
Occupy Portland's Dec 3rd Tactic to Neutralize Police - nameless_noob
http://www.portlandoccupier.org/2011/12/15/occupy-portland-outsmarts-police-creating-blueprint-for-other-occupations/
======
oldstrangers
So their ground breaking discovery for outsmarting the police is to ... leave
and then come back. And maybe play some music. The Art of War style write up
is humorously grandiose for something so silly. These people take themselves
entirely too seriously.

On another note, pay attention to whats happening over on Reddit and their
attempt to unseat Paul Ryan in protest of SOPA/PIPA. They're putting their
collective time, effort, and (most importantly) money into something that
might actually have an effect. Ultimately, the 72 hours or so that Reddit has
taken up this initiative is already appearing more effective than months of
misguided OWS noise.

Going back even further, look at the Internet's success with GoDaddy and the
few other companies changing their stance on SOPA. Get out of the streets
already and go actually make a difference with some concentrated focus and
brain power.

~~~
jberryman
> These people take themselves entirely too seriously. > ... > look at the
> Internet's success with GoDaddy and the few other companies changing their
> stance on SOPA.

What exactly is your metric for success here? A sleazy company changed their
stance on a bill that the public is completely unaware of and couldn't give
two shits about?

I think "the internet" is taking itself too seriously.

Meanwhile a nation-wide protest movement has at the very least succeeded in
planting the issue of systemic economic injustice into mainstream public
discourse on a daily basis. History may show OWS to be the catalyst for the
resurrection of a real progressive movement in America.

~~~
oldstrangers
The occupy camps have been largely impotent. Whatever immeasurable
metaphysical success they've found thus far is more than likely purely
coincidental. The collective attitudes of all individuals tend to shift in
similar directions when shit gets bad enough. If the building is on fire, most
people are going to head for the exits. Claiming that it was OWS that got
people talking about income inequality is kind of silly. And even if that is
their one success, it's a pretty meaningless victory when shit like NDAA is
being passed. "Did you hear? Corporations run this country..." / "No I didn't
Bob, I'm being detained indefinitely at GITMO for arguing with a flight
attendant."

> Meanwhile a nation-wide protest movement has at the very least succeeded in
> planting the issue of systemic economic injustice into mainstream public
> discourse on a daily basis.

Not a single person has mentioned OWS (in a non ironic sense) to me in
probably more than a month. In that time, the internet fought tooth and nail
to stop something they disagreed with, and they at least saw some semblance of
success. And while the bill has only been delayed, it's quite clear that the
'hands on' approach to protesting is more effective than shitting in public
places and getting beat up by the police.

As a disclaimer, I did originally have high hopes for OWS. The people were
passionate, and they had the energy needed. But their lack of direction and
purpose shortly became apparent, and their almost A.D.D. like inability to
focus on something became laughable. They would become so easily distracted by
petty violence and police abuse that 90% of the occupy videos on YouTube are
about the police. Which of course resulted in the majority of media attention
being given to local police issues and not the widespread economic corruption
they original fought against.

Once it became apparent that the occupy groups weren't going to try and shift
their attention or direct themselves towards a goal, the whole thing
deteriorated into a repetitive circus of hide and go seek with local police.
Ultimately, they succeeded in removing any momentum they had and have
literally become stagnant.

~~~
pork
I was a part of Occupy Oakland, and even though we had the worst police
action, I completely agree with oldstranger. It became bizarre when Berkeley
students earnestly urged everyone to help the other protestors "find a place
to sleep tonight, even at your own home", when at least a third of the
protestors were permanently homeless.

------
corin_
I don't know if this is a difference between UK and US police tactics, or if
it's specific to Portland - I also don't know if it's the case that the
difference was caused by not caring as much or just by not being as
successful: UK police have done a much better job in the past, and rendered
this article nonsense.

The key difference:

 _> Since we had no clear destination, the police were unable to get ahead of
us and set up roadblocks._

If the police have such small numbers that they cannot afford to take any
manpower away from the back of the march then yes, obviously this is the case.
But really, with police vans offering fast transport there is no reason they
cannot prevent a moving demonstration from moving. Obviously, budget comes
into play, for example police helicopters can help them see what is going on
and help them create tactics to counter it.

An example of what I'm talking about is Kettling
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettling>), a term which has only really gained
popularity in the press in the last few years, but police (at least in the UK)
have used this method for a hell of a long time - not always as viciously as
the image most people think of for the term now, that of demonstrators being
stuck and not allowed out for hours and hours.

~~~
dotBen
As a Brit now living in US, I came here to mention Kettling too. _(Kettling is
when the police entirely surround a protest group and will not let anyone
enter or leave for many many hours)._

Unlike the other comment on this sub-thread, I don't see any reason why
Kettling wouldn't work here in the US _(sadly)_ if the police used it. The
density of the streets in UK doesn't come into it when you consider the
Kettling that took place in Oxford Circus, London during May Day riots a few
years ago.

I think the issue for Kettling in the US is that police here rely more on
aggression and fear of attack (the heavy infantry, as the OP puts it) then
strategy and tactical superiority. As the OP observes, this then goes horribly
wrong for the Police when they are forced to assert that aggression physically
on protestors.

The other issue for Kettling here in US is constitutional rights. In the UK
the police will Kettle a crowd for hours - which in real terms mean they will
not let you out even if you decide to give up protesting. This is frankly as a
punitive action more than anything else. My guess is constitutionally the
police might not be able to do this to undetained, unarrested citizens.

~~~
nerfhammer
In my experiences with NYPD blockades as a passerby they typically forcefully
imply rather than directly state you're not allowed through, and if you insist
I've always seen them sheepishly give up.

~~~
dotBen
The whole point with Kettling, which kinda makes it punitive, is that they are
100% clear that you are not leaving the enclosed pen they have created.

Sometimes the kettling can go on for 6+ hrs and even with protestors demanding
toilet breaks, water or medical issues from standing up for so long, the
police have refused them to leave.

~~~
ms4720
In the US I think that might come under false arrest or illegal imprisonment
by the police.

~~~
nerfhammer
Unlawful detainment, among other things I think.

~~~
pstuart
They should definitely contact the police about that unlawful behavior.

------
tptacek
So here's HN in 2012: the Hiring Thread, which leads this month with a chorus
of comments about how effective HN has been for finding people awesome jobs or
companies awesome candidates, is at the bottom of the front page just a few
hours after submission.

Meanwhile, "Occupy Portland's Dec 3rd Tactic to Neutralize Police" is at the
top.

It's unsurprising. The kinds of people who are interested in Occupy protest
tactics are _very vociferously interested_. The kinds of people who are
interested in the hiring thread aren't nearly as engaged with that topic (or,
those who are aren't numerous). "Real", on-topic HN threads are at a systemic
disadvantage to advocacy topics like Occupy.

Flagged, for whatever good that will do.

~~~
tobtoh
From your comment, I'm still not clear what your exact objection is to the
article. You appear to be complaining that an 'Occupy' thread is rated higher
than a 'hiring' thread, yet don't explain why you feel that the Occupy thread
doesn't 'gratifies one's intellectual curiosity' the way a 'hiring' thread
does.

I recognise that the 'hiring' thread is valuable to some people on HN and am
glad that the post appears, however for me, the 'hiring' thread does very
little to 'gratify my intellectual curiosity' - I'm fortunate enough to have a
job and so the thread has almost zero value for me personally.

The 'occupy' post did satisfy me intellectually - I don't have a position on
the politics either way, but the explanation of 'battle tactics', how they
developed by non-military people and how they can be used 'on the street' was
intellectually interesting.

~~~
tptacek
My politics are closer to Occupy's than to the Tea Party's, by a big margin.
I'm not asking you to flag the story because I have a problem with the
politics.

I'm asking you to flag this story because the argument for it being on the
site is a slippery slope that also includes the fundraising dynamics of the
Iowa GOP caucus.

Like I said earlier: stories like this have a systemic advantage over most
real "hacker news" topics. A "Comparison of 6 USB Stick Micro Dev Boards" ---
_unquestionably_ more germane to the site than this --- is welcome by
everyone, but passionately supported by few. Occupy (or Tea Party) advocacy is
largely unwelcome on the site _by charter_ , but passionately supported by
enough people to peg stories to the top of the front page.

The result is a site that looks more like 2008 Reddit than 2008 HN. In fact,
because HN is doing such a good job attracting the Slashdot "Your Rights
Online" crowd, we're seeing more and more stories for which Reddit threads are
_better_ than HN's.

I used to think the big problem with 'pg's guidelines were that it was squishy
about politics; it should, I thought, be rewritten to say "No politics, no
religion, no cute pictures, ever." I still think that. But the better thing
for the guidelines to say is even simpler:

 _No advocacy stories._

~~~
tobtoh
I agree with your 'no politics' stance (although does SOPA opposition fall
under that?), however, I read the article more as a 'tactics developed by
accident' than a Occupy advocacy thread. I guess we have slightly different
thresholds on the same slippery slope.

Having said that, I definitely prefer an article on micro dev boards than
protest tactics.

~~~
tptacek
Paul Graham clearly likes the SOPA threads. I pick my battles. He owns the
site, he's entitled to use it to advance his causes. (My politics overall are
leftish, but my politics on SOPA aren't within a mile of the rest of HN).

------
mhartl
The military analogy is broken. The hack isn't to use the superiority of
"light infantry" over "heavy infantry", etc. The reason the protestors can
"take a park" even when the police oppose them is because they operate in a
political system where the police can't fire on crowds. You probably think
this is always a good thing. That's the hack.

~~~
quinndupont
They can't fire live rounds, but they sure can (and do) fire rubber bullets,
flash grenades, tear gas, sound cannons, and tear gas.

~~~
ms4720
Completely different situations:

1: worse case in current situation, I may break a bone or get a concussion
followed with medical attention and bragging rights with my peers

2: fire bullets into crowd, lots of people die. Or think about using flame
throwers for crowd control

~~~
WanderingEnder
As far as the less lethal situation, using impact rounds can result in death.
Fluidity of the crowd, improper use of the launcher, pure dumb luck can all
play a role in where rounds land.

People can, and have, died from direct fire with less lethals including the
FN-303 Paint Marking launcher, various 12 gauge skip fire and direct fire
munitions, 37mm gas munitions, and 40mm direct fire less lethal and gas
munitions.

While some rounds are designed for close quarters direct fire, many are not,
and having a 40mm CS grenade hit you upside the head can be lethal.

~~~
nosse
As some kind of thumb rule, less than lethal usually means that about 2% die
and 5% don't get affected. You can make it more effective so that everybody is
affected, but then the percentage of dead people rises. Or other way around.
Usually police should use "less than lethal" weaponry only in situations where
casualties are acceptable.

------
pvarangot
Please if you think you will ever take part in a protest, for the sake of your
own safety and that of your co-protestors, don't read this article. Or if you
already did, don't take it seriously.

It has a misleading title, and poor and _dangerous_ content. Protests and
police columns so don't work that way that it's actually dangerous for this to
be on the front page and upvoted by so many people.

I do agree with most of what Occupy is about, but if the writer of this post
is trying to make any political point, he is failing.

Also, I think that a blog and an HN thread are so not the place to learn about
how to safely occupy public space and how to participate in a protest, that I
simply don't understand how hard some are trying for it to be that place...

~~~
shadowsun7
>It has a misleading title, and poor and dangerous content. Protests and
police columns so don't work that way that it's actually dangerous for this to
be on the front page and upvoted by so many people.

Why is his content wrong? I'm not saying it isn't - I just think more people
would pay heed to your warning if you can give concrete reasons (plus, I'm
curious).

~~~
pvarangot
You can find some of my opinion about the content in my other reply in this
thread. Also, the whole rummaging about light infantry and heavy infantry is
completely wrong, short of some movies I really don't know where the author
actually saw the kind of formation he seems to think is standard.

He also gets retreats completely wrong. If your adversary is competent he will
actually _encourage_ a retreat since his objective is not decimating your
forces but keeping ground, that is why it's always easy to run away from the
police in protests... not because retreat "conveys a tactical superiority". If
you are lets say holding higher ground, or for example participating in a
siege, retreat may mean you are coming back home completely decimated.

Getting further into this would sort of actually be against my own perception
of HN not being the place to discuss how to securely protest. I'll also like
to keep the internet as free as possible of myself advocating civil
disobedience in a country I'm not a citizen of.

------
jdietrich
What annoys me most about the Occupy movement is that they aren't even
intellectually active enough to study other contemporary protest movements.
I'm staggered at the number of people involved in Occupy who genuinely see
police as a bunch of cretinous thugs and don't imagine that they might
organise international conferences or share case studies.

Public order policing has been a game of cat-and-mouse for decades, following
the movements of European anarchists around the usual circuit of Mayday
protests, G8 conferences and arms fairs. It's a highly evolved field and there
are extensive playbooks on both sides.

This strategy was devised years ago, in response to police lines being used to
control and prevent marching. A core group, usually a Black Bloc, lead other
protesters in a fast march, choosing their direction only at the last possible
second. The goal is to move faster than police dispatchers can react,
preventing the police from establishing organised lines quickly enough. The
police response in the UK is pre-emptive kettling[1], in much of the rest of
the world a mix of roadblocks and simple brutality. Unless the protesters are
angry enough to run into a baton charge or prepared enough to run into CS gas,
it's a completely ineffective tactic.

Some commenters seem to believe that kettling would be illegal under US law;
It may well be, but that hasn't stopped the extensive use of "free speech
zones"[2] to pre-emptively restrict the movement of protesters. Without a
Supreme Court ruling, there's nothing to stop Portland PD or anyone else from
using kettles.

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettling> [2]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone>

------
josephkern
The author:

1\. Underestimates the superiority and effectiveness of the Command and
Control of the police force

2\. Overestimates the superiority of a mob vs a phalanx.

3\. Makes generalized assumptions over why the police allowed them to stay.

4\. Assumes that the police will not use their formation with calvary
(automobiles, aricraft, and actual horses) as a means of denying the flank or
the retreat.

This reads like someone who just went through a college course in ancient
combat and has little practical experience in the matter of Command and
Control or strategic thinking.

------
namidark
They're still around? Why dont they go protest where it matters in Washington
infront of Congress et al instead of on private property or places that make
small businesses lose business.

------
graupel
Sounds like the way Critical Mass (cycling) rides in Chicago work - with no
pre-set route the police join in and make sure no one gets hurt but they can't
really push the ride in one direction or another - the 'hive' decides where to
go. With 5,000 to 10,000 people it's a pretty huge event/example.

~~~
neilk
That's not specific to Chicago. All Critical Mass rides work that way.

------
pnathan
Wisdom would dictate reviewing the usual fate of disorganized barbarians
versus Roman legions.

------
cpeterso
To keep the park, one must leave the park.

Why the military tactics and metaphors? Many occupiers seem more interested in
"fuckin' shit up" than expressing a message. In Oakland, the city was willing
to let people assemble every day (when other people would actually _see_ their
protest), but the occupiers insisted that anything less than camping in Frank
Ogawa Plaza was defeat.

------
andrewflnr
If you want to destroy civilization, this is a pretty good start. Good
practice anyway. But if you want to make positive change, forcing police to
resort to brutality to restore order for people who are just trying to live
their lives is stupid.

Edit: instead of downvoting, try to explain why this is a good idea.

~~~
barrkel
Your argument seems to be that anything other than obedience of authority
means destruction of civilization, and sounds hyperbolic and reactionary.
Apply that principle to apartheid, British Raj, Tahrir, etc. and see how it
looks.

~~~
andrewflnr
Non-violent resistance to injustice is one thing. Indefinitely evading police
for little other purpose, that I can see, of getting in the way is another.
I'm not quite sure where the line is, but this kind of thing scares me.

If a person or group deliberately incites law enforcement to escalate the
level of violence in the performance of their duty, are they not partially
responsible for that violence? Are their goals worth having that
responsibility? They seem to be doing it specifically to get a "PR loss by the
police department". What purpose does that serve, in the long run, except to
undermine people's respect for the government?

Civilization hangs on a fine thread of voluntary compliance to the government.
It is supplemented by force/violence in various degrees, but most of the time
it's only conditioning and conscience that keeps people in check. The
restraints of force and conditioning are swept aside by just such measures as
these. The article frankly uses military terminology. These are the tools of
governmental overthrow, and I believe they are being used recklessly.

~~~
ldh
> Civilization hangs on a fine thread of voluntary compliance to the
> government.

That sounds pretty much exactly backwards from any society I want to be a part
of. I don't exist in service of a government, but can choose to tolerate a
government that provides value to me.

~~~
andrewflnr
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not talking about how to design a society,
I'm talking about a necessary aspect of the relationship between government
and the governed. Simply, the government cannot force you to do what it wants
all the time. It's impossible, even for brutal totalitarian governments. A few
slip through the nets.

For a light example, think about speeding, or carpool lane compliance. Most of
the time, there is actually no one to stop or punish you for speeding or
driving in the carpool lane with the wrong number of people. Most people do
the right thing anyway. This is good.

So any compliance with its laws is largely voluntary, based on, among other
things, the value provided by the government and the obvious benefits to
everyone if everyone follows the law.

~~~
barrkel
I think you'll find that obeying such things doesn't come from deference to
authority, but rather peer pressure combined with a recognition of the justice
of such regulations. The reason I don't speed in urban streets isn't because I
want to obey the government; it's because I'll look like an ass, endangering
other road users.

I think there's a deeper issue. I suspect you have confused mechanism with
purpose. Government coercion is a mechanism for enforcing system goals, where
hopefully those goals are agreed upon in a democratic or enlightened fashion.
But it is not the government coercion that is good; it is the goals. It is
right that government coercion be resisted when the goals are not noble; and
doing so does not risk society falling apart, because it doesn't attack what
makes society work.

It's not mere "conditioning and conscience" that keeps people in check. The
biggest thing that keeps people in check is actually social norms and risking
the disapproval of your peers. And those are surprisingly strong forces.

And if you think the kinds of disobedience we're talking about here risk
government overthrow, you haven't seen what governments are capable of doing
to stay in power. It's humorous to read about Americans thinking their second
amendment right to bear arms defends themselves from the excesses of
government. Governments are a lot more resilient than that. The real risk to
governments comes from military avenues: mutinies, coups, invasion. A
government with nuclear arms (i.e. MAD deterrence of invasion) and in control
of a loyal military will not be overthrown by its citizens.

But I do agree with you that what we're seeing is corrosive to trust in
government. But the answer isn't to bow one's head, go home and be a good
little consumer. The answer is to demand that government changes. In a
democracy, a big part of that publicity-seeking actions. Ideally, we'd be
seeing dialogue and debate, not riot police and polarizing denunciations.

~~~
andrewflnr
I guess I include peer pressure in "conditioning". It's not that I think
Occupy Portland will result, directly, in the overthrow of the United States
government. I said they're the tools of government, but they're not being used
forcefully yet, just waved around in the air by people who don't seem to know
what they're playing with. "Corrosive to trust in government" is a good way of
putting what bothers me about this.

We do need to demand change in our government. If we're going to act in
unison, that's where we need to do it. I just don't see the games described in
the article as being anything but destructive.

------
nameless_noob
What drew me to this article was it's discussion of the tactics a unorganized
group can do and try all at once. A neat superposition of several topics.

Like a glorified case of the wisdom of crowds.

~~~
christkv
unfortunately any mass movement is dependent on being able to apply political
pressure. It might work if there is a growing momentum and you end up with an
'orange' revolution. Most likely it's going to simply die out by itself unless
it can actually transform into a political force.

Being in Spain I can tell you the protests accomplished nothing, changed
nothing politically and ended up dissolving themselves once it got cold.

~~~
calibraxis
Yes, I personally think that if these Occupy movements result in organizing
long-term institutions which help people, then they're successful. Lurid riot
porn is not a victory condition.

One problem is the attitude mentioned in the article: "This has been a show of
bravado that has the tactical benefits of providing media coverage of the
brutal methods of police and the benefit of draining the resources of the
oppressor by forcing them to incur the expense of arresting and prosecuting
people for trivial offenses." (Keep in mind that the US imprisons its populace
far more than any other nation, so this is no joke.) I read this rebuttal
recently:

 _"Getting arrested as an unavoidable consequence of standing up for a cause
is noble; getting arrested as a voluntary, symbolic act is widely considered
bizarre, at best. Moreover, it frustrates huge sectors of the movement who see
an opportunity cost to the resources that go into unnecessary jail support,
bail, and legal costs. Perhaps worst of all, voluntary arrest is seen by
members of especially targeted communities as flaunting arrestees’ race and
class privilege."_

([http://www.zcommunications.org/pacifism-and-diversity-of-
tac...](http://www.zcommunications.org/pacifism-and-diversity-of-tactics-a-
compromise-proposal-by-brian-dominick))

~~~
westicle
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks>

It might be bizarre, but it is also historically effective.

~~~
calibraxis
Yeah, those examples are discussed in the ZCommunications article, as
effective in only some situations. ( _"True as this is, don’t forget that
these movements were addressing state and societal brutality against entire
groups of people as the primary focus of their strategy; state violence was
thus an illustration of their point. In the case of a holistic movement
primarily focused on elite rule instead of state repression, police violence
is a distraction. It may earn you sympathies, but it does not help to make
your point in any clearly illustrative manner, as it did in these examples."_
)

------
Anechoic
"Get the music blaring [...]"

This piece of advice will get people fined (and possibly arrested) for
violating noise ordinances in many municipalities. You're better off marching
silently.

~~~
Symmetry
They're already violating a lot of ordinances - a few more won't matter much.

~~~
dmix
I imagine thats how tons of kids justified breaking into stores during the
Vancouver hockey riots.

~~~
nerfhammer
Those would be felonies though

------
da5e
>They're putting their collective time, effort, and (most importantly) money
into something

The Occupy protesters put their BODIES into something. Both approaches are
important.

------
marshray
"Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." - Gen. George
S. Patton

------
georgieporgie
I think Occupy is the most interesting (and, yes, annoying, but that's part of
the method) political development in recent history. This article, however,
was very long, with little meaningful content, and I don't see how it's of
particular interest to HN. Flagged.

------
Shenglong
Gist of the article: They don't have to occupy jobs, so they can win their war
of attrition.

------
motoford
The writer should use his superior "military style" tactics to get a job.

Maybe their plan worked because the police decided it wasn't worth wading thru
their feces and syringes every few hours.

