The Occupy Movement in 2012

@Barkey: Except that it's not squatting, it's a form of protest. They're organizing a sit-in, except that they're doing it on government property, because they're protesting how the government handles things.

Then maybe we need a law for the time frame of a sit-in. Because when a sit-in requires tents for people to sleep in, we've got a problem. It's the sleeping/living on the property part that makes the squatting come to mind.

I know what you're trying to say, and I realize the intent, but it basically is squatting.

It's squatting. By legal definition, what they are doing is squatting. I wouldn't take issue with performing a sit-in that lasted all day or something, but go home and come back. Don't pitch a fucking tent.

That's what my local occupy movement does. They pick specific days to do shit, and they pretty much parade around downtown from spot to spot handing out fliers and waving signs and talking to people. No violence, no issues, maybe 2 cops assigned to oversee things just to make sure it stays kosher.

edited 14th Jun '12 5:25:06 PM by Barkey

Except that using government property to protest should be legal, under the right to peaceably assemble. Last I looked, the constitution doesn't mention how long the protest can last.

That isn't free license to just hang out as long as you want, just because it's a protest.

And if the city ignores something like that, a bunch of squatters can claim that they are having a protest, all they need is one grungy dude with a sign sitting outside in a chair, to claim it's a sit-in. The law is all about precedents.

Protests do not mitigate breaking the law, I.E. Squatting. There is nothing anywhere that says that.

edited 14th Jun '12 5:29:01 PM by Barkey

Yeah, but this kinda sets a bad one. I mean, last I looked, the government doesn't get to decide what counts as a protest.

Edit: Also, it could be argued that laws prohibiting protesters from staying more than x hours in one place is a law that abridges the right to peaceably assemble.

edited 14th Jun '12 5:31:04 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

I agree, it's pretty much a standoff in that regard, and we all know how hard it is to ever touch the constitution and make it more specific. I could see that being a good issue to throw at the Supreme Court for a precedent, then it would make things a lot less of a pain in the ass for all involved.

But in the meantime, it's a misty ass gray area, and between Occupy citing their right to peaceful assembly/protest, and law enforcement citing that they are squatters, both of which are true, there will be that conflict.

Like I said, Supreme Court really needs to look at that issue.

Probably. Besides, tons of people have already used protest methods that break laws, and don't have the cops come down on them quite so hard, so there's precedent going both ways here.

Because if law enforcement is supposed to come down on illegal activities during protests, then a lot of PETA protests ought to have been shut down due to public indecency.

Totally agree there. Same for some of the pro-life institutions. I drove by a pro-life protest in the city some weeks ago, and I saw a bunch of crazies on a street corner waving around huge blown up high res pictures of aborted fetuses and shit. I called the cops about it, no idea what became of it. I know I wouldn't want that job, being the first cop on scene to hear them throw their whole "IT'S RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY, GRAHHH" in my face.

On the one hand, they are right, on the other hand they are being a disgusting public eyesore near a busy intersection.

Yeah, but the constitution kinda trumps local law like that.

There's not a whole lot you can do about it, because limiting protests to be inoffensive kind of makes them pointless.

edited 14th Jun '12 5:48:40 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

Or those right-wing asshats showing up with guns to political rallies.

I understand there are possible reasons not to use force against a group of people, but listing them off doesn't change that those reasons were enough to prevent the use of force against people engaging in violence/vandalism, but they weren't good enough to prevent the use of force against a nonviolent, nondestructive "eyesore."

And as for the complaint that you've been asking people to move for 14 hours already... Well you've spent a whole day yelling at people, telling them to abandon their political goals, a constitutional right, and in some cases the rule of law. Doesn't mean its time to kick their asses.

It means it's time to make them move, because asking politely isn't working. Simple conflict of interests that has to be resolved. "Just walk away" isn't really a feasible option.

We're in agreement on the riot issue Paul. I think they should have came down hard on those assholes, I really do. They were way worse than the occupy movement has ever been, and should have gotten a swift and immediate response that resulted in lots of arrests. I'm not so much defending their decision not to do anything as I'm trying to list reasons why it is they didn't do anything. I honestly don't know why they stood by, all I'm trying to do is list possible reasons for that decision. Their inaction resulted in lots of damages to innocent business owners who really had no part in the whole thing. I mean it's not like they were breaking windows over at the microsoft headquarters, most of those buildings looked like small businesses, not corporate chains.

It really doesn't mean that. Not only is the law not some objective, divine pillar that must be adhered to at all costs, but the attacks on peaceful protests weren't justifiable even if it was. Moving the protesters along was occasionally legally questionable or even sometimes outright illegal.

The fact you've spend a whole day trying to convince someone to quietly abandon what they believe in without success really doesn't justify violence against them. So now you've got to act on what you said or your authority will be weakened? You made the decision to weaken your authority when you allowed it to be abused, and successfully disrupting a protest isn't going to fix it.

They aren't saying to abandon what they believe, they are saying they can't pitch tents and squat in a public park or area.

Now if it's a protest that will be over by the end of the day and they aren't obstructing traffic, I'm personally of the opinion that you should just let them be.

But under no conditions do I have any sympathy for the protestors when they are squatting and the cops tell them they need to leave. The cops have the right to tell them to leave when they start pitching tents and bedding down for the night.

And yes, the law is supposed to be objective. The decision to just go "Meh" and walk away isn't one that rests with the officers on the ground, it rests with anywhere between 1-3 officers who are at the top of the chain of command, the Captains or Chiefs, and even then they are probably being told by the mayor that they need to oust the protestors and make them move along. At the end of the day the Mayor is in charge, and absent orders from the mayor, those officers are in charge. You can question orders all day if you want, but you still have to carry them out as an officer if they aren't illegal, and as we've talked about, most of these situations haven't involved illegal orders.

When the police are actually breaking the law by trying to oust protestors, then by all means, they are in the wrong. But in the case of removing squatting protestors, the law is leaning very heavily on their side.

The reason for violence is because there is what cops call the Use of Force Continuum.◊

When the officers decide to clear these people out, that model is how it works. See where it says "Refusing to Move - Dead Weight"? The response is "Striking Muscle Groups, Take-Downs, Joint Manipulation, Pressure Points" If you wrestle with the officer or push the officer? Aerosol Devices(OC), Electrical Devices(Tazer), Striking/Punching/Kicking, or use of the baton is authorized as the response.

You're asking why there is "violence" but that chart there is recognized at the federal and state level as the reasonable and authorized response to someone you are trying to arrest acting in that manner. It's not some niche military or agent thing, that chart is the federal standard by which all police officers are trained. So the cops ask verbally, the protestors say no. The cops start grabbing people, they don't cooperate and pressure points and hitting people in muscle groups commences, and if they start to actively resist by wrestling, pushing, or striking, officers can pepper spray, taze, or just plain whoop your ass.

So what's being addressed is that there are two issues here: One is that the police are breaking up the protest in the first place, in which case the responsibility falls on the mayor, the commissioner, and perhaps any Captains or Lieutenants who are the on-scene commander, if they are allowed to make that call. Fair enough, blame goes to them on what nasty people are for ordering such a thing. But when it comes to what you are calling violence, the patrol officers on the ground are just doing their jobs, and they are doing exactly what they are supposed to, more or less.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true. If I try to carry you away from a protest in cuffs and you drop like a stone and go all dead weight on me, I'm going to start causing you pain in order to gain compliance. That's a fact of life, that is how things work, and if you don't like it then maybe you should stop laying there like a dead fish and go with the officer apprehending you.

edited 15th Jun '12 12:03:55 PM by Barkey

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. The fact that you're a cop and you want someone out of the way doesn't make either of the law or just.

Well it patently isn't. For instance: in some cases police explicitly broke the law by disrupting protests or used illegal methods to disrupt it and in other cases new laws were created to make what was a legal protest into an illegal one.

Well if it's a matter of "If you don't like me hurting you do what I say..." do you know what I think the role of police is meant to be in all this?

You seem to think the role of the cop is to be a misunderstood and maligned man who's reviled for just doing his job. That's where they stand now. That isn't where they're intended to sit once the puzzle's all complete. The plan is for those cops to be heroes.

Because I see the way those scuffles go down and cops aren't walking into fights outnumbered ten to one and walking out alive again because of training, discipline, equipment, or anything of the sort. It's because they're walking into fights with people who've got no real interest in fighting. I mean, sure some rocks and punches are thrown, but you give a guy a bloody nose he's going to want to return the favor. That's all that is.

I think the people calling the shots don't want disperse these crowds with guys in riot suits and tear gas. They want to do it with rifles.

Problem, though. You can't just open fire on a disorganized mostly nonviolent mob. They have to do something really horrible first, and damned OWS just won't.

But you know what desensitizes people to violence, makes 'em less afraid of it and more willing to dish out some of their own? Violence.

You see where this is going?

edited 15th Jun '12 2:38:55 PM by Paul3

That's one theory(the violence one) although I don't agree. Rifles won't come into play until cops start getting stabbed or shot.

All I'm saying is this: When a cop tells you to move/leave/disperse, and you don't, then they are in full right to use physical force to make you do so. The legality of ordering police officers to tell people to disperse in the first place is a separate issue, and one that unfortunately is not made terribly clear in the law. If it were a black and white issue, there wouldn't be a problem. On the one hand you have the constitution being excessively vague and unspecific about the whole thing, and on the other hand you have laws that are written in stone which these people are clearly violating. There really needs to be a court ruling on the subject so that further problems and conflicts can be avoided.

If you resist the cops, pain compliance is used. If using pain compliance against someone who is uncooperative causes rocks and punches to be thrown, further pain compliance measures are used. Cops escalate force appropriately that way. They will always be using a degree of force superior to that which is being used on them in a reactionary manner. That concept is probably bred into cops more than any other both professionally throughout their careers, and in the Academy from day one. If a cop gives someone a bloody nose, and then the person gives the cop a bloody nose, then the cop is going to metaphorically escalate to breaking his leg, if that's what it takes to gain compliance.

It isn't supposed to be a fair exchange of violence. The entire point is that the cops are going to keep escalating the measures they use to gain compliance until they have it. Period. That's what cops do, that's just how it is.

edited 15th Jun '12 3:44:35 PM by Barkey

I think at this point we ought to differentiate between the individual officers who are involved in breaking up the protests and the orders given in how to break up said protests.

Barkey, I'm sure you want to defend the position of law enforcement because you are an LEO...at least, that's part of the reason. And yes, I see your point; breaking the law is breaking the law, and enforcing the law is what police officers do.

I've no issue with the rank-and-file officers who performed these deeds (except the ones who have gotten out of line, and I've heard you say there's been some unprofessional behavior on the part of individuals in certain departments, so we're in agreement there I believe); they are, after all, just doing their jobs...and I'm sure many if not most officers involved in cleaning out the camps would rather be doing something else. Such duty is difficult and dangerous...to say nothing of the possible demoralizing aspect of manhandling people who have a legitimate complaint *

What I take issue with are the orders that they were given; they were in a lot of cases stupid and unnecessary. There were better ways to handle this kind of thing, ways that would have cost less money and hurt fewer people. Sure, the camps were an eyesore to some people...but so were the right-wing douchebags waving guns around at political rallies, and no one sent riot police in to clean them out...

@Barkey: Just letting you know that I am glad you joined the topic and are providing an Officer's perspective on the whole thing. You have convinced me that most of what the police have done is normal operating procedure (if the police aren't allowed to to escalate, they would not be able to do their jobs) and that most of the cops blamed for using excessive force are only following orders and/or fed-up ordinary human beings. The consternation of the protestors should be aimed at their bosses (up to and including the mayor) and not the normal officers making the arrests.

Though I have no idea how you would convince a group of people who are in the middle of a protest. Those "What is your badge number?" people (and some of the lawyers associated with the whole thing) could really use a couple lessons in the Use of Force Continuum and what the chain of command is.

On the squatting/putting up tents issue... Is it generally illegal? Yes. But letting the protestors use the parks was something the mayors allowed at the start. Probably because they did not think the protestors would be sticking around the way they did. This set a precedent and it became harder to justify clearing out the protestors. Especially as more people gathered.

I would agree with you there more often than you would think, there have definitely been some cities and departments that escalated a bit too fast, and too hard. Agreed on the whole thing about guns at political rallies too, that just screams trouble.

^

Yes, Squatting is, by and large, illegal in every county or city I've ever been to. There's no federal law for it that I can think of, but I've never heard of a state that didn't have squatting laws. You aren't really squatting until you start setting shit up that involves living or staying someplace for several days or weeks at a time, I.E. tents and cooking areas. Once that starts to happen, things get ugly. One thing that would be helpful for the protestors is to get it in writing if they ever get actual consent from city officials on using public property for long term protests where they camp out.

^^

Thanks for making note to differentiate between the two, that's what I was trying to get across, though I should have made that much clearer. There have been lots of decisions on the administrative end that I disagree with and criticize, but when it comes to the actions of individual officers, very few things come to mind that could constitute excessive force. It's the strategies of these city organizations that are the problem, the cops themselves are mostly acting perfectly in accordance with the rules. A big part of that is due to the fact that if you are at an OWS rally and you're a cop, you can count on a ton of camera lenses being on you at pretty much all times, which is why I usually raise my eyebrow and inquire for further details when someone talks about police brutality. Even corrupt cops don't do stupid shit on tape.

Anyhow, what we have mostly is a legal issue, as DG brought up. On the one hand, OWS are breaking state law by squatting, which works in the favor of the city and the police. On the other hand they are exercising their right to assemble as given by the constitution. The Supremacy Clause states that the hierarchy of which law trumps the others goes like this: Constitutional, Federal, State, City. However, committing a crime(squatting) as part of using a constitutional right, muddles things a ton. There aren't any real legal precedents for how the law should deal with that sort of thing yet. Cops have a crime happening right in front of them and belligerent protestors(belligerent by factor of not dispersing when told to do so) which gives them that edge. On the other hand the protestors have a really open ended interpretation of a constitutional right to use, or rather they are stretching and exploiting that right pretty far.

I'm normally not one of those "Oh well if the founders were here today!" type of people, I think the supreme court needs to get off its ass and interpret some parts of the constitution much more specifically. But, I think if you asked any of the minds behind the constitution if its ok to break the law if it's for the sake of a protest, they would say no. But that's just navel gazing, at least until we can get ourselves a time machine and just ask them shit like that.

It's a toss up, I really wish the Supreme Court would rule on squatting in the pursuit of assembly, I don't care which way the vote would swing on that, it would just be better for all involved if there was some clearer interpretation of the law here so that it doesn't bring police officers and protestors into conflict with eachother as much.

edited 15th Jun '12 10:21:43 PM by Barkey

I'm rather disturbed that the official response to nonviolent dead weight is to start smacking people around and twisting arms. I get that officers don't want to have to put up with bullshit, but that's kind of intrinsically fucked up.

edited 15th Jun '12 10:13:20 PM by Pykrete

^

It's not about not putting up with bullshit, it's about your options. If they don't go, what are you supposed to do? Walking away isn't an option, you can't just "let it go" if they don't go compliantly on a lawful arrest, otherwise you're both undermining your authority and at worst derelicting your duty.

To quote Le Bron here, "What should I do?" If you have a noncompliant guy who is just sitting on the ground, you really only have a few options. You can either get several officers to manhandle the suspect into the cuffs and then just carry the dead weight into the squadcar or wagon, or you can use pain compliance to make it where being arrested is less uncomfortable than the pain you are inflicting. The response to Dead Weight isn't necessarily "Beat the shit out of them" so much as using pressure points, joint manipulation, and causing pain to muscle groups. Police officers are trained in these techniques, and all police approved techniques are ones that will not leave any sort of permanent damage. In fact the pain from those moves usually dissipates in about 60 seconds or less.

The one I was always taught for the cross legged protestor who won't stand up is to take your index finger, curl it up, and jam your knuckle into the space under the jawline by the ear in a fishhook manner. Then you pull up and the intense discomfort caused by doing that makes most people automatically stand up with the pressure in your hand that you apply. That's an example of pressure points. There are also really awesome pressure points for forcing someone to come with you, such as pressing your thumb and index finger really hard on the suspects hand, in the bony part of the webbing between their thumb and index finger. That one hurts like hell.

Then there's joint manipulation, which is essentially things like "milk the mouse" if you ever had a mean uncle play that with you as a child, where you squeeze a finger or fingers together so it puts lots of stress on the knuckle. You won't break it, but it will hurt like hell.

Muscle striking is usually things like digging knuckles into thighs or the meaty parts next to the shoulder blades, or it can be a really bad charlie horse.

All it takes is some noncompliant asshole getting his knuckles squeezed and screaming bloody murder about it for people to go "AHHHH POLICE BRUTALITY!"

You ask nicely, you ask sternly, then you stop asking and make it happen, that's always been my progression for an arrest. They get two verbal chances, and then it's game on, so it's not like they didn't see it coming or get a chance to go quietly. If you don't go quietly, you go noisily and painfully.

The entire point I'm trying to make here, is that when the police tell you to do something, they aren't fucking around. They will get you. It's just a matter of how extreme the required measures are to do so, and how extreme the measures are is entirely up to the subject.

edited 15th Jun '12 10:32:17 PM by Barkey

It seems like the less violent response is to just drag them instead of going for fucking jawbone knockout points. Good God.

edited 15th Jun '12 10:34:33 PM by Pykrete

It's not a knockout point, it's just that it causes an increasingly rising level of severe discomfort, and when the discomfort is absolutely intolerable, they stand up. It's rather efficient, much more efficient than using up 4 officers to drag some dumbass who is thrashing all over the place across a parking lot. That's actually pretty difficult to do.

Don't be an asshole about it, and the cops won't cause you pain, there's kind of a lesson in the whole thing. It's why a lot of people who've been in and out of jail multiple times go quietly when they get arrested again. They fought back and were difficult about it the first 4 times, and it hurt like fuck to do so, and it didn't do him any good, so why do it again?

Plus it doesn't look good in court if the officers had to wrestle with you to take you in. The best thing you can ever do if you find yourself being arrested, regardless of the reason, is to go quietly and cooperatively, and don't say a goddamn word after they mirandize you unless it's with a lawyer.

Feel free to say all sorts of shit before they mirandize you though. If you get a cop who forgets to do it or tries to hold off until they get to the station, and try to use anything that was told before that time in court, you not only get off scot free, but you can sue the shit out of the department for doing it. That's why one of the first things you hear after a guy gets the cuffs thrown on is his miranda rights, that way any stupid shit he says while his adrenaline is pumping and he's emotional can be used against him in court.

And at the end of the day Pykrete, what's the point of struggling in the first place? You're still going to jail, wrestling isn't going to change that. That certainty is the entire point of why cops never back down and never undermine their authority. It's to get people to not pull that type of stupid shit in the first place, because with a dead certainty they know they are going to jail, regardless of what sort of fight they put up, and that if they fight, they are going to experience some pretty severe discomfort and pain in the process.

Cops are there as a deterrent to people breaking the law. Fucking you up if you resist is a deterrent to resisting arrest.

edited 15th Jun '12 10:43:27 PM by Barkey

Let's put it this way: I'd be very hesitant to manhandle Triple Warmer 17 on a nonviolent opponent. It's a frighteningly effective pressure point exactly because brain arteries are not to be fucked with.

The point of being limp isn't to avoid arrest, it's being obnoxious while still being completely nonviolent. Which yeah, I can see why an officer wouldn't want to deal with that, but I can't justify a violent response to it.

edited 15th Jun '12 11:26:40 PM by Pykrete

Excuse me, but I don't see how using pressure points and hitting the meaty muscles is all that violent. It hurts the person (which is the point) but it does not harm the person. There is a difference: one causes discomfort while the other requires medical attention.

If the police were really violent with someone, they would end up in a hospital, not jail.