Better look at UC Davis pepper spray incident.

[Expat]

College kids don't have soap and water?
Not the hippy types
Pour copious amounts of water on it and let it air dry. Then suck it up. They wanted a confrontation and they got one.

If you can't run with the big dogs...stay on the porch.

Now that is funny

 

[Blackhawk2001]

There are two basic types of political protest: Orderly and Confrontational.

If protestors follow established rules designed to ensure the safety of ALL in the vicinity of the protest, they generally have no problems; they show up, have their say, listen to their fellows speak, clean up after themselves, and go home. That's an "Orderly" political protest. Such protestors - in this country - should not expect any trouble from public officials or the police, no matter how extreme or unpopular their views. That's what "freedom of expression" is all about.

When protestors: ignore established rules for public gatherings, deny others access to or the use of public property, refuse to leave once their protest has run its course, or pick fights with onlookers or public officials/law enforcement officers, they are being "confrontational", no matter how "reasonable" or "peaceful" their professed views. I would extend this "confrontational" protest to audience members who refuse to allow speakers to be heard, no matter the venue. Such confrontational protesters MAY get away without experiencing consequences, but no one who participates in such protests should do so without expecting unpleasant consequences.

If the TEA Party can hold protests all over the country without trashing their venues or incurring arrests, the OWS FLEA Party types should be able to do the same and still get their message out. That they have chosen NOT to do so, tells us a great deal about their message and its legitimacy.

Protestors who choose to be confrontational deserve whatever they get - and that includes the response at Kent State in 1974. Poke the bear, you'd better have a cage between you and the bear, or a weapon standing by suitable for bear-fighting. Whatever the case, don't whine because the bear mauls you after you poke it.

 

[Roadie]

There are two basic types of political protest: Orderly and Confrontational.

If protestors follow established rules designed to ensure the safety of ALL in the vicinity of the protest, they generally have no problems; they show up, have their say, listen to their fellows speak, clean up after themselves, and go home. That's an "Orderly" political protest. Such protestors - in this country - should not expect any trouble from public officials or the police, no matter how extreme or unpopular their views. That's what "freedom of expression" is all about.

When protestors: ignore established rules for public gatherings, deny others access to or the use of public property, refuse to leave once their protest has run its course, or pick fights with onlookers or public officials/law enforcement officers, they are being "confrontational", no matter how "reasonable" or "peaceful" their professed views. I would extend this "confrontational" protest to audience members who refuse to allow speakers to be heard, no matter the venue. Such confrontational protesters MAY get away without experiencing consequences, but no one who participates in such protests should do so without expecting unpleasant consequences.

If the TEA Party can hold protests all over the country without trashing their venues or incurring arrests, the OWS FLEA Party types should be able to do the same and still get their message out. That they have chosen NOT to do so, tells us a great deal about their message and its legitimacy.

Protestors who choose to be confrontational deserve whatever they get - and that includes the response at Kent State in 1974. Poke the bear, you'd better have a cage between you and the bear, or a weapon standing by suitable for bear-fighting. Whatever the case, don't whine because the bear mauls you after you poke it.

We are starting to see lawsuits from Tea Parties to recoup the fees incurred when they held their rallies in accordance with local laws/rules..

Should be interesting.

 

[finnegan]

Protestors who choose to be confrontational deserve whatever they get - and that includes the response at Kent State in 1974. Poke the bear, you'd better have a cage between you and the bear, or a weapon standing by suitable for bear-fighting. Whatever the case, don't whine because the bear mauls you after you poke it.

The "cage" between them and the bear is called the Constitution. I'm sure those two innocent kids who were just walking to class that were killed by the national guard in Kent State would probably have a very different opinion on the matter.

By your logic, it would also be acceptable for citizens to gun down police for police brutality. Sure, a few innocent officers might catch a round or two, but hey; if they didn't want to get shot at, they shouldn't have shown up to work; right? By provoking the crowd with their presence in riot gear while performing an act of questionable legality, they "poked the bear" as well.

I refuse to believe, as some seem to, that officers are mindless sociopaths that are just chomping at the bit to tear someone a new one. I grew up in a police station and town hall (mother was a dispatcher, father was on city council). Calling them "bears" is insulting to the police. Out of all the officers there, I count three assaulting protesters; and two of those only after the "stroll".

 

[dusterboy49]

What have you been smoking?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

The "cage" between them and the bear is called the Constitution. I'm sure those two innocent kids who were just walking to class that were killed by the national guard in Kent State would probably have a very different opinion on the matter.

By your logic, it would also be acceptable for citizens to gun down police for police brutality. Sure, a few innocent officers might catch a round or two, but hey; if they didn't want to get shot at, they shouldn't have shown up to work; right? By provoking the crowd with their presence in riot gear while performing an act of questionable legality, they "poked the bear" as well.

I refuse to believe, as some seem to, that officers are mindless sociopaths that are just chomping at the bit to tear someone a new one. I grew up in a police station and town hall (mother was a dispatcher, father was on city council). Calling them "bears" is insulting to the police. Out of all the officers there, I count three assaulting protesters; and two of those only after the "stroll".

First of all let's deal with the "bear". You can't have a confrontation without an authority to confront. Whether that authority is a public or private individual who has the power to either deny you what you are protesting for or to punish you in some manner for not following "the rules", you can call that authority whatever descriptive term you wish. I used the term "bear" as in "bear-baiting", a popular entertainment in mining camps at one time. Look it up, if you're interested.

Secondly, to protesters who hope to incite violence, it doesn't matter who gets hurt to them - in fact, the more innocents hurt the better - as long as they get to have their "incident". So, no, I'm sure those two innocents who were killed at Kent State wouldn't have agreed with my take on the incident. More teens have been killed while binge drinking in this state than were killed at Kent State, though.