

My Occupy LA Arrest, by Patrick Meighan - Maakuth
http://myoccupylaarrest.blogspot.com/2011/12/my-occupy-la-arrest-by-patrick-meighan.html

======
paulhauggis
It's difficult for me to believe any of these stories without more proof.

There was a video going around a couple of weeks ago about how "peaceful
protesters" were pepper-sprayed and arrested by the cops. All news
organizations showed us only what they wanted to show us to make a point that
the cops were the bad ones in the situation.

The full video showed the protesters not listening when the cops told them to
leave, making a circle around them, and not allowing them to leave. The cops
also told them to cover their eyes because they were about to get sprayed.

I wish people from both sides would stop spewing out so much propaganda.

~~~
mindslight
> _It's difficult for me to believe any of these stories without more proof._

You're either claiming that the posting is a fake, or that the author (someone
quasi-notable, even) has outright _lied_ about their treatment. You're spewing
FUD to justify your continued fantasy where the cops are the good guys.

Honestly, created 8 days ago? I hate Eternal September.

~~~
paulhauggis
"created 8 days ago?"

Haha, I've been reading HN for 3+ years now. In fact, I was thinking the same
thing when I read your response. A forum is supposed to be about expressing
your opinions. I wasn't being offensive but because I'm not all on board with
your opinions, you have to jump to conclusions and throw an online temper
tantrum. It's things like these that will make me leave HN for good (believe
me, I've thought about it many times).

Moving on from the ad hominem.....

"You're either claiming that the posting is a fake, or that the author
(someone quasi-notable, even) has outright lied about their treatment. You're
spewing FUD to justify your continued fantasy where the cops are the good
guys."

Would you call not telling an important part of the story lying? I'm sorry but
I've seen too many OWS supporters spread false information about their
situation in order to make themselves look like the good guys. I can't tell
you how many Photoshopped pictures I've seen as the truth and other people
out-right denying things that happened.

If you can't be an adult and tell me the truth, I will never be on your side.

I also don't know about you but I don't automatically assume everything that a
"quasi-notable" author/star/etc is the truth. This is how many countries have
gotten themselves into trouble.

~~~
mindslight
A lie of omission is a lie, yes. But let's take a look at some actual passages
from the article:

> _Each seated, nonviolent protester beside me who refused to cooperate by
> unlinking his arms had the following done to him: an LAPD officer would
> forcibly extend the protestor’s legs, grab his left foot, twist it all the
> way around and then stomp his boot on the insole, pinning the protestor’s
> left foot to the pavement, twisted backwards. Then the LAPD officer would
> grab the protestor’s right foot and twist it all the way the other direction
> until the non-violent protestor, in incredible agony, would shriek in pain
> and unlink from his neighbor_

> _When I involuntarily recoiled from the pain, the LAPD officer threw me
> face-first to the pavement. He had my hands behind my back, so I landed
> right on my face. The officer dropped with his knee on my back and ground my
> face into the pavement_

> _a separate team of LAPD officers used knives to slice open every personal
> tent in the park_ ... _and then yanked out and destroyed any personal
> property inside those tents_

> _As a reminder, Antonio Villaraigosa has referred to all of this as “the
> LAPD’s finest hour.”_

So, we have a group of people in a _public park_ exercising their _right to
protest_ , whereby they are arrested with systematic excessive force while
their belongings are destroyed. What could have been omitted that would
possibly justify this?

Furthermore, you're asserting that the author must be lying in some way,
without presenting any proof of your own. I can only conclude you aren't
looking for truth at all, but for justification to dismiss the post as it
doesn't fit with your world view.

~~~
anamax
How, exactly, should LAPD have gotten those folks unlinked and removed them?
Remember, those folks didn't want to unlink. Your answer should include some
evidence showing that it would have worked.

Your right to protest does not include a right to occupy a public park for an
indefinite amount of time.

As to their property, they were given notice that it would be removed. They
ignored said notice. Again, what would you have the police do?

Acceptable answers result in the property removed without the cooperation of
the owners or significant costs to the city.

FWIW, Villarigosa's statements in favor of these actions are perhaps the best
argument against them in my mind because he's a disaster.

~~~
mindslight
> _How, exactly, should LAPD have gotten those folks unlinked and removed
> them?_

By waiting for them to do something they should actually be arrested for,
rather than using trumped up misdemeanor charges as an excuse to quash
dissent.

> _Your right to protest does not include a right to occupy a public park for
> an indefinite amount of time._

Actually, it does. Every one of these protesters is choosing to spend their
time in this park (symbolizing something) rather than carrying about their
lives. What harm is being done? Public parks aren't in short supply.

> _significant costs to the city._

Government efficiency is an anti-feature. If police save 50% doing something a
certain way, that just means they'll do twice as much of it.

~~~
anamax
> > How, exactly, should LAPD have gotten those folks unlinked and removed
> them?

> By waiting for them to do something they should actually be arrested for

That's not a mechanism for unlinking.

> Government efficiency is an anti-feature. If police save 50% doing something
> a certain way, that just means they'll do twice as much of it.

In other words, you want to abolish govt spending. Great!

~~~
mindslight
If one refuses to cooperate with an arrest it's reasonable for the police to
carry out the procedure without the person's cooperation, but this is a far
cry from forcing the person to cooperate through physical abuse. If one goes
limp during an arrest, it's not unreasonable for the police to carry them, but
it's highly unreasonable for the police to kick a person on the ground until
they decide to get up of their 'own' volition.

Also, it's not my job to brainstorm ways for the police to carry out their
missions, and some things will always be physically impossible for them to do.
Tough. For example, it's probably impossible to read my encrypted disks. Does
this mean the police, in the process of collecting evidence, should be able to
beat me until I unlock them?

> _In other words, you want to abolish govt spending. Great!_

You state this as if you expect it to be incongruent with my beliefs.
Honestly, the most worrisome part of OWS is seeing supposed small-government
people supporting heavy-handed disruption of the protesters.

~~~
anamax
Lots of words, but you still haven't explained an acceptable-to-you means of
getting them to unlink.

