Operation Occupy Wall Street

[Quitch]

Jesus you are serious.

Because he's off-duty, ergo not acting on behalf of the police, ergo "police idiocy" is completely wrong.

God I hate this thread.

[Jibble]

I'm sorry, clear idiocy from a police officer who should damn well know better.

I wasn't insinuating that he had his superiors whispering in his ear to shove the kid. I was simply pointing out that a police officer did something incredibly stupid and incited a bunch of people.

Is that clear enough?

Because he's off-duty, ergo not acting on behalf of the police, ergo "police idiocy" is completely wrong.

God I hate this thread.

So he wasn't acting on behalf of the police and he was off-duty, yet the department felt that his actions merited a response that seems about equivalent to what would have happened if he was on duty.

You can't detach a police officer from his job and training simply because he's not on the clock.

[Andy Bates]

I'm sorry, clear idiocy from a police officer who should damn well know better.

I wasn't insinuating that he had his superiors whispering in his ear to shove the kid. I was simply pointing out that a police officer did something incredibly stupid and incited a bunch of people.

That seemed to be exactly what you were insinuating, which is why I commented on it. And as I keep pointing out, although he was an off-duty officer, he was acting as a security guard at the time. "Police idiocy" certainly implies that it was actions by "police" in general, instead of saying, "One security guard shoved a kid."

And yes, he was off duty, yet the department still thought it was worth an official response, but I suppose they don't get credit for that, do they?

[Valentine]

Dude, I know admitting you're wrong is like death for you people but you clearly screwed up. Just admit it and move on.

[Andy Bates]

Wrong about what exactly? He was a security guard, and he wasn't acting on behalf of the police, so calling it "police idiocy" is clearly wrong and misleading. Jibble admitted as much and amended his original statement. But see, he actually responds to discussions, instead of just throwing out little one-liners like, "Are you serious? Tell me you're not serious! You ARE serious!" I know it's fun to take little potshots from the cheap seats, but I don't need you to give me the Cliff's Notes version of a conversation I am actively reading.

[Jibble]

That seemed to be exactly what you were insinuating

It's not what I wrote. It's what you read. Not my problem, but I've now cleared it up anyway. Any further conjecture on what I meant is meaningless now that I've made it clear.

And yes, he was off duty, yet the department still thought it was worth an official response, but I suppose they don't get credit for that, do they?

Let's see, what was the timeline here. Cop shoves kid, cop lies about it, department stands behind cop, kid spends four days in jail, video surfaces showing that cop was lying, department responds to irrefutable evidence of wrongdoing.

It sounds like you want me to give them a cookie for reversing their opinion only when faced with clear evidence they were wrong.

Yeah. No.

[madkevin]

Andy, you said the guy wasn't a police officer. Remember this?

As mentioned in the comments, the guy was a security guard, not a police officer.

But he was, in fact, a police officer. I realize you will now attempt to turn up into down and black into white rather than admit you were wrong on this point, but we're all "actively reading" the thread too, you know.

[Jibble]

Wrong about what exactly? He was a security guard, and he wasn't acting on behalf of the police, so calling it "police idiocy" is clearly wrong and misleading. Jibble admitted as much and amended his original statement.

Um, no. I didn't "admit" that I was "clearly wrong and misleading". I corrected your incorrect assumption about what I was saying.

[Valentine]

Wrong about what exactly? He was a security guard, and he wasn't acting on behalf of the police, so calling it "police idiocy" is clearly wrong and misleading. Jibble admitted as much and amended his original statement. But see, he actually responds to discussions, instead of just throwing out little one-liners like, "Are you serious? Tell me you're not serious! You ARE serious!" I know it's fun to take little potshots from the cheap seats, but I don't need you to give me the Cliff's Notes version of a conversation I am actively reading.

No, you're absolutely right: police that are off duty shouldn't be held to the same standards we hold regular police. Or human beings. As a security guard not pushing people off things is above his pay grade.

You're clearly an apologist troll, from your "I don't know what a kick is" earlier to this latest "I didn't finish reading the sentence" nonsense. "And debates" or "Andy baits" whichever. You're either stupid or slightly less stupid pretending to be stupid.

[AaronSofaer]

Wrong about what exactly? He was a security guard,

He was a police officer, which you explicitly said he wasn't.

so calling it "police idiocy"

Is exactly correct, because there was an immediate reaction and covering-everything-up attempt from the police department.


In other news, it appears that Andy has finally gone full-troll instead of even pretending to discuss in good faith, so I get to add yet another idiot to my ignore list. Le sigh, Qt3 nowadays... back in my day, our trolls were at least entertaining, instead of just depressingly dull.

[Quitch]

Is exactly correct, because there was an immediate reaction and covering-everything-up attempt from the police department.

It really isn't because it heavily implies he was acting on behalf of the police, which he wasn't.

When I was a kid my school would punish me for things happening off the grounds because they could reflect badly on the school. That did not mean I was representing the school off their grounds, especially if I was in my part-time Subway job.

[Valentine]

It really isn't because it heavily implies he was acting on behalf of the police, which he wasn't.

No one said he was acting on behalf of the police. They just said it was typical police behavior towards these protesters. Which it is unfortunately.

When I was a kid my school would punish me for things happening off the grounds because they could reflect badly on the school. That did not mean I was representing the school off their grounds, especially if I was in my part-time Subway job.

If, however, you had a job at the school serving food and were fired from Subway for shitting in the mashed potatoes I'd say your school would be very fair in punishing you by, at the very least, banning you from the mashed potatoes.

[Andy Bates]

Andy, you said the guy wasn't a police officer. Remember this?

But he was, in fact, a police officer. I realize you will now attempt to turn up into down and black into white rather than admit you were wrong on this point, but we're all "actively reading" the thread too, you know.

At the time of the incident, he was working as a security guard, which is why I said he was a security guard, not a police officer. Now I understand the point that he was an off-duty police officer, but he wasn't acting in an official police capacity at the time, which is why I thought it was reasonable to point that out. That's why calling it "police idiocy" was misleading.

The reason I bring it up is because people generally gloss over details like this, in favor of the sensationalist version of the story. Saying, "Police are now shoving kids off of planters!" sounds much more exciting than, "One off-duty police officer shoved a kid during a protest, and has been suspended." Similarly, it's exciting to talk about how one cop pepper-sprayed a bunch of innocent kids sitting on the ground minding their own business. But when one of the kids admits that they actually had the police surrounded, blocked their path when they tried to leave, then told them, "The only way you're leaving is through us," those details gets lost in the pages and pages of outrage. I understand that some people get caught up in the emotion and don't examine the details, but I still think they are relevant to the discussion.

[madkevin]

At the time of the incident, he was working as a security guard, which is why I said he was a security guard, not a police officer. Now I understand the point that he was an off-duty police officer, but he wasn't acting in an official police capacity at the time, which is why I thought it was reasonable to point that out.

I accept your apology.

[Andy Bates]

No one said he was acting on behalf of the police. They just said it was typical police behavior towards these protesters. Which it is unfortunately.

If, however, you had a job at the school serving food and were fired from Subway for shitting in the mashed potatoes I'd say your school would be very fair in punishing you by, at the very least, banning you from the mashed potatoes.

But you wouldn't post a headline saying, "This is another typical example of school idiocy," because that would clearly imply that the one guy (off duty) was acting on behalf of the school.

[Andy Bates]

It sounds like you want me to give them a cookie for reversing their opinion only when faced with clear evidence they were wrong.

That comment was specifically directed at the person who said that an off-duty cop can get away with anything just because he's off duty. In that context, it's relevant to point out that, no, he can't.

[Jibble]

But when one of the kids admits that they actually had the police surrounded, blocked their path when they tried to leave, then told them, "The only way you're leaving is through us," those details gets lost in the pages and pages of outrage.

Please take five seconds and watch the first few moments of this video of the incident. He's inside the circle, then he steps over the kids and he's outside the circle. No one tries to stop him. He just steps right out. But I guess these details get lost, don't they.

But you wouldn't post a headline saying, "This is another typical example of school idiocy," because that would clearly imply that the one guy (off duty) was acting on behalf of the school.

If a teacher molests a kid on the weekend off school grounds, the headline is still going to be "Teacher Molests Kid". If a judge beats the shit out of his kid in his private residence, the headline is going to read, "Judge Beats Daughter". The profession is relevant in that it serves to position the person as someone who should have known better. Please stop pretending this isn't how the world works.

[Quitch]

I'm confused as to why this is an example of police stupidity and not security guard stupidity.

[Valentine]

I'm confused as to why this is an example of police stupidity and not security guard stupidity.

His actions weren't the aforementioned "idiocy" it was the police who defended him and ignored the complaint until video proof came out.
Oh, and he is a police officer.

[mrmolecule88]

If I take my police hat off to beat you bloody, it doesn't count!

C'mon, we've all seen the gritty cop shows. When the detective "goes off duty" to "get a cup of coffee," we all know he's about to go all Jack Bauer on that perp's ass. NUH UH I'M NOT A COP FOR AN UNSPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME, UNTIL I AM AGAIN

/serious: off duty cops are still cops. It is definitely not a 9-5 job.

[jeffd]

Every public emergency responder - cop, firefighter, EMT, etc - is trained to know that you are always representing your agency and you should act like it. I'm a volunteer fire fighter and it's been made clear to me that if I go and do something stupid, the story will always be "Local firefighter does something stupid," even if what I did was unrelated to my role as a firefighter. This cop was told the same thing.

[Calistas]

The whole security guard thing for off duty cops is so strange. Scientology tried to use it them to crush their protestors by being the people, essentially, paying the cops, and now this nonsense.

[frank austin]

This argument is glorious.

ACAB.

[Robert Sharp]

I'm confused as to why this is an example of police stupidity and not security guard stupidity.

Like many professions, police officers must uphold professional standards for as long as they are employed as police officers, whether they are on duty or not. It's that simple.

[Andy Bates]

His actions weren't the aforementioned "idiocy" it was the police who defended him and ignored the complaint until video proof came out.

No. The aforementioned "idiocy" complaint linked to a video of the guy pushing the protester. It didn't link to a video about the police refusing to prosecute him. Nice try though.

[Andy Bates]

I'm a volunteer fire fighter and it's been made clear to me that if I go and do something stupid, the story will always be "Local firefighter does something stupid," even if what I did was unrelated to my role as a firefighter. This cop was told the same thing.

But if you went camping on the weekend and made a campfire, the Monday morning headline wouldn't read, "Firemen Set Fires Over Weekend."

[Scuzz]

But if you went camping on the weekend and made a campfire, the Monday morning headline wouldn't read, "Firemen Set Fires Over Weekend."

But if a off-duty cop gets busted for DUI the headline is always "Cop Busted for DUI".

[Andy Bates]

But not, "Here's another example of police violating the law."

[Kolonial]

The last few pages of this thread are a great demonstration of the reason OWS needs to give up the occupy part of whatever the movement is. The conversation has now turned almost exclusively to one of constant police behavior review, which frankly is the least of the long-term concerns of the protesters. The more time and energy spend arguing over what a kick is and whether there is ever a good time to give the gift of pepper spray, the further away from the real discussion we'll get. Yes, we can have more than one conversation at a time, but we don't seem to be doing that anymore (and by "we," I don't mean just the denizens of Qt3). Police misconduct should be investigated, and the right to free speech defended, but the best response to all of this is to simply transcend it and move to whatever the next stage is.

[Scuzz]

Yes, I am re-posting this because it applies to the last post. The occupy groups need to get on with pushing for some of these ideas while they still have a chance.







Some of the leading proposals to solve the country's economic and political problems, offered by members of the Occupy movement who were interviewed by The Associated Press:
_ Impose a 1 percent "Robin Hood" tax on large financial transactions, and use the money to support social programs.
_ Reinstate portions of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act that were repealed in 1999. The act had prevented bank holding companies from getting into certain other types of financial ventures, effectively separating investment banking and commercial banking.
_ Freeze all property foreclosures; cap interest charges at 6 percent or less.
_ Reduce military spending; stop wars that drain financial resources.
_ Reparations; make government payments to the descendants of African slaves to reset a broken, unbalanced economy.
_ Ban big corporate donations to campaigns and set equal spending limits.
_ Instill a fair conscience and a sense of morality into the minds of big decision makers.
_ Revamp the tax code to take a higher percentage of multimillionaires' earnings. Ensure that Wall Street and big companies pay higher business taxes.
_ Equalize public education by paying fairly and proportionately for the entire U.S. population, regulating spending by student and not by school district.
_ Pass congressional legislation that returns bankruptcy protection to student loans.
_ End corporate personhood.
_ Ensure equal-access health care for all Americans.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz1fQQcqrrG