Occupy Dallas Supports the Police

After all the talk by OWS supporters about how the police are corrupt it’s nice to see that there are some reasonable OWS protesters out there. Leave it to people in Texas to do it correctly. I guess all the people on ATS screaming police brutality failed to notify the Occupy Dallas protesters because they seem to be getting along with the police just fine. These people know that when they break the law they go to jail (many have). They understand that if they chose to escalate the violence the police will respond with force and people will get hurt. Yet they are still out there every day spreading their message and showing solidarity with the OWS movement. Maybe the Oakland and New York protesters should follow the example set by these folks??

www.nbcdfw.com...

Occupy Dallas Marches to Support Police

Occupy Dallas marched through downtown Thursday to support the Dallas Police Department officers who arrested nearly two dozen of the protesters Monday.

Nearly two dozen Occupy Dallas demonstrators were arrested and charged with criminal trespass after blocking the entrance to a downtown Chase bank branch Monday.

Thursday's march from the group's camp at City Hall to police headquarters and back was peaceful. Around two-dozen demonstrators chanted slogans of support for police at headquarters, then stood beside the officers assigned to watch the march.

Occupy Dallas said they were showing support for police and protesting budget cuts to the department.

"The policemen put their lives on the line for us every day, and they're getting paid a fifth of what the politicians that sit in office that are corrupt," protester Jared Schiffner said.

reply to post by seabag

Occupy is definetely a much more bonafide grassroot movement because there are all kinds of people there. There are even OccupyMarine, OccupyArmy, OccupyAirForce, and yes OccupyPolice.

OccupyPolice.org

There's a misconception that Police aren't part of the 99% - This should end that misconception

Outreach

If your an officer and you wanna talk with us about the occupation in your city, E-Mail us at [email protected] The world wants to hear your side of the story, unofficial and anonymous if you prefer, we're here for you - OccupyPolice.org

All of us are against the cops? The majority are against the cops? A few? Good for Dallas I hope more follow that example. Hopefully this is a start.

www.occupypolice.org...

reply to post by seabag


People, seriously, use discretion. If you see police officers beating people with batons, mind you ARMLESS people, with batons, there is NO justice in this! Using necessary force,* i.e No weapons against armless people, are elementary standards for a good moral relationship between citizens and the police of authority.

Originally posted by Zarxx
reply to post by seabag

 

People, seriously, use discretion. If you see police officers beating people with batons, mind you ARMLESS people, with batons, there is NO justice in this! Using necessary force,* i.e No weapons against armless people, are elementary standards for a good moral relationship between citizens and the police of authority.

That is absolutely untrue. As I stated in another post, the police have the duty to use the appropriate amount of force necessary to protect the public. The police tried unsuccessfully to disperse the crowds in Oakland but they were surrounded and outnumbered by angry protesters who were throwing things and becoming more violent. When people throw objects at the police and attempt to impede the arrest of suspects the police are justified in escalating force.

www.riversideca.gov...

Generally, the deployment of less lethal munitions should have the goal to restore order
and/or reduce the risk of more serious injury. Incidents where deployment may be an option
include, but are not limited to, the following:

4.30 - 5
• Restoration or maintenance of order during a jail or civil disturbance.
• Safely controlling violent persons.
• Subduing vicious animals.
• Situations wherein the authorizing person deems their use necessary to safely
resolve the incident.

Depending on circumstances, less lethal weapons can be used to safely control violent or
potentially violent suspects when the officer reasonably believes the following conditions
exist:
• Attempts to control the incident with lesser force options have been, or will likely be
ineffective in the situation, and
• There is a reasonable expectation that it would be tactically unwise for officers to
approach or place themselves in range of the suspect.

reply to post by seabag
Thank You Seabag. Thanks for bringing this example of another face to the OWS movement one will NEVER find on The Blaze, Fox News or even MSNBC by the way a recent Oakland interview seemed to be directed for a predetermined outcome.

Not everyone in the movement is 'OK' with picking fights with the Police and some even work in Law Enforcement when they aren't contributing to the OWS of their local area. We need more folks to point out that Oakland, Boston and Denver need NOT be the only way this all works. What a wonderful thread to find among so many very anti-OWS ones over the past couple days.

reply to post by seabag


The people have a right to be pissed. And all the cops are doing is protecting the corruption that is ruining this country and this world. They are not using discretion on this, and I am sure that almost over half of those pigs are happy to get paid their extra lump sum they are taking home to do this garbage. When cops randomly go around pepper spraying into crowds, that to me doesnt seem like they are protecting anyone. And batoning someone ONCE would suffice, not repeatedly beating them over and over again.


EDT - And I suppose pepper spraying children is okay too right?