In a recent thread, Kali was saying that she was trying to understand why a lot of the people on this forum seem to view Occupy as filthy hippies, punk kids, domestic terrorists etc; whereas the police are defended and apologised for, more or less no matter what they do. It's as though Occupy can literally do no right, and the police can do no wrong.

For a while, this seemed like a very puzzling paradox, but I've been thinking about it, and I think I might have figured it out. My theory on this at the moment, at least, is that the police are viewed as authority figures. A lot of people on ATS seem to feel that they require police intervention in their lives, in order to survive. I've seen any number of posts recently rationalising police brutality, as well as defending the authorities when they set up checkpoints at bus stations and such.

A lot of the people around here mentally associate the police with protection and a feeling of security, I am starting to suspect. The police make them feel safe. They also need to believe that the only job of the police is to make them feel safe, to the point where they are not willing to hear a word against them; because after all, if the police can't act as your parental figure and protect you from all the terrorists and the other big, dark scary monsters out there, who is going to?

So there is a determination and a craving to never view the police in a negative light, no matter what they do, because of the above. Occupy, conversely, are viewed as a threat. They are attempting to act in violation of the sense of order and security that the police provide.

A lot of the people on this forum (and in Western society more broadly) do not want freedom at all. Freedom is seen as extremely threatening to them, because it means that they would need to look after themselves, and define their own objectives, etc. Worst of all, freedom means open-ended situations, which means lack of control. Freedom means chaos. Freedom means a scenario where they might encounter, however peripherally, their own fear of death.

Said people will gladly give up every last freedom they have, and live in an extremely controlled society, as long as that means that they never have to take any responsibility for anything themselves, and they can feel as though they have someone else looking after them.

Because of that, Occupy will never find much support from the majority of the American public, sad as it is to say. Occupy are trying to create something which is the opposite of what the majority want. Occupy are attempting to encourage self-determination in people, which directly translates to adulthood, and the American people largely do not want that.

They just want to be protected.

They want to be protected from the endless number of perceived threats which they have been trained to see everywhere. They want to be protected from the terrorists, and the paedophiles, and disease, and sharp knives, and guns, and criminals, and "filthy hippies," and black people, and whichever other group or thing that the government tells them to be afraid of.

I'm truthfully wondering, how long it will be, before police are expected, whenever they encounter civilians outside, (including physical, but not psychological adults) to pick them up and put them in the back of a squad car, drive them home, put their bottle in a microwave, change their nappy, give them their blankie, and put them to bed. I am aware that that is the scenario which all of the rationalisers, and the justifiers, and the police apologists, and the people who beg for protection from the terrorists, really want.

They just want someone to put them back in their playpen.

You may have a point.

You have got to remember that due to the fact that this is a conspiracy site, conservative minded people are drawn to this place. What is generally the mindset of a conservative?

1. There must be some form of order and rule.
2. Love God and country
3. The government as a whole is not corrupt, just certain individuals within it.
4. To rebuke authority is almost equivicable to immorality.

Once you put all of those considerations into perspective, the picture becomes a bit clearer.

It actually makes perfect sense.
They like to keep us divided, that is why people are are generally against the idea of protesting, or do not see what is before their very eyes. At least occupy had some idea as to what is going on, Most people cannot say that. Lots of people continue to perpetuate the differences between the most minor of things. Like skin color. or sexual orientation.

(Most people -think- they know whats going on)

But the government, banks, and corporations do not have your interest at heart, they have eachothers interest in that spot (if you call it a heart). Like rats in a cage.

The OP makes an interesting argument, albeit not one that I agree with. I cannot say I have ever had an altercation with any police enforcement officer, indeed the local garda where I live are great guys to have around, although their numbers are sparse.

In order to try to further balance the argument, I thought it would be good to look at the various mottos of the police forces around the world, so see what members are taught are the values that underpin their organisation, and lend a hand to how their roles should be fulfilled in everyday law enforcement:

The NYPD: "fidelis ad mortem" or "faithful unto death"
Metropolitan Police: "Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity"
The Russian Police Force: "By serving the law we serve the people"
The French Police:"La cohésion fait la force" or "Cohesion brings strength"
The Australian (NSW) Police: "Culpam Poena Premit Comes" or "Punishment Follows Closely On Guilt"
and finally
The Canadian Mounted Police: "Maintiens le droit" or "Defending the Law"

Interesting to see that only one of the mottos even mentions the word "people" The NYPD motto is a bit open to interperetation; faithful unto death to whom or what?

Anyhow, just thought I would throw it in, see what happens.
Don't shoot me or get me arrested!

I'm no apologist for the police, I will criticize them when I see where there's real brutality. But I will also defend them when I see they have truly done their jobs and all people want to do is bash them.

There is a fair amount of cop haters on this site also.

A good example of this is in one thread in which it was reported one woman had been arrested and handcuffed, so what does she do? She decides to run while still being handcuffed. The officer tazed her, she fell to the ground, injured her head, and is now brain dead.

So they do the cops haters do? Want to prevent the cop from tazing her. If that woman hadn't decided to run, she wouldn't have forced the cop to react in his manner.

But the cop haters whine and say he shouldn't have done anything and his actions should have been restricted. When it was revealed she was wanted for hit and run, they didn't care, they still blamed the cop. In other words, no matter what the circumstances the cop haters believe it's the cop's fault and she did nothing wrong. I strongly disagree with that, believe that if the woman hadn't ran, he would not have tazed her. She forced him to do so, the responsibility is hers, not the cops.

But anything to bash a cop. Nothing else matters but finding fault with the cop. You can't use reason with these people.

You also can't use reason with the pro-cop crowd either. The flip side to the cop haters is that no matter what a cop can do no wrong and will always defend a cop, no matter what.

Both of them are extreme views, and I can't stand either of them.

Each case needs to be examined carefully on its individual merits and flaws, and people should refrain from making knee jerk reactions until all the facts are in about the case. That's why I'm not commenting on the Trayvon case.

But 95% of everything is bullchit.

But make no mistake, when I do see clear cut cases of brutality or the police doing something wrong, I do want to see them held accountable for it.