As fellow law professor sent me this video of Oakland police shooting a photographer. The video raises serious questions of the unjustified use of force.
In the video, the police appear to be standing without challenge when, around the 33 second mark, an officer suddenly shoot a photographer who is a good distance from the police line.
I cannot imagine the claim of justification in this case when the use of rubber bullets present significant potential harm to citizens, as shown below.
Kudos: Professor Alberto Bernabe (John Marshall Law School)
Source: Lowering Bar
Mike Spindell
1, November 15, 2011 at 8:01 pm
“So, considering the Federal government cannot use the military against the people, how is this any different?”
Shano,
It is only different in process, but identical in reality. The really interesting question is why those in government thought that there was such a threat they needed to react this strongly.
———-
I was trying to scroll to find the posting you responded to but my scroll is acting up on this long thread (we do need a new thread for this issue) so I’m just going to respond and hope I’m not posting old info.
There were articles today that mentioned that Mayor Quan (Oakland) said she was just on a call with 18 other mayors. The articles speculated that the police response to the Occupy movement was coordinated and wondered who was in on that coordination.
Tonight on Olbermann Michael Moore stated that a source has come forward that has said that Homeland Security is providing support and coordination for the various mayors. His hope is that this information is followed up on and the level of involvement as well as the motive is thoroughly investigated.
That kind of kicks the situation up a whole ‘nuther notch.
“I left a small (very small) balance on it so they could not count it as a closed account”.
OS,
This is the new paradigm for the coming struggle. Creative disruption of the Plutocrat’s game. They profess to believe so much in the market’s self regulation, let’s see how smug they are when people stop playing their game and their profits plummet. As a counter reaction I envision TV commercials telling us that not using credit is unpatriotic, as is being disloyal to ones bank.
The slogan being: “Bofa…….you owe it to us”. .
“So, considering the Federal government cannot use the military against the people, how is this any different?”
Shano,
It is only different in process, but identical in reality. The really interesting question is why those in government thought that there was such a threat they needed to react this strongly. To me it is a sign that the powers that be felt and feel threatened by the national debate dealing with the real issues, rather than those manufactured ones meant to keep our minds occupied while our wealth and are liberties are being stolen. The crackdown is actually a victory for OWS, now let’s hope we see a creative counter-reaction from them. To win at anything you need to understand the game. The public is gradually understanding that for years they’ve been sold bullshit and mythology to keep them distracted from the ongoing theft. The next step has to galvanize them into action which means further protest exposing more of the truth about our US plutocracy.
Mike, I had a pretty good balance on my BofA credit card. I decided I wanted to pay it off, although I left a small (very small) balance on it so they could not count it as a closed account. In the past two days, I see that I have had a half dozen phone calls from BofA. They caught me at home while ago and a smarmy sounding guy wanted to discuss my account. I’ll bet–heh! He started asking questions, so I hung up on him.
I think BofA is real nervous. Too many accounts being closed in the past two weeks. They are realizing it is not a coincidence.
“I didnt say you were a Marxist or an anarchist or a member of the Weather Underground. You also dont seem like a 60′s retread”
Bron,
I didn’t respond to you calling me a Marxist, I responded to you calling OWS neo-Marxists, anarchists, 60’s retreads, etc. By demonizing them in such a fashion you avoid dealing with their very real message that 99% of us are suffering to some degree. You and I are not in the shoes of the unemployed workers struggling to put food on the table for their families. Whether or not you like Rousseau or Robespierre is really irrelevant to the fact that the French Aristocracy were analogous to vampires feeding off of the blood of the French people. That many aristocrats wound up guillotined was a function of the hatred they engendered.
This is the problem with violent revolutions, they usually impose the same violent tyranny, with different leadership. What you miss is that I do not want that kind of revolution to happen here, because if it does it will be run by people like the teabaggers, religious fundamentalists and the White Aryan Nation. I lump them together because they are all people who believe in authoritarian government. Though they espouse differently what they really mean by bringing down the government is put us in control. The great irony is that they make common cause with the Libertarians in a hatred of government, reining in business and a belief that government has caused this economic nightmare. Government certainly has been complicit in the economic downfall of this country, but that is because being beholden to the Corporate Elite, government has not enforced restrictions on what has become economic predation.
If nothing is done to stem the growing economic inequality of the country and the concomitant destruction of the middle class there will be a revolution, but those running it will be the crazies bringing on the final step in our Feudalization. I think in the end we’d all be a lot better off with a non-violent revolution stemming from the OWS model. A revolution based on informing the people of who is stealing from them and refusing to participate anymore in the “game” being run on us. Rather than hating government you should be working to take it back, but your philosophical pre-judgments keep you from seeing the reality of what’s really wrong.
This is my main question to legal minds. Last night, Homeland Security coordinated the attacks on Occupy camps all across the nation, 18 cities.
So, considering the Federal government cannot use the military against the people, how is this any different? A huge abuse of Federal Power? Grey area with no precedent? Something in the Patriot Act?
NEW YORK – A New York judge has upheld the city’s dismantling of the Occupy Wall Street encampment, saying that the protesters’ first amendment rights don’t entitle them to camp out indefinitely in the plaza.
Hundreds of police officers in riot gear raided the Occupy Wall Street encampment in New York City in the pre-dawn darkness Tuesday, evicting hundreds of demonstrators and demolishing the tent city that was the epicenter of a movement protesting what participants call corporate greed and economic inequality.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57325395/judge-rules-against-nyc-occupy-encampment/?tag=storyMediaBox;postSpecialReport
This has been a problem before OS with wordpress. Maybe it’s trying to stifle our free speech 🙂
Hey guys, I am running a quad core processor, all four cores running 2.5 Gz with high speed wideband and I am still bogging down on this thread. Scroll does not want to work either–works about like a Volkswagen towing a four horse trailer.
That should be “the”‘, not th.
Bdaman,
It is also the reality that those illegal arrests are not stopping th movement.
Mine to Shano making it do weird things
Score: Occupy – 1, after some judge shopping
Bloomberg – 1
OK, someone has to post a new thread. This one takes too long to load and is slowing my computer down, haha
Well Raff I’ll I can say is that they are shutting them down and making arrest. Thats reality
Bdaman,
you are welcome to your opinion, but it is an opinion not based in reality.
What rafflaw said on polls.
Raff thats fine but people are buying the OWS movement. You can think what you want, say it’s worldwide, and it’s the greatest thing since slice bread but it’s really burnt toast.
When the cops raided Zuccotti Park, lawyers for Occupy Wall Street woke up a judge with a civil liberties background and asked for help.
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Lucy Billings signed an early-morning order temporarily barring cops from keeping protesters and tents out of Zuccotti Park.
But within hours, she was off the case as court administrators chose a new judge — and excluded Billings’ name from the list of candidates.
Billings’ biography notes that before she became a judge in 1997, she spent three years as a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union and also worked work community legal services.
“I have devoted my career to public service, especially the disadvantaged in desperate circumstances,” she wrote in a 2007 pre-election statement.
Her involvement will be short-lived.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/judge-lucy-billings-signed-occupy-wall-street-order-aclu-veteran-article-1.977725#ixzz1doPXD16n
bdaman,
screw polls. If we followed polls we would still have slavery in the South. The First Amendment is just as important as the almighty Second Amendment.
Best video yet for Occupy