Forbes Magazine: Police Response to Occupy Wall Street is Absurd

[sabrina 1]

Finally even Forbes, not exactly a Magazine for the 99%, is commenting on and condemning the excessive use of force by the police against peaceful protesters. This reporter has been a critic of the movement, but kudos to him for not allowing his personal beliefs about the movement, influence his opinion on the much important issue of the militarization of our civilian police and their violations of the Constitutional rights of Americans.



Police Response to Occupy Wall Street is Absurd

Arrests exceeding 250 people followed protests in New York City yesterday. All across the country, cops are cracking down on protesters with force. I may be a critic of Occupy Wall Street, but the police are public servants, and public servants have no business treating the public this way.

By and large, Occupy has been a peaceful affair. Certainly pepper-spraying protesters while they sit calmly in a row like this is a gross abuse of power. It should have our collective blood boiling, whether or not we even agree with the protesters themselves. What was meant to be a protest against economic equality quickly morphs into a protest against the police state.

And make no mistake, the powers of the police in this country have grown out of hand. I’ve written at length on the militarization of the police, of SWAT team abuses, and the way that the war on terror and the war on drugs have both contributed to what is really just a war on individual liberty. Occupy Wall Street may need to grow up and evolve, but a far greater and more pressing issue facing this country is what to do about the security state we’ve erected about us at the local, state, and federal level.

Emphasis mine.

He has had a backlash to this article from emailers who believe he is wrong to 'defend' the protesters, lacking the ability to see the larger issue. But he is not backing down, to his credit:

Police Should Condemn, Not Defend, Excessive Use of Force at UC Davis

Several people have emailed me angrily to insist that I support lawlessness and don’t understand the constitution. I do not support lawlessness, but I especially do not support it if it is the police themselves who are acting in a lawless manner. I hold the police to a higher standard. I think we have to appreciate dissent for what it is, and we have to appreciate police for the difficult job they do. The balance at any protest between free speech and law and order is going to be tenuous. It is incumbent on the protesters and law enforcement to keep the peace.

As he says, aside from how wrong this is, it is also not accomplishing anything for the police or those directing them. So, what IS the purpose of it?

Taking this stand shows that even if you disagree with someone's politics, you can still stand up for their rights.


I wonder will we finally hear some condemnation from our elected officials?

The author is correct when he says people should put pressure on public officials and the police, as they did in NYC re the pepper-spraying of the trapped women, otherwise they will simply sweep these crimes under the rug.


It's obvious now, beyond a doubt, that the police have been become a threat to the safety and well-being of the American people should they decide to exercise their Constitutional rights.

Someone needs to do something to protect them.

[Dover]

1. What's really powerful about his response is that he identifies the occupiers

as 'the public', his fellow humans, neighbors, friends, etc. rather than, seeing them as 'the other'. This, despite his admitted difference of opinion.
The occupation is inclusive.
That's why nonviolence is so important. It allows even critics to identify with their own humanity and the abuse to stand out in relief against a peaceful backdrop.
It's the definition of what real power is.

[sabrina 1]

2. Yes, you are right.

He had to admit that the protesters have been peaceful also.