"posted by marinara 16 seconds ago"!!! arg!
Your title and description don't do this video justice.

This happened during the continued peaceful #OccupyWallStreet protests in New York City. Police used cattle herding techniques to surround peaceful protesters with nets and then maced them.
This is blatant police brutality.
*money *law *fear

Invocations (fear, law, money) cannot be called by mxxcon because mxxcon is not privileged - sorry.

Pepper spray is a hell of a drug.

It's a shame these protests aren't getting the attention they deserve.

*fear *law *money

Adding video to channels (Fear, Law, Money) - requested by notarobot.

heh, I thought the title was referring to this tool :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mace_%28club%29

Who watches the Watchmen?

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, September 25th, 2011 11:52pm PDT - promote requested by Boise_Lib.

Since the police aren't simply allowed to slap hysterical women anymore, they cordon them off like livestock and hose them with pepper spray. What exactly was this in aid of? I can't see people causing trouble as the police are setting up their "do not cross" line. Anybody who gets in their way needs to be punished, and not simply asked to move?

while i do believe the lack of media coverage of this protest shines a poor light on American media...

I also have to say this video (beyond the description above, which equates to someone's sayso) gives no context

is this an isolated incident at the riots, and if so... why? and if not, we need more footage to see that this reaction by the police is unprovoked

as far as we know, some action prior to this, by the women involved (for example... why were they only surrounding women protesters? to say they purposefully separated only the women, from the men is a stretch for me to believe) led to this... since there's no context I'm forced to believe these women were protesting either something in particular or at a location in particular that has something to do with why there was only women there being herded/pepper sprayed... and if that's the case it makes me wonder if this somehow ties into the police reaction...

lack of context is a weakness in the stance you are taking here

yeah, i feel sorry for them getting sprayed with pepper spray... as i guy, it tugs at me seeing women being treated harshly and crying/wailing in agony

however, as a person who believes in independent thought/critical thinking; before siding with the poster of this video (whom i believe is probably sympathetic to the protesters... as am I inregards to what is being protested) I have to question things like context and the motivations of messages being presented to me

i'm not belittling what is being protested here... i'm being critical on how the message is being presented

since the media isn't covering this, you need to be presenting things as journalistic as possible... ie unbiased and within context, with multiple sources who can corroberate the information being presented

because, no matter how sympathetic i may be to the message being presented here, I have to be critical of its presentation and file it away as propoganda because of the lack of context

why should you care? because I'm sure some of the media that does cover this riot (especially those that do it to discredit you and belittle your goals) will use that to the disadvantage of your goals

Property > People = American Dream

Adbusters is hosting a live stream.

http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/occupywallstreet

I wonder if they have tried pulling the bankers apart, limb from limb. It might be very motivating for the rich

@packo

Or this could be simply an organized assault. They're trying to "encourage" people to go home and not attract more attention or others to come join the protest. Someone who are paying attention to this will see this video and they might say to themselves "I don't want to get maced or beaten."

It's not thoughtless, the police know exactly what they're doing. Is it legal or right should be the question.

@Yogi

again, its all just conjecture without proper context... whether your conspiracy theory leans one way or the other...

its like seeing the picture of the two soldier and the detainee from Iraq... where if you cut out either soldier, the picture takes on a very different meaning... 1 soldier's gun appears to be held threateningly towards the detainee... the other soldier is giving the detainee water... remove the context of either soldier and the picture becomes misleading... in that case both directions

and in regards to this video... without context, we're left to our own prejudices to determine the context the video falls, so then it's simply chance if our prejudice aligns with the actual context of the video... people on both sides could use this to mislead

again, not attacking one side or the other... just the failings of the presentation

>> ^packo:

@Yogi
again, its all just conjecture without proper context... whether your conspiracy theory leans one way or the other...
its like seeing the picture of the two soldier and the detainee from Iraq... where if you cut out either soldier, the picture takes on a very different meaning... 1 soldier's gun appears to be held threateningly towards the detainee... the other soldier is giving the detainee water... remove the context of either soldier and the picture becomes misleading... in that case both directions
and in regards to this video... without context, we're left to our own prejudices to determine the context the video falls, so then it's simply chance if our prejudice aligns with the actual context of the video... people on both sides could use this to mislead
again, not attacking one side or the other... just the failings of the presentation


Not really since you're citing a war. I'm talking about civilians and police who are charged with protecting them. There is a much greater burden of proof to be addressed whether or not these women posed a threat to anyone. So there's some context right there...civilians, unarmed, not in a warzone.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^packo:
@Yogi
again, its all just conjecture without proper context... whether your conspiracy theory leans one way or the other...
its like seeing the picture of the two soldier and the detainee from Iraq... where if you cut out either soldier, the picture takes on a very different meaning... 1 soldier's gun appears to be held threateningly towards the detainee... the other soldier is giving the detainee water... remove the context of either soldier and the picture becomes misleading... in that case both directions
and in regards to this video... without context, we're left to our own prejudices to determine the context the video falls, so then it's simply chance if our prejudice aligns with the actual context of the video... people on both sides could use this to mislead
again, not attacking one side or the other... just the failings of the presentation

Not really since you're citing a war. I'm talking about civilians and police who are charged with protecting them. There is a much greater burden of proof to be addressed whether or not these women posed a threat to anyone. So there's some context right there...civilians, unarmed, not in a warzone.


technically there's rules to warfare too, and saying which are stricter is a whole other debate

accusers must prove guilt, guilt != not being able to prove merit in this instance : in regards to criminal cases... rephrased someone isn't guilty without proof to their guilt, being unable to prove innocence isn't the same as being guilty... ie, "you robbed the bank", "no i didn't", "can anyone attest to your whereabouts during the time of the robbery?", "no i was alone", "aha, you must be guilty then!"

civil i believe at best you'd be able to hold police officers accountable in regards to them not following proper procedure... which again, this video in no way demonstrates because (again) it was lacking context

all of that get's muddier with the Patriot Act and dealing with masses of people as opposed to the individual

and to summarize, this video doesn't qualify as evidence of misdoing, one way or the other... for the protesters or for the police... i'm sure the police have debriefed/taken statements from officers involved and if those statements/documentation was held up against this video as some sort of proof, no court (civil/criminal) would find much of a case... again back to context and corroberating sources

>> ^packo:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^packo:
@Yogi
again, its all just conjecture without proper context... whether your conspiracy theory leans one way or the other...
its like seeing the picture of the two soldier and the detainee from Iraq... where if you cut out either soldier, the picture takes on a very different meaning... 1 soldier's gun appears to be held threateningly towards the detainee... the other soldier is giving the detainee water... remove the context of either soldier and the picture becomes misleading... in that case both directions
and in regards to this video... without context, we're left to our own prejudices to determine the context the video falls, so then it's simply chance if our prejudice aligns with the actual context of the video... people on both sides could use this to mislead
again, not attacking one side or the other... just the failings of the presentation

Not really since you're citing a war. I'm talking about civilians and police who are charged with protecting them. There is a much greater burden of proof to be addressed whether or not these women posed a threat to anyone. So there's some context right there...civilians, unarmed, not in a warzone.

technically there's rules to warfare too, and saying which are stricter is a whole other debate
accusers must prove guilt, guilt != not being able to prove merit in this instance : in regards to criminal cases... rephrased someone isn't guilty without proof to their guilt, being unable to prove innocence isn't the same as being guilty... ie, "you robbed the bank", "no i didn't", "can anyone attest to your whereabouts during the time of the robbery?", "no i was alone", "aha, you must be guilty then!"
civil i believe at best you'd be able to hold police officers accountable in regards to them not following proper procedure... which again, this video in no way demonstrates because (again) it was lacking context
all of that get's muddier with the Patriot Act and dealing with masses of people as opposed to the individual
and to summarize, this video doesn't qualify as evidence of misdoing, one way or the other... for the protesters or for the police... i'm sure the police have debriefed/taken statements from officers involved and if those statements/documentation was held up against this video as some sort of proof, no court (civil/criminal) would find much of a case... again back to context and corroberating sources


This is your opinion based on your experience as an expert on what? My opinion is based on that of a crazy person...badda bing badda boom shut the fuck up.

the girl turns around to get sprayed point blank in the face by a fat old white cop without any warning or cause... he just walks up and casually sprays them all and walks off, no verbal orders or warning.

the guy did it on purpose to hurt them. no more badge.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^packo:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^packo:
@Yogi
again, its all just conjecture without proper context... whether your conspiracy theory leans one way or the other...
its like seeing the picture of the two soldier and the detainee from Iraq... where if you cut out either soldier, the picture takes on a very different meaning... 1 soldier's gun appears to be held threateningly towards the detainee... the other soldier is giving the detainee water... remove the context of either soldier and the picture becomes misleading... in that case both directions
and in regards to this video... without context, we're left to our own prejudices to determine the context the video falls, so then it's simply chance if our prejudice aligns with the actual context of the video... people on both sides could use this to mislead
again, not attacking one side or the other... just the failings of the presentation

Not really since you're citing a war. I'm talking about civilians and police who are charged with protecting them. There is a much greater burden of proof to be addressed whether or not these women posed a threat to anyone. So there's some context right there...civilians, unarmed, not in a warzone.

technically there's rules to warfare too, and saying which are stricter is a whole other debate
accusers must prove guilt, guilt != not being able to prove merit in this instance : in regards to criminal cases... rephrased someone isn't guilty without proof to their guilt, being unable to prove innocence isn't the same as being guilty... ie, "you robbed the bank", "no i didn't", "can anyone attest to your whereabouts during the time of the robbery?", "no i was alone", "aha, you must be guilty then!"
civil i believe at best you'd be able to hold police officers accountable in regards to them not following proper procedure... which again, this video in no way demonstrates because (again) it was lacking context
all of that get's muddier with the Patriot Act and dealing with masses of people as opposed to the individual
and to summarize, this video doesn't qualify as evidence of misdoing, one way or the other... for the protesters or for the police... i'm sure the police have debriefed/taken statements from officers involved and if those statements/documentation was held up against this video as some sort of proof, no court (civil/criminal) would find much of a case... again back to context and corroberating sources

This is your opinion based on your experience as an expert on what? My opinion is based on that of a crazy person...badda bing badda boom shut the fuck up.


@Yogi,

not my opinion, i rolled over and let your mom get a few words in, she's the expert/professional