From The Sarcastic Liberal: Progressive and Abrasive -- November 20, 2011:
I do not attempt to be unbiased or polite. While I hold liberal views, this in no way means that I am a Democrat; I hold the view that the Democratic Party neither holds truly liberal views nor fights for its views in the public debate.
Occupy USA: Worst Police Brutality Cases
Over the past two months, the Occupations across the country have faced an extreme response by the police relative the threat they represent. Police have attacked the occupations as though they were domestic terrorists; utilizing LRAD sound cannons, flashbang/concussion grenades, nonlethal chemical weapons, rubber bullets, beanbag cannons, and simple batons in order to break up peaceful protests.
Don't get me wrong, there are times and places where such actions are justifiable (Look at the recent Penn State riot). Violent protests are a danger to the public welfare and might very well require physical force to suppress, but nonviolent protests should not encounter such a push back. The "Occupy" movement is entirely peaceful, utilizing a type of long term sit in (Essentially a "Live In") and marches in order to make their point. There is minimal graffiti, and no rioting associated with the occupations, but rather a concern for the public safety. At the Occupy Boston site, we have voted to not only attempt to minimize the negative effects of our occupation on our neighbors, but to re-sod the area where we live after we finish using it (the grass has been destroyed by the tents) and to act as an impromptu homeless shelter (we provide clothes, food and shelter to all who come). Police cite violence and crime in the camp, which is arguably true because we do have occasional problems; we have a zero tolerance policy for violence, drugs, and alcohol, enforced by removal from camp. The Occupations are not a threat to the public, nor are they guilty of anything other than challenging the rich, a crime that is apparently punishable by violence and incarceration.
I was under the impression that we are living in America, a country where we have constitutionally protected rights, not a repressive police state. The entire purpose of the first amendment is that the government may not always like what the citizens are saying, but they must not attempt to prevent the citizen from speaking. From a purely rhetorical standpoint, have we not sanctioned other governments for suppressing speech in similar ways in the recent future (Ex. China, Iran, Libya, Egypt, etc..)?
I am personally biased towards the Occupations due to my heavy involvement with the Boston occupation, so look at these videos and come to your own conclusions: Excessive force, or justifiable riot control.
This video is possibly the most egregious of a long series of egregious police brutality videos; in it, Kayvan Sabeghi, an Iraq war veteran is beaten by the police; to add insult to injury, Sabeghi was charged with resisting arrest. The police beat Sabeghi so badly that his spleen ruptures and then he is refused medical attention for hours in jail. A ruptured spleen only occurs when EXTREME force is exerted on the organ and is unbelievably painful. I seriously doubt that the police failed to notice that Sabeghi was in agony and unable to walk while incustody, thus the only conclusion is that they didn't care. Sabeghi was very close to the police before the incident, but he was not obstructing them, merely walking in step with them; his actions don't even get to the standard of obstructing traffic, never mind interfering with police business. When the officer begins to beat Sabeghi, he doesn't simply let him run, but follows him and continues the assault. The actions of the police officer go so far beyond misconduct that they enter the realm of criminal assault. Police officers are not allowed to indiscriminately beat protesters until they suffer severe injury (never mind chasing after and beating a man fleeing for his life).
In this video, notice how the police officer not only hits the legal observer (designated by the green cap) with the scooter, but parks it ON his leg. Once the scooter is parked on the guy's leg, the officer calmly walks away until he manages to kick the scooter over. After the observer manages to dislodge the scooter, the police beat him with batons until he loses consciousness and then arrest him, bringing him to the hospital in cuffs; the charges are resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer. I don't even think that I need to comment on how wrong this is and if you require explanation as to why this is wrong, please seek professional help.
This video was shot on the quad at the University of California Davis. The protesters were engaging in a sit in, when they received a three hour warning that they would need to disperse. The important factors in this situation are that the protesters are UC Davis students, in their own quad and there was no allegation of violence or property damage by the police. This video was shot when the order to disperse time limit was up. Clearly, the police officer doing the spraying is enjoying himself (look at the flourish of the can before he starts spraying), and none of the police officers consider the students a threat. The police officers turn their backs upon the students in numerous occasions, not something that you would do if you consider the person threatening enough to pepper spray.
This video is of the famous Scott Olson shooting in Oakland, Ca. The man on the ground is Olsen after he was hit in the face by a tear gas canister. Firing a gas canister, similar to a filled tin can, directly at a crowd is very dangerous as it can break bones and damage soft tissue. Olsen was shot directly in the face and when you consider his location with that of the police line, the police must have been firing directly at him. While the shooting of Olsen could have been accidental, what comes after was clearly not. Notice how the police observe Olsen laying on the ground, not helping, while waiting for the protesters to come back to help. Once the protesters come back to drag Olsen to safety and medical attention, the police throw a flash bang directly into the group. How were the concerned protesters a threat while they were tending to their fallen friend? I would like to point out the similarities between this strategy and that of terrorists worldwide: A common terrorist tactic is to detonate a smaller explosive first, then wait for the first responders to arrive before detonating a larger blast.
Who hasn't seen this video, shot on Wall street, of women being corralled and pepper sprayed? The women are clearly boxed in and not a threat to anybody, but Anthony Bologna still comes by and assaults them with pepper spray. Bologna lost ten vacation days and received a transfer to Staten Island (closer to his home), where he was promoted to a special projects coordinator(with a raise). Sadly, the only lingering consequences of his reprehensible actions is the social stigma he will receive as being know as "That guy who pepper sprayed those women" and the grief that Anonymous can throw his way.
This video was taken on the college campus of Berkeley. The police actions can be broken down into two important parts: the crowd action and the arrest action. The "crowd control" methods utilized by the police in this situation are to crowd the students into a cluster and jab them with batons. The students are not resisting arrest, nor are they able to move away. The only purpose of this action is to inflict pain on the protesters while preventing them from escaping; a goal that is wholly outside of law enforcement's charter in this country (although perfectly fine in North Korea). Police can use force like this in riots, but this is clearly not a riot. Once several people are arrested, the police assault those who they have in custody. Look at the video at 1:20, and you will clearly see a cuffed and held protester being beaten by a police officer for no apparent reason. I don't care what you are protesting or where, the tactics shown by the police in this video are needlessly aggressive and sadistic.
What the hell has happened in this country, where corporations are considered people and given the right to speak, while people are treated without humanity while their right to speak is taken away?