Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Conflict Between Occupy Wall Street Protestors and NYPD Escalating

Unknown Lamer posted about 3 years ago | from the criminals-in-uniform dept.

United States 961

phx_zs writes "Today marks the tenth consecutive day that thousands of protesters have flooded the streets of Manhattan, specifically the financial district. ... Sunday marked a change of events as high-ranking NYPD officers exhibited brutal, unprovoked aggression on the peaceful group, reportedly arresting at least 80 people. Many photos and videos have surfaced of NYPD officers slamming protesters on the ground or into parked cars, and in one well-covered incident a NYPD officer (with pending police brutality charges from 2004) maced innocent female protesters point blank for no apparent reason. Many eyewitnesses and several news articles report that the NYPD specifically targeted photographers and media teams streaming the event live on the internet." Do any Slashdotters have eyewitness reports to share? There seems to be a lot of misinformation originating from all parties involved making it difficult to know how large the protest actually is at this point and whether or not the police are being quite as universally violent as the protestors imply.

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Policy City-State (2, Troll)

trolman (648780) | about 3 years ago | (#37530016)

I will share this; The natural evolution to a police city-state is complete. The government has put up rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life. There are secret police units aka terrorist units. A lot of people like this type of society. Those coming from outside the city get a bit of a shock, no pun intended, when introduced to the lifestyle of a city-state.

Re:Policy City-State (2)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 3 years ago | (#37530142)

It is not an evolution, but a pendulum. I think it is starting to swing back as more people say "no" to an unreasonable TSA and so on.

Re:Policy City-State (1)

trolman (648780) | about 3 years ago | (#37530254)

Dear BOFH, My point was that this behavior is standard practice for NYC. Now that this system in place the next step is for a dictator to step up. Signed, KCBOFH

Re:Policy City-State (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37530264)

This is the 2nd time I've seen someone use the word "pendulum" and that it's swinging back, and I then realized both came from you. You sure like the word "pendulum" don't you? :)

Re:Policy City-State (5, Insightful)

optimism (2183618) | about 3 years ago | (#37530472)

The "pendulum" will not even begin to swing back until the people:

1) Withdraw all of their savings from the big banks.

2) Reclaim personal control over the money in their IRAs or 401Ks or 403Bs or whatever, and invest it themselves instead of letting corrupt corporations use these assets for their own goals.

3) Place a value on the dollar that is connected to real-world resources and human advancement instead of some false "economy" construct that is programmed into them by their slave-masters.

Street protests are stupid and futile. Many of the idiots who are getting beaten by the cops have credit/debit cards, savings/checking accounts, retirement accounts, etc with the very corporations against which they protest.

Promote change by moving your money,not raising your voice. That the ONLY kind of change that will affect the financial "institutions".

Re:Policy City-State (3, Insightful)

cavreader (1903280) | about 3 years ago | (#37530220)

Spoken like someone who has never really been to or experienced living in a real police city-state. It seems the protests today are more about seeing how far you can push the authorities attempting to keep things civil before you get your head bashed in. The actually reason or target of the protest gets lost in the background noise.

Re:Policy City-State (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 years ago | (#37530268)

It's quite a panopticonic fiefdom they have there [] ... Still haven't caught London in terms of cameras; but the sinister image-processing central computer is a nice touch, as is the 'fusion center' and the oblique references to anti-aircraft capability...

Apparently, (3, Insightful)

bhcompy (1877290) | about 3 years ago | (#37530018)

there is a conflict between occupy English and Slashdot, as well.

Re:Apparently, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37530078)

'Occupy Wall Street' is a banner the movement is operating under, so the /. title is fine (weird, huh?).

Re:Apparently, (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37530214)

This type of ambiguity could be eliminated if Slashdot would join the rest of the civilized world and use standard case instead of title case for their article names.

Re:Apparently, (0)

MichaelKristopeit402 (1978292) | about 3 years ago | (#37530326)

slashdot = stagnated

Lack of news (4, Interesting)

iONiUM (530420) | about 3 years ago | (#37530052)

In Canada at least, there has been a serious lack of news about this protest. It's mentioned in passing sometimes, but that's about it. I don't even really know what it's about. I heard "protesting corporate greed in America", but I mean that's a tough thing to protest.. you're basically protesting capitalism..

Anyways, my question is why is there such a media gap about this protest? Is it on purpose (tin foil hat), or is it just because it's vague and nobody really cares about it, so the media doesn't bother?

Re:Lack of news (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 3 years ago | (#37530090)

Well, considering that they are protesting the heart of America's economic system, and considering that mainstream media outlets have long refused to publicize movements that run counter the American economic policy, I would not be surprised if the black-out was deliberate.

Not just Canada (2)

MrEricSir (398214) | about 3 years ago | (#37530102)

This protest has failed to make headlines in the US as well. The only coverage I've seen is on blogs and Slashdot.

Re:Not just Canada (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about 3 years ago | (#37530242)

pretty much this, I'm only hearing about it on the internet, local and even world news doesn't seem to be touching this stuff.

Re:Not just Canada (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about 3 years ago | (#37530292)

well, I don't know if you consider fark a blog or not - but they're one of the larger news sites that does cover it. but yes, politically motivated media (it's not just MSM) will not cover this stuff at all.

Re:Not just Canada (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37530352)

That's because except for the inconvenience it causes people, there's no story. Just a bunch of narcissistic idiots masturbating in public.

Re:Not just Canada (1)

rednip (186217) | about 3 years ago | (#37530376)

It's obvious to me that they are missing the required 'tri-corner' hats. Why should they be taken seriously if they can't follow the rules?

Bizarrely, if it weren't for the tactics of some poorly trained or supervised police it wouldn't be getting any notice at all.

Re:Not just Canada (2)

plopez (54068) | about 3 years ago | (#37530400)

CNN had a brief blurb. Huffington post is covering it. NY times had something. Google it.

Re:Not just Canada (2, Interesting)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 3 years ago | (#37530440)

This protest has failed to make headlines in the US as well.

Probably because it is not a tea party protest.

Those things seem to get a LOT of news reports these days...about how violent they are, etc....

If it isn't a protest by a conservative group...well, the mainstream press doesn't seem to feel the need to take much interest in it...

Then again..I don't see fox on it, maybe both sides have a reason to ignore it....

Re:Lack of news (1)

Anon-Admin (443764) | about 3 years ago | (#37530104)

I am in the southern US and I have seen nothing on the news. The only info I have seen is what is posted to news sites like this one.

I am not even sure what the protest is about. I agree with you about "protesting corporate greed in America"

Re:Lack of news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37530116)

... you're basically protesting capitalism...

There is a difference between corporatism (basically state capitalism, which is one of Marx's main critiques of capitalism) and 'actual' capitalism, but it is easy to mistake the two. Not saying capitalism by itself is perfect, but still...

Re:Lack of news (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37530386)

One thing that the people who purposefully conflate capitalism and corporatism fail to mention all the time is that in "Wealth of Nations" Adam Smith was talking about small communities doing deals one-on-one. At the time the corporation wasn't in vogue and Adam Smith thought it was an outdated concept.

Secondly, Adam Smith didn't like monopolies or banks that were "too big to fail" in today's lingo. The ultimate goal of corporatism is working towards a monopoly or trust.

Anyway... a point that can be drawn from this is that you don't need corporations for capitalism to work and, furthermore, the corporation could work against capitalism in the long run.

Being against corporations having too much power and too many rights is not automatically anti-capitalist.

Re:Lack of news (4, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | about 3 years ago | (#37530418)

There is also a huge difference between equitable capitalism and a feudal system under the the guise of capitalism using corporations as proxies of power for the "noble class".

Re:Lack of news (1)

what2123 (1116571) | about 3 years ago | (#37530168)

Don't worry Canada, here in America, I haven't seen or heard about this until today. If this really has been going on for "ten days" I am certainly surprised. I'm even on the East Coast, about 3 hours from NY and there is nothing on the radar about it around here.

Re:Lack of news (2)

Nadaka (224565) | about 3 years ago | (#37530486)

Just like Iran, Tunisa, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, and Syria, the people in power in America don't want you to know and are more than willing to manipulate the media to keep you blissfully ignorance of their tyranny. Some of those have have fallen, and others have tightened their grasp and brutalized their own people.

Re:Lack of news (4, Informative)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 3 years ago | (#37530176)

A good answer to that is here... [] It is not news because no one died. But now it is becoming news because the media is ignoring it. And the pendulum starts to swing back.

Easy, Bush is not President (4, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | about 3 years ago | (#37530284)

Wall Street is a major supporter of this administration, if not every administration before this but this one seems to be heavily stacked in favor of Wall Street this time (and I propose that Wall Street isn't the same as what most people know as Big Business)

So the political machine is not behind it, specifically the unions are not in this. Never under estimate the ability to move people when and how needed. Students don't stand a chance (if this is truly student based) and the really big organizations that would gin up a protest on demand when Bush was in office aren't being given marching orders. Since they aren't giving marching orders their contacts in the press don't have reason to report.

See this is this dirty little secret about protests in America now, they have to be sanctioned by the political parties to receive attention. Sponataneous protesting or groupings of people politically are not favored and about anything that can be done to ignore them is done. If they don't go away then they most be portrayed as a whole as having the very worst traits that can be found in individual members .

So until certain political elements need this protest it doesn't exist.

Re:Lack of news (2)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 3 years ago | (#37530320)

In Canada at least, there has been a serious lack of news about this protest. It's mentioned in passing sometimes, but that's about it. I don't even really know what it's about. I heard "protesting corporate greed in America", but I mean that's a tough thing to protest.. you're basically protesting capitalism..

I live in the US, tend to watch a good bit of news on all the networks (let things balance out a little that way)...and read headlines on the internet.

It has barely made a blip on the 'map' on any news source I've seen.

From the little coverage I've heard...would seem to be like 20 people showing up to protest. Frankly I had no idea it was still going on.....thought it was a one day deal that happened the other day.

Re:Lack of news (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 years ago | (#37530322)

you're basically protesting capitalism..

Basically protesting Crony capitalism. A Big difference there....

Protest is too vague (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37530362)

I'm not even sure what they're protesting about. America's economy? What about it? The greed? Big brother watching?
And there seems to be more people filming and photographing the protest rather than protesting.
I don't know, this seems disorganized. It's down there with "down with globalization," "pollution is bad," and "rich men are greedy" type of protests.

The economy is such a broad topic (macro vs. micro economics?), a single line they chant won't even begin to make sense.

Focus, people. Focus.

Re:Lack of news (2)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | about 3 years ago | (#37530378)

I don't even really know what it's about. I heard "protesting corporate greed in America", but I mean that's a tough thing to protest.. you're basically protesting capitalism..

I'm not sure the protesters know either.

Re:Lack of news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37530388)

I don't even really know what it's about.

You don't know what it's about because no one knows what it's about. Because it's not about anything.

This is basically Anonymous, but with hipsters and people who have seen the sun in the past decade. It's just young, college-aged people with nothing better to do (well, except classes, but apparently having a future is overrated) disrupting people's daily lives for - well, not the lulz, exactly, but for the sake of protesting.

Don't take my word for it, though. According to the Huffington Post:

What, exactly, they are protesting is somewhat unclear. When asked what they are fighting, they gave a variety of responses ranging from Wall Street to global warming.

They're not protesting anything. They're just protesting, in general. And there are only something like 100 of them left doing it, so it's not like it was even a big movement.

The reason the media is not covering it is because there's nothing to cover. It's just a small group college students/drop-outs being jerks.

Re:Lack of news (1)

LehiNephi (695428) | about 3 years ago | (#37530406)

What's also interesting is that the coverage coming out of the protests is rather one-sided. It's all coming from the protesters. And there's little interest in posting any non-controversial/non-sensational footage, or even to post footage in context. What we get instead is the video equivalent of sound-bytes--enough to get a non-cynical viewer riled up about something.

Link for "well-covered link" Broken (1)

InvisibleSoul (882722) | about 3 years ago | (#37530064)

At least at the time of this posting.

Re:Link for "well-covered link" Broken (1)

InvisibleSoul (882722) | about 3 years ago | (#37530074)

I meant "well-covered incident".

Re:Link for "well-covered link" Broken (1)

Unknown Lamer (78415) | about 3 years ago | (#37530118)

Thanks for noticing, I've fixed the link.

Re:Link for "well-covered link" Broken (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37530256)

I looked on youtube and found a better video than the one linked in the story (the link following the broken link): []

At least from this, it really seems to be an unprovoked assault. The video seems to capture the entire context of the event quite well, and unlike with a lot of other videos (where it's clearly missing the lead up, making your wonder "what was not included in the video") I really can't seem to imagine a scenario that would call for what we saw there. The people were pretty calmly staying behind the barricade, and after the macing, it almost looked like the cop holding up the barricade that was closest to it had sort of a "WTF just happened" reaction.

I'm confused (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37530066)

Why would the police attach peaceful protesters? That doesn't make sense, those kinds of tactics were done away with after they sicced dogs on African Americans fighting for equal rights, that sort of thing just doesn't happen any more so if the police arrested 80 people they must have had good reason. We all know how violent the left can get these days.

Re:I'm confused (1)

sgbett (739519) | about 3 years ago | (#37530198)

Because they can. Human nature is such that there are percentage - one hopes a minority - who abuse the power granted to them by a uniform.

The unfortunate truth is that their localised abuse of power also has a much wider reaching effect of undermining the god work that the remainder of the force does.

You could scrap the police, but the same problem would just manifest itself differently. That is a small group of humans would break the social contract as they feel it does not serve their best interests to adhere to it.

Re:I'm confused (1)

sgbett (739519) | about 3 years ago | (#37530236)

god work!? my, there's a slip and a half!

Re:I'm confused (2)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 3 years ago | (#37530202)

Look at the videos. The Police crossed the line, and not by a little. But not all. In any group of 100 people, there will be some jerks. The problem is the protecting of jerks with badges and guns.

Re:I'm confused (1)

cfulton (543949) | about 3 years ago | (#37530210)

Are you trying to be funny? Or do you really believe that "those kinds of tactics were done away with". Maybe you are both confused and obtuse.

Re:I'm confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37530294)

We all know how violent the left can get these days.

We do? Wish one of the rest of you would've told me.

Re:I'm confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37530366)

If you watch the video, it is mostly older cops in white shirts(ie, sergeants and up) committing violent acts. They were around back when it was okay to beat protesters with truncheons and trample them with horse units.

They know the worst that will happen is an early retirement at full pension. Heck, the guy(Anthony Bologna) that maced those girls behind the orange netting committed civil rights violations back in 2004 protests and the case for that won't hit the courts until next year.

Re:I'm confused (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37530430)

Why would the police attach peaceful protesters? That doesn't make sense, those kinds of tactics were done away with after they sicced dogs on African Americans fighting for equal rights, that sort of thing just doesn't happen any more so if the police arrested 80 people they must have had good reason. We all know how violent the left can get these days.

Don't invent theories about how you are sure no one would do something.

I am old enough to remember dogs and firehouses being used on civil rights protesters. I also remember people making the same argument you do: The protesters must have done something violent, or be hiding weapons, or planning to loot shops, because the police are civilized people. Don't hypothesize about the morals of a large group of people. Look at what they are doing (there is a video), and judge them by their actions.

have fun protesting (4, Insightful)

onepoint (301486) | about 3 years ago | (#37530088)

Everyone should be protesting, and have the right to protest.

Police that don't understand the right to protest should be charged and removed from work ( fired if the attack is unprovoked )

One sad thing that protesters bring upon themselves is when then charge forward and attempt to become menacing, that in the eye's of the police looks like an attack. They will respond with an overwhelming amount of force. Which is sad, since a peaceful protest goal is for the attention of the problem and to have those in power look and find a solution.

Re:have fun protesting (1, Flamebait)

Duradin (1261418) | about 3 years ago | (#37530164)

Protestors that don't understand that laws still have to be obeyed and consequences suffered should be removed from the protest.

If they had their permits and weren't breaking any laws, then they should be there. An unruly and possibly violent mob should not.

Re:have fun protesting (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about 3 years ago | (#37530374)

laws have to be obeyed? do you know what civil disobedience is?

Either you a: allow people to protest or b: say that they break the law, causing civil disobedience and massive riots. People try to be polite because they don't want to be violent/be victims of it. Police instead are inciting it, which is a *really* bad idea.

Re:have fun protesting (4, Informative)

Duradin (1261418) | about 3 years ago | (#37530480)

If you're doing civil disobedience then you know you are breaking the law and, this in an important and, you accept the punishment for doing so if it is brought against you.

Your cause is more valuable than what the punishment takes away.

If you're just trying to get a message out without the civil disobedience being a protestor isn't a magical get out of jail free card for when you over step your bounds.

Re:have fun protesting (1, Insightful)

waives (1257650) | about 3 years ago | (#37530404)

Peaceful protest doesn't require a permit you fucking fascist.

Re:have fun protesting (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37530408)

If they had their permits and weren't breaking any laws, then they should be there.

Permits? For a protest? That sounds blatantly unconstitutional. I'd say that it isn't the protesters that are breaking the law, but our government. I don't care if it's so they can keep better track of protesters. I'd rather have some "bad" things happen than harm honest protests.

An unruly and possibly violent mob should not.

Where's the violent mob? I don't know much about this specific protest, so it is an honest question.

Re:have fun protesting (2)

SkimTony (245337) | about 3 years ago | (#37530446)

If they had their permits

Which part of the First Amendment to the Constitution was unclear? No one should be able to require permits. They have a Right to Peaceably Assemble. Period.

Re:have fun protesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37530458)

Its a public sidewalk, they don't need a permit.

Re:have fun protesting (2)

i.r.id10t (595143) | about 3 years ago | (#37530478)

If they had their permits and weren't breaking any laws, then they should be there.

Nice to see the first amendment requiring permits just like the 2nd ...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Re:have fun protesting (1)

spottedkangaroo (451692) | about 3 years ago | (#37530490)

Pretty sure you don't need a permit to protest. Pretty sure that's constitutionally protected.

doubt it (-1, Troll)

superwiz (655733) | about 3 years ago | (#37530092)

I have no doubts that NYPD is having more fun with it than a civil police department should, but I absolutely categorically do not believe that the protesters are civil. Their cause alone proves that they are violence-prone and violence-minded. I don't care how much karma this burns. Well-organized, peaceful, leftist -- pick any 2 of the 3, but you can't have all 3.

Re:doubt it (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37530150)

From what I can tell they chose peaceful and leftist. Their organization is terrible.

Re:doubt it (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37530218)

could you be any more of a fascist?

Re:doubt it (0)

superwiz (655733) | about 3 years ago | (#37530244)

could you be any more of a fascist?could you be any more of a fascist?

Yes, by being a little bit (a tiny, tiny bit) fascist I would be more fascist than I am.

Re:doubt it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37530232)

And why, exactly, is it that leftist makes it impossible to be both well-organized and peaceful? Or is that just a quote from the cover of "Facist Monthly"?

Re:doubt it (2)

AlgoRhythm (701779) | about 3 years ago | (#37530248)

I'm not sure I agree with you, but to pick the 2 that are apropos here: Peaceful and leftist.

This bunch of loosely assembled hippies, anarchists, socialists and new agers doesn't have a coherent voice what-so-ever.

I haven't been down to Wall St. to see the current incarnation, but several dozen camped outside of the my office at the Woolworth building for a couple of weeks while protesting the mayor's budget a month or two ago. They were a nuisance, but certainly not threatening.

Re:doubt it (1)

Isaac Remuant (1891806) | about 3 years ago | (#37530270)

Maybe you won't get modded down if you explain your strong statements that seen explicitly designed to offend those who clearly don't think the way you do.

By the way, How can a cause, which is an abstract concept make you uncivil, I don't even know.

Your claim implies that regardless of their actions, you've already judged & condemned them.

Re:doubt it (1)

superwiz (655733) | about 3 years ago | (#37530360)

How can a cause, which is an abstract concept make you uncivil, I don't even know.

If the cause is itself destructive (or necessitates destructive outcome), of course.

Re:doubt it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37530300)

Being against corporate greed proves that the protesters are inherently violent? What koolaid have you been smoking?

Re:doubt it (1)

DogDude (805747) | about 3 years ago | (#37530358)

I'll tell you what, why don't you tell me who's violent in this video, huh? []

Re:doubt it (1)

superwiz (655733) | about 3 years ago | (#37530434)

Probably whoever the editor of the video wanted to portray as destructive. I did mention that NYPD is not a civil police department. They respond to provocation all too aggressively. If there is provocation which is cut out of the video, it's easy to make the police look like the bad guys. But the job of police is to keep professional cool even in the face of provocation.

Any reliable coverage? (3, Interesting)

OverlordQ (264228) | about 3 years ago | (#37530110)

Is there any reliable coverage outside of these first person blogs?

Re:Any reliable coverage? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37530204)

Local ABC 7 and NBC New York covered them only in passing. The tones of the two were worlds apart - ABC 7 was an absolute hatchet job, not bothering to interview any of the protesters, then resorted to name-calling (whiny, privileged, etc.). NBC actually got as far into the nitty-gritty as a two minute clip would allow.

scum (1)

deathtopaulw (1032050) | about 3 years ago | (#37530114)

Just trying to provoke a similarly violent reaction from the protesters to make their job a lot easier and remove the tension. They're trained to think protests always go awry, and when it doesn't happen in a timely fashion, they create it.

Expected Police Violence (1, Insightful)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about 3 years ago | (#37530122)

Police violence against civilians is becoming an increasingly expected occurrence. Will the officers involved in these incidents be punished in a way that discourages future abuse? Can the public reasonably expect to see that punishment? Can the public trust police officers? I've been to protests where I've seen officers calm down the situation, and situations where officers escalated or created a dangerous situation (at the same protest!). Couple incidents like these with recent stories involving misuse of tasers and general police brutality, and the issue is the police are moving from our trusted protectors to our abusive jailors in the public eye. That is horribly dangerous for everyone, including the police.

Re:Expected Police Violence (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 3 years ago | (#37530302)

This video [] shows both good a bad officers as well. And yes, it is worse for the vast majority of good cops out there because of a few idiots with guns and badges.

The protesters want this. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37530146)

Remember that the protesters want to be treated like this. They're asking for it. Without this "mistreatment" they won't get the media attention they crave. They're attention whores.

They are unorganized. They've got no permit for their protest. They've got no clear message. They've got no clear demands. They're simply angry and unhappy and want people to know it. They want change but can't say what changes they want. They all bought into promises of "Hope" and "Change" and "Yes we can!" a couple of years back and are now disappointed and disillusioned that the United States of American wasn't magically transformed into a Socialist People's Utopia overnight when the Chosen One took his rightful place upon the throne.

Terrorists! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37530152)

A bit more than half a century ago, here on the other side of the ocean, we had something called "the resistance": groups of people fighting for their freedom, sovereignty or at the very least against an invader. We've seen similar groups later on and slowly but steadily we started to call them terrorists since otherwise it might be a bit too obvious "we" actually were the invading bad guys.

Soon we may need a resistance again.

For freedom! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37530186)

Death to tyranny!
To all the people protesting over there: GO! Take down the tyrants that brought you abusive copyright laws, a broken economy, the TSA and the patriot act! And get all authority-abusing cops suspended and jailed!
Freedom and what should be your rights as humans and citizens are well worth the fight! Don't let them stop you now!

Hmmm... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 years ago | (#37530188)

Given the absence, thus far, of 'heroic cop wounded in line of duty while saving city from anarchist scum' stories, I'm going to go out on a limb and suspect that the protesters represent no meaningful threat to the cops who've been containing them. And, since riot cops never commit, much less revel in [] , the sort of activity that makes people call 'cops' 'pigs', I can only assume that the heavily equipped and rather illiberal police forces of New York have been defending one of the major local industries from outsiders with considerable zeal...

I support the police (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37530196)

Hippies are dirty and Slashdot is just fanning the fire.

Videos I've seen (3, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 3 years ago | (#37530234)

You know, of all the videos I've seen, I've noticed one thing. They start either right after or only a second or two before the police undertake some form of action (arrest, detainment, macing, tasing, etc). Why don't these videos ever show us what is happening in the few minutes prior? If you are lucky, the longest you ever get to see is about 20-30 seconds. If the protestors really are acting peacefully, then why aren't the showing the parts of the video showing them being peaceful before the police's "brutal, unprovoked aggression"? I assume that, in events like this, the protestors always have cameras rolling in case of police action, so you can't say that there is no video of this. I'm sure most protestors there really are acting peacefully, but in the thousands that are there, you can't say there aren't any intentionally trying to provoke a police response.

And I know I'll probably take a karma hit for this, but I'm still not posting AC, because I am trying to point out what I see as a major hypocrisy in the US protest culture these days: entrapment on the part of police is always decried as immoral, wrong, or illegal, but it is perfectly fine for protestors to entrap police.

Re:Videos I've seen (1)

Chaos1 (466833) | about 3 years ago | (#37530368)

I got that impression as well. In at least one video you can see the arms of a protester swinging at a cop before they pan over to show the officer grabbing and subduing them. Just because you yell "this is a peaceful protest" does not make it one.

I'm not saying that there's not overly aggressive cops involved, just that the story is being skewed in both directions.

Re:Videos I've seen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37530392)

To be honest it is most likely because there wasn't much worth recording up to that point. That may not be the case, but it seems likely.

Protest - permit required (2)

milbournosphere (1273186) | about 3 years ago | (#37530240)

Forgive my (lack of) understanding of this, as it's been a while since I took my civics courses. Doesn't requiring permits in order to protest violate our first amendment right to peacefully assemble? Just like 'free speech zones', it seems that these measures tale away from our right to assemble peacefully to protest one thing or another, not just under the American constitution, but under the UN's Declaration of Human Rights as well.

Furthermore... (1)

SeeSp0tRun (1270464) | about 3 years ago | (#37530296)

How does one protest the requirement of a permit in order to protest?

Re:Furthermore... (1)

Duradin (1261418) | about 3 years ago | (#37530344)

File a complaint at the appropriate clerk's office or air your grievance at the next $APPROPRIATE_LEVEL_OF_GOVERNMENT meeting.

Re:Furthermore... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37530444)

Organise a few thousand people to stand in line for one.

Re:Protest - permit required (5, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about 3 years ago | (#37530460)

Under current case law the permit system is largely allowed, though it may violate the Constitution depending on how it's applied. The government may place "reasonable" "time, place and manner" restrictions on protests in order to maintain public order and safety, but is not supposed to prohibit protests entirely, or treat them differently based on the content of the protest (this is easiest to show if they treat protestors for and against some position differently).

I don't, for the record, think that interpretation of the Constitution is correct. Were it up to me, I would treat public protest similarly to publication: the government may prosecute actually illegal activity (libel for publication, or violence in the case of protests) if it ever takes place, but there should be an extremely high bar for prior restraint through anything like a permitting or imprimatur system before the speech even takes place.

I hope they're not trying to disrupt the market (3, Insightful)

LordNacho (1909280) | about 3 years ago | (#37530274)

because to do that they'd have to be in Secaucus, NJ.

Is that English? (1)

rs1n (1867908) | about 3 years ago | (#37530276)

I was having trouble understanding the title of the summary. Is that really the same as "Conflict between protesters and NYPD occupy Wall Street, and Escalating" ?

Re:Is that English? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37530390)

Occupy Wall Street is acting as a noun here - the name of the group of individuals who are present

Follow the money (1)

IMightB (533307) | about 3 years ago | (#37530290)

Don't fuck with the police/politicians and the source of their bribe money..

Not much to report. (5, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 3 years ago | (#37530308)

No real agenda, no real leadership, no real solutions, no real propose.
Frankly just causing more harm than good and now Moore to make things even worse.
He will make a movie about it, his Dittoheads will go and feel all righteously indignant and he will collect another nice paycheck.

If you say it is the Republicans fault you are just a drone.
If you say it is the Democrats fault you are just a drone.
If you say that President Obama is all to blame you are a troll.
If you say that none of it is President Obama's fault you are a mindless fanboi.
If you think that being a Democrate makes you better than a Republican you are a fool.
If you think that being a Republican makes you better than Democrate you are fool.
If you are a Libertarian well your just in fantasy land.

The solution.
Talk less, listen more, stop treating elections like sporting events, stop vilifying those that disagree with you, and vote in the primaries.
Oh and treat the election like this, this is a job interview and you are the boss. Grill them and then pick.
And don't waste your time sitting on the street eating donated pizza and babbling.

So this is the new Slashdot? (2, Insightful)

MaxBooger (1877454) | about 3 years ago | (#37530340)

Really? This is what it's come to?

I come here for the nerdy, techy, geeky news items of the day. This story is none of those.

  There are plenty of sites that I can go to that cover the activist social ranting scene. There is only one Slashdot. Please don't wreck the latter by trying to make it the former.

Re:So this is the new Slashdot? (3, Informative)

plopez (54068) | about 3 years ago | (#37530462)

Slashdot is also for "stuff that matters".

Re:So this is the new Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37530484)

This event IS stuff that matters.

Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37530426)

I love it when cops crack the skulls of hippies. Get a job!

Traffic cameras. (1)

plopez (54068) | about 3 years ago | (#37530438)

I wonder if the traffic cameras can confirm or dispel police brutality reports. Or if there will be "malfunctions" and footage will disappear.

30 second search on find an article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37530448)

not a lot of details, but from the sound of it, not that big of a deal

Protest is in the news & has a goal (5, Informative)

prgrmr (568806) | about 3 years ago | (#37530450)

You can find links on google's new page, like this one: []

The protesters are actually fairly well organized with planned events, a voting process for making immediate decisions, and a goal of getting Obama to acknowledge the wealth gap and appointing a commission to recommend actions for dealing with it.

The "traditional" media is indeed ignoring it. There's an on-going debate on twitter about whether or not the twitter admins are actively suppressing the #occupywallstreet hash-tag from trending.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?