Pepper-Spray by a Cruel and Cowardly NYC Cop

[Intense]

Intense, but was the intent in the march to do stuff to get intentionally arrested like these folks were on Wall Street? They advertised that by the way.... if you went for a peaceful march you likely did just that..and your march likely had all permits needed and police protection to boot..they didn't do that..and they went to cause trouble, they found it.

If it was, it still does not justify the use of force on people who are not actively resisting anything. The pepper spray was not aimed at people who were physically resisting, it was aimed at protestors who were already inder control. that makes it wrong, period.

That it part of why it is important to be clear and distinct, as to the Nature of the March or Protest, or Civil Disobedience Action. Keep it Non-Violent and as Respectful as you can. It is Imperative for the Safety of Everyone around.

Correct, the use of Mace wasn't justified, and the effect of using it is made plain.

 

[Intense]

I just find it amusing that you think that society, which is actually an abstract concept, has rights because it is made up of individuals, yet those same individuals do not have rights. It gets a little confusing if I try to approach it logically, so I heep it with scorn instead.

Society is an abstract concept? What ARE you babbling about? When did I ever say individuals don't have rights? What I've said is that your rights as an individual don't allow you to trample on the rights of your fellow citizens...ie society.

Yet, for some reason, "societies rights" allow them to trample on the rights of individuals.

New York, The Empire and Privilege State, views Liberty as a Commodity. It's all about what one can afford here. You fend for yourself. Who one knows will serve better than what one knows. Expect your voice to be drowned out.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Here's some fine examples of the liberal minds at those Wall Street Protests.

They should be pepper sprayed just for being moronic liberal idiots.
www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=Crl31Xgc3_w
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twCBjey8GjQ]Bill O'Reilly -- Anti-capitalism Protests V2 - YouTube[/ame]

Fuckin' douchebags!

 

[Oldstyle]

There is a reason why Obama is governing to the right of where he campaigned, Dragon and that is because he's becoming more and more desperate to fix the economy and has reluctantly come to the conclusion that the progressive policies we got from him, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for the first two years of his administration didn't work.

That would make even remotely plausible sense only if we had actually gotten those progressive policies in the first two years of his administration, and we did not.

You're just not understanding something here. What you are calling progressive policies AREN'T progressive policies; they are moderate, watered-down, and really quite conservative policies. The Affordable Care Act is NOT a progressive reform; a single-payer system would be a progressive reform, or at least a public option. The stimulus bill we got was NOT a progressive reform; something about five times that size that incorporated serious changes to the way we spread the tax burden around, complete reversal of government policy on labor-law enforcement, and public-works programs like those from the 1930s would have been.

Obama's progressive policies have not failed, because Obama has not implemented any progressive policies. And THAT is what has lost him the support of so many of his supporters, not his "failure." Given that he has not attempted in any serious way the kinds of policies that he promised and that might have worked, failure was a foregone conclusion, and we all know that.

You say the Millenniums are turning FURTHER against the Republicans? I'm sorry but I don't see any evidence of that at all. I see many of them withdrawing from politics completely while they reassess what it is that they've been led to believe their entire lives. The youth vote turnout in the 2012 election is going to be WAY off from what it was when Obama won in 2008.

First, they are not reassessing what they've been led to believe their whole lives; what they are reassessing is their trust in the Democratic Party to put those beliefs into action. Second, while you may (but may not) be right about voter turnout in 2012, if that happens it won't signify a turn away from politics but rather a shift from electoral politics into direct action such as we are just beginning to see now. What is demanded is something that neither party is offering because both parties are in the pockets of big business.

In any case, there is just about zero chance that anyone who voted for Obama in 2008 is going to vote Republican.

So you're saying that we should have borrowed "5" trillion dollars to spend on government stimulus, Dragon? That if we'd only done "that", plus hit the rich with more taxes, and given the unions whatever they wanted...that we would have turned the economy around? Ah...it's always interesting to run across one of the "true believers".

Sorry but what you're calling for would have been a recipe for economic disaster which is why all but the Democrats from the safest liberal enclaves ran from all of those things like they were radioactive. I'm curious...since we got downgraded for having too much debt with the old stimulus how do you think the rating agencies would have viewed our spending five times that amount?

As for what Obama "promised"? If you'll recall his campaign consisted of vague concepts of "Hope" and "Change"...he never got into specifics because nobody in the main stream media ever forced him to BE specific. You guys lapped up vague promises like they were concrete plans and then were surprised that those vague promises never materialized into concrete plans once Obama took office.

I still am at a loss as to what "direct actions" you think the youth vote is taking now that they've become disenchanted with the Democrats and Obama. If the camp out down on Wall Street is any indication then they have no more idea of what to do now than Obama has had for the past two and a half years. I predict that a large percentage of the Millennium vote will be staying home next Fall. I think they feel like they've been lied to. Not by the Republicans...but by their teachers, professors and the main stream media. Good luck getting that part of the "base" fired up like they were in 2008.

 

[Dragon]

So you're saying that we should have borrowed "5" trillion dollars to spend on government stimulus, Dragon? That if we'd only done "that", plus hit the rich with more taxes, and given the unions whatever they wanted...that we would have turned the economy around?

Yes, that's essentially correct. Well, also throw in some more enlightened trade policies and a serious effort to transition our energy economy away from oil. Whether you personally believe these policies would have worked is irrelevant; what is important is that this sort of thing is a "progressive solution" and it was never done. Obama is not a progressive, or at any rate he has not governed as one.

Remember, I'm presenting here the way Millennials see things. Projecting your own views onto these young people will guarantee that you get it wrong.

As for what Obama "promised"? If you'll recall his campaign consisted of vague concepts of "Hope" and "Change"

And promises to spread the wealth around and provide universal health care and make government work for the rest of us not for the rich -- somewhat less vague. He definitely campaigned as a progressive, and that's why a lot of people (particularly Millennials) voted for him.

I still am at a loss as to what "direct actions" you think the youth vote is taking now that they've become disenchanted with the Democrats and Obama.

The idea is to make it very clear that there is widespread popular demand for genuine progressive reform and that if the Democrats don't want their heads handed to them they had damned well better listen and deliver. (Same message for Republicans but they're probably a lost cause.)

Whether young voters stay home in 2012 as they did in 2010 depends on the response all this receives. But let me tell you what the end game is, if nothing else works, lest you get too complacent.

It is revolution. That is a genuine possibility, just as it was in the 1930s.

 

[Oldstyle]

The photographer did have his head bounced off a parked car, even you admitted that. You justified it, but you admitted it.

As for the second, we already established that you think the police do have the power to use people as punching bags, so why repost it? Did you need to say it again because you thought I missed the point? I will, however, point out that the criminal justice system in this country comes down on my side, protestors do have a right not to be punching bags.

I am still waiting for you to point out where I said police beat the crap beat out of them.

It wasn't me who said the police used people as "punching bags"...that was your comment. You accused the police of something they didn't do just as you accused them of deliberately bouncing someone's head off a parked car...something that also didn't happen. You've tried to make this into a case of police "brutality" all along because you've bought into the narrative that the activists wanted...ie that they were "attacked" by the police. Every time that you've done so...I've pointed out that the police didn't "attack" anyone and that every arrest that you see on the various clips was an arrest that was deliberately provoked by the activists with the sole purpose of garnering media coverage for a march that had such a small turnout it wouldn't have gotten ANY coverage without their confronting the police.

I did not say anyone was used as a punching bag, I said they have the right not to be used as one. Just like the cameraman in this video has the right not to have his head rammed into the car 2 minutes into this video.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5zmzV5IxpQ]Lawrence O'Donnell on Police Brutality at Occupy Wall Street - YouTube[/ame]

See, there you go again...just like you accused the NYPD of using protesters as punching bags, which is a complete fabrication...you accuse them of deliberately ramming that cameraman's head into a car. The only problem is...it never happened. In the process of taking him down to the ground the kid's back barely glances off the front of the car and yet people like you and Lawrence O'Donnell try and turn it into a case of police "brutality" maintaining that the police rammed his head into the car!!! It's farce at it's finest.

 

[Oldstyle]

So you're saying that we should have borrowed "5" trillion dollars to spend on government stimulus, Dragon? That if we'd only done "that", plus hit the rich with more taxes, and given the unions whatever they wanted...that we would have turned the economy around?

Yes, that's essentially correct. Well, also throw in some more enlightened trade policies and a serious effort to transition our energy economy away from oil. Whether you personally believe these policies would have worked is irrelevant; what is important is that this sort of thing is a "progressive solution" and it was never done. Obama is not a progressive, or at any rate he has not governed as one.

Remember, I'm presenting here the way Millennials see things. Projecting your own views onto these young people will guarantee that you get it wrong.

As for what Obama "promised"? If you'll recall his campaign consisted of vague concepts of "Hope" and "Change"

And promises to spread the wealth around and provide universal health care and make government work for the rest of us not for the rich -- somewhat less vague. He definitely campaigned as a progressive, and that's why a lot of people (particularly Millennials) voted for him.

I still am at a loss as to what "direct actions" you think the youth vote is taking now that they've become disenchanted with the Democrats and Obama.

The idea is to make it very clear that there is widespread popular demand for genuine progressive reform and that if the Democrats don't want their heads handed to them they had damned well better listen and deliver. (Same message for Republicans but they're probably a lost cause.)

Whether young voters stay home in 2012 as they did in 2010 depends on the response all this receives. But let me tell you what the end game is, if nothing else works, lest you get too complacent.

It is revolution. That is a genuine possibility, just as it was in the 1930s.

I'm curious, Dragon...could I ask how old you are? I'm frankly amazed that you are as naive about how economics works and especially how it works in a free market economy. The only thing I can think of to explain your thought process is that you have next to zero life experience.

You really think spending 5 trillion dollars on a stimulus plan would be fiscally prudent? I mean do you have any concept of how much money that is? What it would cost us in interest to pay off? Then you say that whether or not a plan like that would work is irrelevant because what's important is it fits the definition of "progressive"? Well of course it's important that it works!!! Why else would you DO a stimulus unless you thought it would stimulate the economy? If you're going to spend one trillion dollars of borrowed money on stimulus you better be certain it's going to do what you said it would...to spend 5 trillion borrowed dollars on something you have no idea will work is insanity. You're bankrupting the country to try a progressive experiment.

And I'm sorry, Dragon but there ISN'T widespread public support for a progressive agenda. That was made abundantly clear during the 2010 midterms...or did you miss that?

 

[Wicked Jester]

So you're saying that we should have borrowed "5" trillion dollars to spend on government stimulus, Dragon? That if we'd only done "that", plus hit the rich with more taxes, and given the unions whatever they wanted...that we would have turned the economy around?

Yes, that's essentially correct. Well, also throw in some more enlightened trade policies and a serious effort to transition our energy economy away from oil. Whether you personally believe these policies would have worked is irrelevant; what is important is that this sort of thing is a "progressive solution" and it was never done. Obama is not a progressive, or at any rate he has not governed as one.

Remember, I'm presenting here the way Millennials see things. Projecting your own views onto these young people will guarantee that you get it wrong.



And promises to spread the wealth around and provide universal health care and make government work for the rest of us not for the rich -- somewhat less vague. He definitely campaigned as a progressive, and that's why a lot of people (particularly Millennials) voted for him.

I still am at a loss as to what "direct actions" you think the youth vote is taking now that they've become disenchanted with the Democrats and Obama.

The idea is to make it very clear that there is widespread popular demand for genuine progressive reform and that if the Democrats don't want their heads handed to them they had damned well better listen and deliver. (Same message for Republicans but they're probably a lost cause.)

Whether young voters stay home in 2012 as they did in 2010 depends on the response all this receives. But let me tell you what the end game is, if nothing else works, lest you get too complacent.

It is revolution. That is a genuine possibility, just as it was in the 1930s.

I'm curious, Dragon...could I ask how old you are? I'm frankly amazed that you are as naive about how economics works and especially how it works in a free market economy. The only thing I can think of to explain your thought process is that you have next to zero life experience.

You really think spending 5 trillion dollars on a stimulus plan would be fiscally prudent? I mean do you have any concept of how much money that is? What it would cost us in interest to pay off? Then you say that whether or not a plan like that would work is irrelevant because what's important is it fits the definition of "progressive"? Well of course it's important that it works!!! Why else would you DO a stimulus unless you thought it would stimulate the economy? If you're going to spend one trillion dollars of borrowed money on stimulus you better be certain it's going to do what you said it would...to spend 5 trillion borrowed dollars on something you have no idea will work is insanity. You're bankrupting the country to try a progressive experiment.

And I'm sorry, Dragon but there ISN'T widespread public support for a progressive agenda. That was made abundantly clear during the 2010 midterms...or did you miss that?

The progressives are watching their failed ideals being pissed straight down the toilet, as they should be........2010 was the beginning of the end. They got their boy in the white house, he has miserably failed.

 

[Xchel]

The protest never became violent

that is certainly the way it seems the media has described it.

 

[Romulan]

Oldstyle, you have nothing to support your assertion that those women wanted to be sprayed or beaten for attention.

Xchel, you sound like you're saying that if you break the law (i.e. no permit, block traffic) the cops can do whatever they want to you. Not true. If that were the case, those girls got pepper sprayed for jaywalking.

The NYPD has rules governing the use of pepper spray. According to NYPD patrol guide 212-95, pepper spray may be used under the following circumstances:

1. Protect self, or another from unlawful use of force (e.g., assault)

2. Effect an arrest, or establish physical control of a subject resisting arrest

3. Establish physical control of a subject attempting to flee from arrest or custody

4. Establish physical control of an emotionally disturbed person (EDP)

5. Control a dangerous animal, by deterring an attack, to prevent injury to persons
or animals present.

None of those needs were evident in the video footage. In fact, the patrol guide also warns against using pepper spray against people who are not offering active physical resistance. And yelling does not count as active physical resistance.

Those women were not being violent at the time they were sprayed. True, at first some people were pushing against the orange netting, and one person was arrested from there. However, after that the women stopped, and were no longer pushing the net or being physical. If there was a confrontation, it had been quelled long before the pepper spray had been deployed.

Why weren't those girls arrested immediately after they were pepper sprayed? Why didn't Bologna immediately ask if they were wearing contact lenses? Why didn't he call in for medical assistance? Why didn't he make sure they were sitting in the proper position for easy breathing? Why am I asking all these strange and specific questions? Because all of those things are required in the use of pepper spray. Not encouraged, not suggested, not recommended, but required. None of that happened, they were just left to their own devices after they were sprayed.

And they might have been blocking traffic at first, but the police had done their job and had gotten them on the sidewalk. They were working to get everyone where they needed to go. Strangely enough, after the spraying, the cops moved the netting back into the street, presumably blocking traffic even more than before. Then they just left the girls there on the sidewalk. Then after that, the girls were allowed to go back into the street and cross it. What was up with that? Why weren't the cops preventing them from blocking traffic then?

www youtube com/watch?v=e9olQEnNx2Q

Also, if the New York Times is correct with its source saying that Bologna was aiming for men who were resisting arrest, then no matter how dubious the claim is, it is essentially an admission that those women did nothing to warrant the use of pepper spray.

Sources:

cityroom blogs nytime. com/2011/09/28/police-department-to-examine-pepper-spray-incident/

www nyc gov/html/ccrb/pdf/pepperreport pdf

You'll have to fill in the dots.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The protest never became violent

that is certainly the way it seems the media has described it.

I haven't seen that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

All together now three cheers for the new police state.

 

[Intense]

All together now three cheers for the new police state.

Hey in NYC, you need to Always be careful. There are no givens.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle, you have nothing to support your assertion that those women wanted to be sprayed or beaten for attention.

Xchel, you sound like you're saying that if you break the law (i.e. no permit, block traffic) the cops can do whatever they want to you. Not true. If that were the case, those girls got pepper sprayed for jaywalking.

The NYPD has rules governing the use of pepper spray. According to NYPD patrol guide 212-95, pepper spray may be used under the following circumstances:

1. Protect self, or another from unlawful use of force (e.g., assault)

2. Effect an arrest, or establish physical control of a subject resisting arrest

3. Establish physical control of a subject attempting to flee from arrest or custody

4. Establish physical control of an emotionally disturbed person (EDP)

5. Control a dangerous animal, by deterring an attack, to prevent injury to persons
or animals present.

None of those needs were evident in the video footage. In fact, the patrol guide also warns against using pepper spray against people who are not offering active physical resistance. And yelling does not count as active physical resistance.

Those women were not being violent at the time they were sprayed. True, at first some people were pushing against the orange netting, and one person was arrested from there. However, after that the women stopped, and were no longer pushing the net or being physical. If there was a confrontation, it had been quelled long before the pepper spray had been deployed.

Why weren't those girls arrested immediately after they were pepper sprayed? Why didn't Bologna immediately ask if they were wearing contact lenses? Why didn't he call in for medical assistance? Why didn't he make sure they were sitting in the proper position for easy breathing? Why am I asking all these strange and specific questions? Because all of those things are required in the use of pepper spray. Not encouraged, not suggested, not recommended, but required. None of that happened, they were just left to their own devices after they were sprayed.

And they might have been blocking traffic at first, but the police had done their job and had gotten them on the sidewalk. They were working to get everyone where they needed to go. Strangely enough, after the spraying, the cops moved the netting back into the street, presumably blocking traffic even more than before. Then they just left the girls there on the sidewalk. Then after that, the girls were allowed to go back into the street and cross it. What was up with that? Why weren't the cops preventing them from blocking traffic then?

www youtube com/watch?v=e9olQEnNx2Q

Also, if the New York Times is correct with its source saying that Bologna was aiming for men who were resisting arrest, then no matter how dubious the claim is, it is essentially an admission that those women did nothing to warrant the use of pepper spray.

Sources:

cityroom blogs nytime. com/2011/09/28/police-department-to-examine-pepper-spray-incident/

www nyc gov/html/ccrb/pdf/pepperreport pdf

You'll have to fill in the dots.

I never said the women wanted to be beaten or sprayed. I'm quite certain they didn't expect to be pepper sprayed. I did however say that they wanted to force arrests. As for what I have to back that contention up? It's quite obvious if the police tells someone to leave an area or they will be arrested and that person stays that the person is either stupid and doesn't think they WILL be arrested or they in fact are inviting arrest. Since the police were arresting their fellow demonstrators one at a time as they entered that street and had just arrested one of their friends for not leaving the side walk area then those girls would have to have been INCREDIBLY stupid to not expect to be arrested themselves.

 

[Intense]

Oldstyle, you have nothing to support your assertion that those women wanted to be sprayed or beaten for attention.

Xchel, you sound like you're saying that if you break the law (i.e. no permit, block traffic) the cops can do whatever they want to you. Not true. If that were the case, those girls got pepper sprayed for jaywalking.

The NYPD has rules governing the use of pepper spray. According to NYPD patrol guide 212-95, pepper spray may be used under the following circumstances:

1. Protect self, or another from unlawful use of force (e.g., assault)

2. Effect an arrest, or establish physical control of a subject resisting arrest

3. Establish physical control of a subject attempting to flee from arrest or custody

4. Establish physical control of an emotionally disturbed person (EDP)

5. Control a dangerous animal, by deterring an attack, to prevent injury to persons
or animals present.

None of those needs were evident in the video footage. In fact, the patrol guide also warns against using pepper spray against people who are not offering active physical resistance. And yelling does not count as active physical resistance.

Those women were not being violent at the time they were sprayed. True, at first some people were pushing against the orange netting, and one person was arrested from there. However, after that the women stopped, and were no longer pushing the net or being physical. If there was a confrontation, it had been quelled long before the pepper spray had been deployed.

Why weren't those girls arrested immediately after they were pepper sprayed? Why didn't Bologna immediately ask if they were wearing contact lenses? Why didn't he call in for medical assistance? Why didn't he make sure they were sitting in the proper position for easy breathing? Why am I asking all these strange and specific questions? Because all of those things are required in the use of pepper spray. Not encouraged, not suggested, not recommended, but required. None of that happened, they were just left to their own devices after they were sprayed.

And they might have been blocking traffic at first, but the police had done their job and had gotten them on the sidewalk. They were working to get everyone where they needed to go. Strangely enough, after the spraying, the cops moved the netting back into the street, presumably blocking traffic even more than before. Then they just left the girls there on the sidewalk. Then after that, the girls were allowed to go back into the street and cross it. What was up with that? Why weren't the cops preventing them from blocking traffic then?

www youtube com/watch?v=e9olQEnNx2Q

Also, if the New York Times is correct with its source saying that Bologna was aiming for men who were resisting arrest, then no matter how dubious the claim is, it is essentially an admission that those women did nothing to warrant the use of pepper spray.

Sources:

cityroom blogs nytime. com/2011/09/28/police-department-to-examine-pepper-spray-incident/

www nyc gov/html/ccrb/pdf/pepperreport pdf

You'll have to fill in the dots.

I never said the women wanted to be beaten or sprayed. I'm quite certain they didn't expect to be pepper sprayed. I did however say that they wanted to force arrests. As for what I have to back that contention up? It's quite obvious if the police tells someone to leave an area or they will be arrested and that person stays that the person is either stupid and doesn't think they WILL be arrested or they in fact are inviting arrest. Since the police were arresting their fellow demonstrators one at a time as they entered that street and had just arrested one of their friends for not leaving the side walk area then those girls would have to have been INCREDIBLY stupid to not expect to be arrested themselves.

If their intention was arrest, that isn't a problem. No Resistance, no problem. They were not arrested, they were assaulted.

 

[Romulan]

I never said the women wanted to be beaten or sprayed. I'm quite certain they didn't expect to be pepper sprayed. I did however say that they wanted to force arrests. As for what I have to back that contention up? It's quite obvious if the police tells someone to leave an area or they will be arrested and that person stays that the person is either stupid and doesn't think they WILL be arrested or they in fact are inviting arrest. Since the police were arresting their fellow demonstrators one at a time as they entered that street and had just arrested one of their friends for not leaving the side walk area then those girls would have to have been INCREDIBLY stupid to not expect to be arrested themselves.

That one girl wasn't arrested for not leaving the area, she was probably arrested for being physical with the police. When did the officers say "leave the area or you will be arrested"? It seems more like they were trying to cordon them off, then move everyone away from the area peacefully, which they seemed to be doing successfully until Bologna came up and sprayed those women who were not being physical with the police. And again, after they were sprayed, the police just abandoned them and that area. They were not arrested.

 

[Oldstyle]

I never said the women wanted to be beaten or sprayed. I'm quite certain they didn't expect to be pepper sprayed. I did however say that they wanted to force arrests. As for what I have to back that contention up? It's quite obvious if the police tells someone to leave an area or they will be arrested and that person stays that the person is either stupid and doesn't think they WILL be arrested or they in fact are inviting arrest. Since the police were arresting their fellow demonstrators one at a time as they entered that street and had just arrested one of their friends for not leaving the side walk area then those girls would have to have been INCREDIBLY stupid to not expect to be arrested themselves.

That one girl wasn't arrested for not leaving the area, she was probably arrested for being physical with the police. When did the officers say "leave the area or you will be arrested"? It seems more like they were trying to cordon them off, then move everyone away from the area peacefully, which they seemed to be doing successfully until Bologna came up and sprayed those women who were not being physical with the police. And again, after they were sprayed, the police just abandoned them and that area. They were not arrested.

If you listen to the 9 minute clip at 4:58 in the police draw their barricade across the side walk and inform the people there they need to leave. It's at that point that an older woman with short blonde hair asks the police where it is they want them to go. About thirty seconds later the fat girl with the potty mouth does something off camera and she gets grabbed by the police and pulled down to the ground. That's when the three girls start screaming at the police to let the girl go and approximately thirty seconds later the supervisor walks over and gives them a quick blast of his pepper spray. As for the police abandoning them? The police let people wash their eyes out with bottled water and then let them leave because they no longer were causing problems. The truth is the police only arrested the people that forced them to make arrests. They gave warnings to everyone before arresting them and when they did make arrests they did it with as little damage to those being arrested as possible. If you've ever seen police make a take down and arrest of someone they truly don't like they will tackle them to the ground viciously. I didn't see a single example of that...even with the protesters that put up a token struggle. It's why I find all the hysteric claims of police "brutality" that day so amusing.

 

[Romulan]

If you listen to the 9 minute clip at 4:58 in the police draw their barricade across the side walk and inform the people there they need to leave. It's at that point that an older woman with short blonde hair asks the police where it is they want them to go. About thirty seconds later the fat girl with the potty mouth does something off camera and she gets grabbed by the police and pulled down to the ground. That's when the three girls start screaming at the police to let the girl go and approximately thirty seconds later the supervisor walks over and gives them a quick blast of his pepper spray. As for the police abandoning them? The police let people wash their eyes out with bottled water and then let them leave because they no longer were causing problems. The truth is the police only arrested the people that forced them to make arrests. They gave warnings to everyone before arresting them and when they did make arrests they did it with as little damage to those being arrested as possible. If you've ever seen police make a take down and arrest of someone they truly don't like they will tackle them to the ground viciously. I didn't see a single example of that...even with the protesters that put up a token struggle. It's why I find all the hysteric claims of police "brutality" that day so amusing.

Pepper spray is only supposed to be used during an arrest, as per NYPD Patrol Guide 212-95. Yelling does not count as physical resistance. Medical assistance is required following the use of pepper spray. There was nothing in this incident that was consistent with 212-95. That is why the DA is investigating it. That is also probably why the new excuse "He was aiming for someone else" was released to the New York Times. It's an underhanded admission that those girls weren't doing anything that warranted the use of pepper spray.

Not to mention, those people were allowed to cross the street again, you know, go back through and block traffic.

 

[Oldstyle]

If you listen to the 9 minute clip at 4:58 in the police draw their barricade across the side walk and inform the people there they need to leave. It's at that point that an older woman with short blonde hair asks the police where it is they want them to go. About thirty seconds later the fat girl with the potty mouth does something off camera and she gets grabbed by the police and pulled down to the ground. That's when the three girls start screaming at the police to let the girl go and approximately thirty seconds later the supervisor walks over and gives them a quick blast of his pepper spray. As for the police abandoning them? The police let people wash their eyes out with bottled water and then let them leave because they no longer were causing problems. The truth is the police only arrested the people that forced them to make arrests. They gave warnings to everyone before arresting them and when they did make arrests they did it with as little damage to those being arrested as possible. If you've ever seen police make a take down and arrest of someone they truly don't like they will tackle them to the ground viciously. I didn't see a single example of that...even with the protesters that put up a token struggle. It's why I find all the hysteric claims of police "brutality" that day so amusing.

Pepper spray is only supposed to be used during an arrest, as per NYPD Patrol Guide 212-95. Yelling does not count as physical resistance. Medical assistance is required following the use of pepper spray. There was nothing in this incident that was consistent with 212-95. That is why the DA is investigating it. That is also probably why the new excuse "He was aiming for someone else" was released to the New York Times. It's an underhanded admission that those girls weren't doing anything that warranted the use of pepper spray.

Not to mention, those people were allowed to cross the street again, you know, go back through and block traffic.

Do you have a link to "Patrol Guide 212-95"? I've heard conflicting accounts now as to how and when pepper spray can be used and can't find a definitive answer. Quite frankly I have a hard time believing that if tear gas can be used to disperse an unruly crowd that pepper spray can't be used for the same purpose. That doesn't make much sense to me. It's a non lethal manner to make people leave an area. As to why the DA is investigating it? It's been blown up by the main stream media into a controversy. Of course it's being investigated.

 

[Intense]

By Ray Sanchez

NEW YORK | Sun Oct 2, 2011 2:57am EDT

(Reuters) - Police reopened the Brooklyn Bridge Saturday evening after more than 700 anti-Wall Street protesters were arrested for blocking traffic lanes and attempting an unauthorized march across the span.

The arrests took place when a large group of marchers, participating in a second week of protests by the Occupy Wall Street movement, broke off from others on the bridge's pedestrian walkway and headed across the Brooklyn-bound lanes.

"Over 700 summonses and desk appearance tickets have been issued in connection with a demonstration on the Brooklyn Bridge late this afternoon after multiple warnings by police were given to protesters to stay on the pedestrian walkway, and that if they took roadway they would be arrested," a police spokesman said.

"Some complied and took the walkway without being arrested. Others proceeded on the Brooklyn-bound vehicular roadway and were. The bridge was re-opened to traffic at 8:05 p.m. (0005 GMT Sunday)."

Most of those who were arrested were taken into custody off the bridge, issued summonses and released.

Witnesses described a chaotic scene on the famous suspension bridge as a sea of police officers surrounded the protesters using orange mesh netting.

Some protesters tried to get away as officers started handcuffing members of the group. Dozens of protesters were seen handcuffed and sitting on the span as three buses were called in to take them away, witnesses and organizers said.

The march started about 3:30 p.m. from the protesters' camp in Zuccotti Park in downtown Manhattan near the former World Trade Center. Members of the group have vowed to stay at the park through the winter.

More than 700 arrested in Wall Street protest | Reuters