violent. Even with some of the worst police out there, it's damn hard to get yourself in a physical altercation that's unfair to you unless your activly trying for that.
|
That's where we differentiate, I suppose. You seem to think that violence begins with the protesters, I see it as beginning with the police. Of course, to be entirely honest, I see protesting as a giant waste of time, and believe that if they want the CEOs attention, they'll follow them to their house and get their address and post it online for the world to know. Because you never know what maniac will go vigilante and hunt the greedy bastard down. Either way, it'll seriously diminish the CEOs quality of life, making them quicker to react and more willing to listen. >=)
I support the movement and anger of the OWS protest, but this hippie/peace-loving crap will accomplish nothing.
|
If the violence begins with the police, why is it only the protests of the hard-left that seem to have problems with police brutality? Why do these professional protestors always seem to get abused by the police in every country they go to and in every protest they take part in? Why are the vast majority of videos posted begin after the arrest has began? If they had done nothing to provoke the incident wouldn't the video leading up to the arrest be very important?
On the topic of how to get a CEO's attention ... The correct approach is to create a meaningful boycott of the products they produce. CEO`s "live and die" based on 1% to 2% of corporate performance in most public companies. If a boycott becomes significant enough that corporate revenues are 2% below forecasts, and their profit is also down by a similar percentage, the CEO will try to resolve the issue before it becomes bigger to save their own ass.
Threatening violence, or acting in a violent way, just ensures that the average person (who you need to be successful) thinks of your movement as a bunch of crazy violent extremists.
