NYPD Police BrutalityFollow

NYPD agreed to investigate the pepper spray incident, and the DA office is investigating it independently.

And it turns out that the officer in question had a lawsuit filed against him for his actions during a protest in 2004 (the case is set to be heard next year).

The suit was filed in 2007, so it's not exactly surprising.

Also, it seems that the NYPD launched their investigation into the officer after it turns out that he also used the spray on another group of people, who were already retreating from the area after his first attack.

[EDIT]

And just because a claim hasn't been heard yet doesn't mean they won't win it. Kinda the point of having the court.

Edited, Sep 30th 2011 12:29pm by idiggory

Are you still trying to convince people that this was police brutality? how much "evidence" do you have to put down there before you think anyone who doesn't agree with you, finally starts agreeing with you? Do you honestly think there's something you can say that you haven't already or show that will sway them?

I can't speak for anyone else, but the more you keep trying to prove it's brutality, the more convinced I am that you're just on a crusade and pay less attention to what you present and lean further to assuming it was warranted in every way.

Making fun of you is all the reason I need.

You do get that this applies to your position too, right?

So you don't get that the possibility that you are starting with an assumption you are unwilling to budge on affects your own willingness to find out if your position is justified or not? That does clear things up!



I think you are though. See how my opinion of you is just as valid as your opinion of Ugly? It sure looks to me like you want to eternally continue to "look into things" on the assumption that if you do this long enough you'll find the proof that supports your position. Is that not what you're doing here?



I think that the mere act of talking about the assumed police brutality affects people's perception of the event itself. I think that the objective here isn't to prove that said brutality actually happened, but just to talk about it enough that people remember it being talked about. Then, the next time a cop pepper sprays someone who's protesting you can say "see! They did it again!" and continue to build support for a position you never proved.

This is why protesters deliberately push authorities to the point of doing "something" to them. And for me, I think it's a BS way to try to make a point. You can *always* find a way to push the cops into manhandling you, or spraying you, or tasering you and then get a bunch of people to take video of it happening. By itself we shouldn't put much weight in that at all. I'm certainly far far far more concerned about authorities using their authority to take my property away for some ill-defined social program than I am about authorities tazing or spraying someone who decides to make a scene in the middle of a public street.



Uh huh. That's the "building a BS pattern" bit I talked about before. Honestly, I think that they ought to use pepper spray to disperse any group of protesters who didn't bother to obtain the proper permission to protest in a public space before hand. They shouldn't have to wait until several officers have been assaulted to do it. Ask folks to stop blocking traffic. Ask them one more time with a warning. Then pepper spray the entire crowd. Done.


It would certainly cut down on the number of brainwashed liberal students who think that being "involved" politically has anything at all to do with the sort of illegal protests they're doing. They are being used and are too stupid to know it. Maybe being pepper sprayed a few times will make them rethink things.

Edited, Sep 30th 2011 4:51pm by gbaji

*sigh*

I see your arguments (well, not YOURS, but Moe's and Ugly's), and I recognize the premises you are using, but they don't seem justifiable with the information we have (and I simply don't agree with the use of pepper spray outside of immediate threats to self or others--that, to me, is brutality).

I understand that those premises COULD be found true with a more complete picture of what happened. But the evidence I've seen (and I've been endeavoring to gather a more complete, accurate account of what happened) simply doesn't mesh with it, as far as I can see.

If the police released a statement that actually worked with the videos, I could possibly feel more support. But what little they have said doesn't seem compatible with the evidence we have. For instance, their official statement says that the spray was used only ONE time during the whole course of the protest, but videos show proof that the officer used the spray on two occasions, targeting different groups of people.

I have little trust in their account of events, because throughout the whole protest their accounts haven't been melding with video evidence from the street (some of which is hard to judge, but much of it shows irrefutable proof that the police statements were incorrect). If they can provide an account without those holes (which I imagine will come out through the investigations happening now), I'll definitely be more sympathetic to their side.

???

I'm not sure what we are talking about here. Specifically, the word "it." Are you referring to the march on the police hq or something else?

It was gaining media attention before the protests, those just helped rocket it forward. But that's only part of it--it's far more dynamic than that. The transit authority's union came out in support of the protest, and there was an increase in protester population after that was declared. Celebrity presences had also been increasing protester numbers.

I honestly can't comment on whether or not people knew about it, because I knew about the protests before it actually started, and have acquaintances on facebook who are actually there (who, somewhat ironically, are actually largely people I don't like).

Are there more now? Yes. But these stories are VERY misleading regarding the nature of the protests as a whole. It's largely very peaceful and lowkey--more about people sitting around in the park than rioting through the streets.

And you are also assuming that media coverage is all they want, which is very much not the case. They obviously want their message out there, but they absolutely don't want to be seen as rioters. They want people to see their protests as peaceful and appropriate, and that's how most of the protesters are acting.

There's been a very strong presence among the protesters to discourage any kind of violence, both online and on the streets. Anonymous has actually been policing social media to keep messages attempting to incite violence from going around.

I might be more sympathetic to your theory if you weren't overlooking the fact that this protest is actually being studied with interest because of its lack of a bureaucracy controlling it. It largely IS just a big group of people who have come together haphazardly--the movement has no real leaders of any kind.

Which is actually one of its biggest drawbacks; much of what they are protesting is protest-worthy, but they might not be able to really accomplish anything without people taking charge to coordinate them around single, central goals.

Realistically, the only real "leaders" to the whole thing are those who have taken charge to coordinate via social media. And Anonymous has taken it upon themselves to keep any messages promoting violence from being heard, because they actually understand that the movement won't be recognized if it isn't peaceful.

So the protest organizers use the same tactics as american leaders.

Service members going to a protest to participate, in full dress. That's going to end real well for him, as well as whatever other idiots attempt to join him.

Edit: Doing more than glancing over it, it would seem that they're retired, not active. So at least they aren't going to get screwed on that end, but they're still screwed if they think they're going to show up in full dress and get away with it.

Edited, Oct 1st 2011 6:47pm by Raolan

Duh, that's the point.