Comments

1
Did I read that right - putting kids on the front line.
KIDS. Oh for fucks sake.
Not only are the parents complete assholes, but the rest of 'occupy' that allows this to happen.
ASSHOLES.
2
I'm shocked, just shocked that frankieb assumes the cops' statement is the gospel truth and rushes to type a breathless rant slamming all of Occupy.
Surely there wouldn't be a motive for the police to lie about minors used as human shields to deflect criticisms as the Oregonian is running photos of a bloodied 15-year-old, with ongoing reports and footage of similar incidents.
But then I suppose the "blame the victim" line of "reasoning" is that no one under 18 should be allowed to attend a nonviolent demonstration for some reason. Because we assume that the police will instigate violence against people exercising their rights, so if we "let it happen" it's our own fault? Sick.
3
Front line? You gotta be out of your mind. We we in a PARK during PARK HOURS. There were children there, and when the riot police showed, we were in the middle of our General Assembly (it's a meeting). There was no "emergency" that warranted the parks closing, that was an excuse to trample our right to assemble. And yes, the peaceful were met with violence from the police, including violence directed and women (including myself) and children. At several points in the night, the group was kettled, with riot police on all sides and limited options about where to put the kids. I watched our PR spokesman shoved backwards by the police for asking to see paperwork regarding the park closure and he landed on his head/back, and watched them break a girl's hand with a baton. It was vicious and brutal and completely uncalled for. They call an "emergency closure" on a park during park hours so we can't be there, we move to the sidewalk, they close the sidewalk, they shove us into the street, then beat and arrest us for being in the street. This is crazy. You have first amendment rights only if you never intend to try and actually USE them. I was viciously kicked in the arm for reaching on the ground for a toothbrush, necklace, and a mini bottle of pantene pro-v that spilled from someone's bag when shoved to the ground. The whole thing was so disgusting I could cry.
4
Well, we've seen pictures of 'occupy' using a kid on the front line before, in these very pages, haven't we?
And, when you compared Justin Bridges account of what happened to the Police acct, then looked at the video - video has certainly shown the police version of events to be far more accurate.
Just the fact they brought their kids along is enough.
Especially if you view the police as these brutal thugs just interested in squashing the first ammendment rights.
They brought their KIDS down there into a situation knowing that pepper spray or tear gas could be used, that arrests are likely, etc.
That says ASSHOLES to me more than anything else, and the rest of 'occupy' going along with it without saying anything.
5
Re: your first sentence, there was one photo that I remember of a father and child near a row of riot cops, but I don't think it was established beyond any doubt at what point in the days' events that picture was taken.
Re: the rest. Thanks for confirming what I thought. It's a park before closing time; there are apt to be minors about. Why not look at what the real problem is, instead of finding some rationale to blame the victim and assign collective guilt for "allowing it to happen"? Once again, your personal politics and limited view of what happened just seem to need validation, so you'll take whatever position about events will provide that.
6
Police violence against citizens peaceably assembled is always patently and completely wrong. There's no valid argument that this is not the case (that's worth hearing).
7
Well at least the overtime can't be that high according to this police report they only used dozens of police officers.

I want to see the midnight pizza bill, so I can make a deal with the supplier for fresh cheap organic locally made cheese.
8
geyser, I can only hope you choose not to have children.
9
"geyser, I can only hope you choose not to have children."

The parents and children of Portland can only hope that you, Frankieb, aren't ever put in charge of policing peaceful protests.
10
I'd agree.
But I wouldn't even take my dogs down there when you already know the Mayor has forbidden the 'occupy' from camping and camping is exactly what they are going to attempt. You KNOW there is going to be confrontation with the police.
I wasn't even debating the politics of 'occupy', rather on what shitty parents these folks were for putting their kids anywhere near the possibility of violence.
11
remember when this movement was about income inequalities and the housing crisis created by the banking industry?

as soon as the focus was shifted to things like camping in public parks and opposing war, it ceased to represent the 99%.
12
ebag, I understand your point, but Occupy sees the camping bans and wars as evidence of the oligarchy and crony capitalism that benefits the 1 percent at the expense of others. Systemic corruption produces many issues to demonstrate against.

Your claims that those issues do not represent the views or interests of the 99 percent are wholly false.
13
Wow. Rarely, and I mean rarely, do I agree with Geyser on anything. But, he/she makes a pretty solid point this time around.
14
frankieb:
I had a kid, years ago, but I put her up on the roof of the parked car while loading the groceries and then forgot she was up there when I drove off. Oops.
15
Too bad. You coulda used her to score political points on the front line of occupy, much like the rest of those great parents.
Because using kids for political purpose is the American thing to do.
16
"Because using kids for political purpose is the American thing to do."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo
17
There is a reason why officers started putting dash cams on their cars... They were being accused of stuff and people said that the officer was abusing their power and lying. Is it seriously getting to the point where officers need to have a camera on them so we can see what they see? - Laura
18
Alternative translation of frankieb: It is morally wrong to bring your kids to a peaceful political protest in a public park, because police might use violent tactics to suppress the protest, even before the posted park-closing hours. However, it is not morally wrong for the police to engage in violence against protesters for mere park code violations.
19
Laura (unregistered) - Yes, the police should have a camera on them. Every second of the recording should be a matter of public record. That will put a lot of disputes to rest. (The police already have the power to make warrantless searches of your home and computer under many circumstances, as well as the output of public CCTV cameras, so why shouldn't the public have the right to know what the police see and say in the course of their routine and necessary duties, just to make sure all is on the up-and-up, as I'm confident most activities are?)
20
[insert photos of children at Tea Party protests here]
21
@Bob R - Well, I guess we're to the point where Police have to wear cameras on themselves. There was a time when an officer's word was believed to be truth. Like everything else, somebody has to ruin it for everyone else. I agree that cameras on officers would be very helpful in fixing disputes of police brutality. I do disagree with your statement of warrantless searches of your home and computer. Anyone can access your computer on an unsecured net. Warrants take time to write up and get signed off and at times an officer can call a Judge, give the evidence they have at the time, and the reason why they don't have time to write it up at that time. Ex-they believe that all evidence will be gone or human life is in danger. I didn't know about this till my father-in-law told me this law in some random discussion we had a couple years back.
22
"And rumors also spread of a 7-year-old boy being handled roughly by police."

Can we get a full roundup of rumors that make their way through a typical day at an Occupy site? That's got to be some thrilling fiction.
23
Good Morning Reid - the Tea Party is not trying to occupy parks. If I'm not mistaken, they are doing everything by the law. Riot cops don't tend to show up then, correct?
24
so lame
25
The people with asterisks had warrants. Interesting eh...so occupying is about camping and territory....but I thought it was going to about fair employment and banking and credit practices...fail. You have chosen a foolish, narcisistic and ineffective way of going about this, all you are doing is alienating those you claim to represent. And given some of the refuse and baggage I have seen surrounding "Occupy" I am sadly more likely to believe the police (not entirely though)....and that is rare for me

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.