Cross-posted locally.
WASHINGTON — District of Columbia police said early Saturday that a driver will not be charged for striking three people taking part in an Occupy DC protest in downtown Washington.
(snip)
He said witnesses told police that the three pedestrians “either ran toward or jumped in front of the moving vehicle.” He said one pedestrian jumped on the hood of the car. One of them was cited for being in the roadway.
http://www.bnd.com/2011/11/04/1929379/authorities-car-strikes-3-at-occupy.html
One protester, 29-year-old Jesse Folks of Riverdale, Md., told The Washington Post that he was standing in the street with other demonstrators near the convention center when the car “just gassed it into a bunch of people.”
“We were in the street, but this guy didn’t even give us a chance to get out of the way,” Folks said.
It’s time to go home. The point is made (that is, people have made of it what they will), and someone is going to get hurt. Some celebs got arrested (but they are home now, aren’t they?).
Most importantly, once done, it can easily be done again.
Go home, get warm, live to fight another day. Please.
Your passion in support of the movement is clear. Your concern for the protesters is touching.
So who do YOU think committed the violent act, protesters who had the audacity to stand in a street or the driver who accelerated into them?
Maybe you think it’s time the protesters go home. I think it’s time to identify the driver, and learn more about what he was doing there and why.
I see the driver as a symptom. Escalation is occurring. OWS and the rest have done an amazing job of avoiding violence, but there have been incidents. Notice how the driver won’t be charged. If I plowed through jaywalking Boston pedestrians, I’m pretty sure I’d be charged, even if they jumped in front of my car.
If either of us would be charged for driving into pedestrians, it kind of makes me wonder what was so special about that driver. Did he have one of those blue-and-black stickers on his car? Maybe he’s a symptom of something entirely different from what you had in mind.
But the cops are taking his side. That’s telling, I think.
That he’s a cop?
n/t
I find the driver’s behavior highly unusual. I grew up in DC, and when an event like this is going down, folks who live there stay away — unless they have some important reason to put themselves in the middle of it.
I think it’s very likely that this driver intentionally put himself in this situation. I think it’s very likely that he has ties to the cops, the right wing, or some combination of both.
The DC police report has ZERO credibility with me.
is a perfect reason for why the protesters must remain there. It confounds me that you don’t see that.
It’s like being told to go home if billionaires were to make even more money after almost crashing our entire economy, and the SEC decided that there was ‘nothing to see here’ because a few bankster friends that used to work with that billionaire, who are now inside the SEC, said there was nothing to see here. “Those stupid people decided to pay the $5 monthly charge! It’s not his fault!”
Believe it or not, Jim, people are willing to risk their life to fight for the very sake of this country. Our country is FUCKED UP because of the nonsense that’s going on and the growing inequality of our wealth.
We are living worse lives, struggling harder and die younger because of that income inequality.
Here’s a fascinating video on the subject, where income inequality is tracked across the world, illustrating the vast differences that inequality has on our own society. (I’ll include a link in case the embed doesn’t work.)
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html#.TrojZq0CTVc.facebook
There is no going home, because we go home to lower wages, worse benefits, often no jobs or no good ones, and millions of Americans have lost their homes and have no real homes to go to. The Occupy movement, viewed in that context, almost looks like an act of self defense.
The police will harass us, the 1% will hit us with their BMWs, metaphorically or otherwise, but we’re NOT GOING HOME! We’re not going to stop fighting until this country works as well for the least of us as it does for those who have the most, in terms of the ability to have a decent life, where anyone can work hard and play by the rules and feel like they have that slice of the long-forgotten American dream. That doesn’t exist now and we’re not going to stop — not even for a second — until it does.
Here is what Steve Tolman had to say today
I agree with Steve. I do not agree with your sentiment. However, there is no way that a heterogenous group attempting to govern itself using open town meetings can avoid being messy. But governments, here and abroad, in sinking into plutocracy are worse.
I just don’t know what the end game is. I think OWS should go out on its own terms.
Yet you’re asking them to go home. Isn’t that your terms?
If OWS sets terms (as in Oakland) that might result in people getting hurt then that’s their terms. I respect that. In 1964 Civil rights marchers in Birmingham Alabama marched directly and purposefully into police batons, fire hoses and canines.
If they are going to continue to get hurt, either by direct action of the police (as in Oakland) or by indirect action or failure to act (as in DC) then the end game is to point this out and force them to either back down or escalate, without retaliating.
So you are comfortable with “force them to escalate?” Because that’s exactly what I am worried about.
I recognize that it’s OWS’s choice to make, so I’m asking them to think about it. Maybe they have.
The only option is to force them to escalate. That’s how it is. The police officer who asks you to come peacefully does so with a very large weapon at his hip. That’s how “keeping the peace” works.
The 1% will not yield its power without being forced. In this case, I think petr is absolutely correct about the dynamics of how movements like this work: “the end game is to point this out and force them to either back down or escalate, without retaliating.”
Parenthetically, it doesn’t hurt the Occupy Everything movement if there are other movements who WILL retaliate, with force and violence, if the non-violent arm is hurt or brutalized.
The concentration of wealth that the Occupy Everything movement fights is killing people. The evil is already happening, and so it is a grave mistake to delude ourselves into thinking that it somehow begins with a response to Occupy Everything.
movement quit when Medgar Evers was assassinated or the first protesters were beaten!
Our opposition today is different because it’s more enmeshed in our society. The civil rights movement was black and white in more ways than one. It was easy for we Northerners to pick out the bad guys and disapprove. It’s harder to target the people buying off our government and making laws that restrict our influence.
The police brutality in Oakland probably happens all the time to poor people. What’s news is the brutality is now directed at people who aren’t poor and who have managed to exercise a voice.
Tom’s right on!
That’s offensive. This is NOT the civil rights movement.
The inability of police to find a reason to cite or arrest a driver we’re discussing here is precisely like the police behavior during the civil rights movement.
The class warfare is real, it is on-going, and it will continue until we stop it.
And, frankly, to repeat a now-trite phrase from the sixties — if you’re not part of the solution, then you’re part of the problem.
And you, by insulting me on a blog, are the solution. OK.
So what? Why is that offensive? Is the civil rights movement suddenly totemic and the threshold by which actions are triggered?? Do we have to reach a certain level of injustice before we can protest?
Why isn’t this equivalent to the civil rights movement? What’s the difference?
Because the Civil Rights movement has already been sanctified? Or because their goal is so obvious to us now? It wasn’t so once upon a time. How do you think the first civil rights protests were regarded?
Income inequality is a civil rights issue.
I’m being serious when I ask, what’s the difference?
The Civil Rights movement was the culmination of the most shameful chapter in American history. You could argue it started with the Underground Railroad. Here are the highlights of what was being fought against: the founding and rise of the KKK; lynchings; Jim Crow; and more. And when those guys were killed, the government responded (fortunately, we had a somewhat responsive government at the time).
Their goal was obvious then — basic humanity. That’s why they continued; because the battle lasted for generations. Because others had been killed, others we never heard of.
The occupy movement is the same thing? No way. Not even remotely comparable. Maybe you want to believe that, and fine, go ahead and believe it. But don’t be surprised if people get upset.
Maybe I’m totally wrong. Maybe this movement will grow and become the equal of the Civil Rights movement. But I doubt it.
I’ll take the burden of proof.
(I don’t know if you were responding to me above, but I don’t think you’re the problem. Although we disagree, I thought your post was a good point of departure).
Here it goes:
Occupy Wall Street is, like the Civil Rights movement, fighting the good fight. As AmberPaw has helpfully pointed out on the other thread, OWS is not even two months old. The issues it has brought forth go way back at least back to the Guilded Age.
The oppression of African Americans on the basis of race was a more obvious and concrete injustice than income equality, but income inequality and economic injustice are at least as dangerous to our democracy. As I think SomervilleTom points out, people are dying as a direct result of the policies that flow from the 1%. I know it sounds hysterical to say so, and I’m really not a hysterical person, but our a country is at stake. As Amber put it, our children’s futures are at stake. +
before I finished.
The reasons for protesting are equal in importance. (I suspect this might be the crux of our disagreement). Slavery was heinous. Jim Crow was better, but still heinous. Abolishing both was easy enough to conceptualize. The cost was high, but the path and enemy were clear. What OWS is opposing, however, is the system that supports the accumulation of wealth in the top 1% of the population. That’s a much harder target. It’s much harder to effect change when we’ve had 30 years of Democrats and Republicans changing laws to protect the interests of the rich.
OWS may not grow. It may. It may fail. Other groups might develop to take its place. The protesters may not have the history that marks the civil rights movement, but they have to start somewhere.
When I mentioned Medgar Evers, I was responding to your suggestion that OWS should quit because a car hit three protesters. We don’t even know the facts yet. My point was that in a cause worth fighting for your threshold for risk was set pretty low.
I hope I clarified something.
Cheers.
Link
Jim’s right, the first month (more like the first 2 weeks) captured the attention on the country and started a new narrative. Time to take it to a new phase: Organizing. The problem to me is that the “leaders” of this movement don’t see the value of moving this from the street into the ballot box/legislative halls to affect the changes they seek. I certainly understand their cynicism about working within the system. But really, what are the choices? Continue to camp out and become a one note tune…or use the grassroots principles of building a movement with the critical mass required to make real change within the context of our republican structure (note the small “r”).
Thank you.
Pogo gets it, and that is why it is hard to take this movement seriously any longer.
This cartoon is quite illustrative of the problem. The Tea Party was able to become a large and vocal constituency within a party, the Republicans, and have a disproportionate influence on its nominating contest. Obviously Obama is running unopposed, but OWS could have a huge affect on local races, as the Wisconsin labor fight has had, and they deserve props for getting a lot of people off the sidelines and into the process. Not it is time to turn the street actions into tangible legislative results, time to turn Congress over, time to defend this President but also make sure he remembers who saved his ass. Thats where this needs to go.
-Bringing back Glass-Steagall
-Serious campaign finance reform
-Debt forgiveness of foreclosures and student loans in some capacity or at least tying the bank bailouts to the banks easing up on collections for awhile
-A new WPA style job corps for the young and unemployed
the cartoon
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/index.php/2011/10/19/whos-afraid-of-the-party-system/
To me the OWS boils down to ending the Third Way cooperation between government and business. Democrats should demand that government be government and leave the rest out.
Ohio’s slap-down on the anti union law? Mississippi telling the GOP “hell no” to the notion of “personhood” starting at the moment of conception? The leader of the Arizonan effort to persecute brown people being recalled? Mainers giving their FU to their governor for restricting voter rights? The country is paying far more attention to the issues that matter now than it was even a few months ago, and we owe the Occupy movement a lot of credit for that.
There’s two aspects that are important to any movement — organizing is certainly one of them. But PR — causing a critical mass of attention on the issues within society — is every bit as important.
I’d argue that it’s incontrovertible that the Occupy movement has been exceptionally valuable in creating that critical mass of public attention, in everything from the electoral results that happened tonight, from politicians shutting up about austerity and again focusing on jobs and on efforts like getting Bank of America to ditch it’s $5 a month ATM scam — I mean fee. The media’s paying more attention to things effecting working people and not just taking their cues from the 1%.
However, I’d also argue that the Occupy movement doesn’t get nearly enough credit for their organizing prowess. Anyone who says they aren’t organized clearly hasn’t been to one of their General Meetings, which are the epitome of a highly developed structure, weighing the people’s rights to be heard with obtaining actual action from a group. Some people may complain that it’s slow, but clearly they’ve never watched Congress in action.
It’s obvious how well this is organized when you see how fast this has grown, and how wide spread it is. These people didn’t have Fox News to blare this 24/7, like the Tea Party did. The media had a total blackout on the Occupy movement, up until cops started macing, tear gassing, making stupid mass arrests, raiding peaceful protesters and putting Iraqi war vets into comas. These people built this movement from the ground up, with no money or professional help, just a desperate willingness to see a fair and just society that works as well for the least among us as it does for those who have the most.
The fact that people say this isn’t a well organized movement has less to do with reality and more to do with the fact that the organization that’s been used to put this together is different than what’s been used in the past, not playing by the old rule books. I’d go so far as saying that a big reason why it’s not recognized is because it’s actually so sophisticated — a true democratization of organizing.
There’s no top-down here, it’s all bottom up. It’s not under a party umbrella, though party members have been involved. It’s not union leadership, though unions have marched in solidarity. It’s people from a broad spectrum, calling up their friends, Facebooking and texting them, and getting them all to come. That seems chaotic and messy, but is actually quite amazing and well put together.
It’s tens of thousands of individuals stepping up to be leaders in some capacity, small or large, sometimes for weeks or months, or sometimes for 15 minutes, even if they don’t get attention or credit for the work that they do. They’re the ones calling friends to get them to come, or the people stepping up to serve on one of the working committees in some capacity, or ensuring the General Assemblies go smoothly, or locking arms to bravely get arrested to protect their freedom of assembly.
They’re all leaders, doing their part organizing, it’s just that we’re only two months in this thing and not very many people see it, yet. In another 5, 10 or 15 years, if this movement finds success, I’d suggest the sophistication and leadership required in a strong movement — not to mention their prowess for capturing the attention of this country through constant, defiant action — will be self evident.
cool. Who are the Terminators in this scenario?
That makes no sense.
I should have done a better job of anticipating certain responses and not taken them personally. I apologize. I’m getting old and cranky, not to mention creaky. Moving on …
especially this
this typed between shifts at one polling place in Dorchester, side by side with an amazingly diverse group of organizers for different candidates who all respected each other for their organizer’s grit and organizers belief, hope, dream that getting good people in office is critical for the survival of our Democracy — I mean republic. One wonderful character had us all in stitches with his description of the #Occupiers (always accompanied by both hands with two fingers up in the air making a #Hashsign) in their twentyfirst century sit down campaign and talking to each other in chorus.
But Pogo gets credit for that line. 🙂
Thanks for your work at the polls today!
I will go back and stand corrected
enjoy: http://youtu.be/BTojopqF0Tc
As to supporting candidates, I know some candidates came and pitched to folks, and as individuals, some got involved. Now that civics hasn’t been taught in our schools for 20 years, there is actually a need to pitch and teach – I got the go ahead to do voter registration because I explained why I wanted to do so. Just saying. But NO – not “just talking to each other” but one does tend to talk more with the folks who are standing shoulder to shoulder with you, just as you do when you work on a campaign. Learned art. My first campaign was at the age of 14 in Detroit when some of us decided we wanted my cousin’s civics teacher rather than a 10 term union backed incumbent for our representative in Northwest Detroit – it is a long story but that was how Jack Faxon won his first election back in – oh – about 1963 or so.
You can take the “girl” out of Detroit, but you cannot take Detroit out of the girl – no worries, Jimc, just the way it is:
and here is the video of a labor solidarity march, with several local speakers worth listening to – and the reminder about WHO Hazen Pingree was:
http://youtu.be/B1CDrbgvFAM
Plus the crimes happening in the Occupation tents including rape, terrible. Luckily, Mayor Bloomberg has warned the 100 or so campers that violence will not be tolerated and they will be arrested immediately if anything like that happens. Mayor Menino has echoed the same concerns and ultimatum.
What city has burned down? If you’re going to get all hysterical, at least provide some information.
Good. Zero tolerance for violence and violent crime. I agree. Wholeheartedly.
So… will you accept an arrest rate as proof of the violent element being weeded out, or, even better, a zero arrest rate as proof of crimes NOT occurring or will you concern troll the ineptitude of the police in this regard??
no matter how it is justified. Glad we agree.
I will not accept an arrest rate as proff or disproof of anything though. Crimes a re committed everyday and nobody will get arrested but that doesn’t mean the crime didn’t occur.
Also, people get arrested for their crimes at OWS is a positive thing and hopefully OWS embraces this in order to clean up the impression this leaves.
We know there was a single “supposed” incident of a black Congressman being spit on at a Tea Party rally which caused the media (and the left) to label the Tea Party as racist. There also were cases, although extremely isolated, of people carrying racist posters at Tea Party rallies and again this branded them as racist. So how many crimes have to occur at OWS events for them to be branded as violent?
johnd, I do believe your concerns are misdirected. You see these kids doing anything that warrants being attacked?
By the way, this just in from a friend of mine via FB: “This is unreal. Harvard has put the campus on lockdown, I’m currently locked inside of Harvard Yard. There are cops every 25 feet here… All of this to prevent the occupation in the yard.”
I have no first hand knowledge of what these people did or did not do but I have no problem with Police officers clearing people who are assembling illegally (either without permits or in places which it isn’t allowed).
When police clear these protestors I do believe they should restrain themselves, but I have no problem with them protecting themselves. Protestors being arrested should cooperate and simply go along with the Police… isn’t that what they want, to be arrested? Police officers using excessive force should be disciplined/fired and/or face civil action.
Where’s Elizabeth Warren? She should quit her $350,000 (plus $182,000 in royalties and consulting fees ) teaching job at Harvard in protest! Or is she already on leave?
Apparently someone thinks the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances is a reason for people to actually exercise that right. Too inconvenient, or something.
“Isn’t that what they want?” No, it isn’t.
People protesting by camping out gets old quickly and is not news. The OWS people know this and will constantly be pushing the envelope by going where they aren’t suppose to go. That’s why Menino and Bloomberg are letting these people stay where they are, they know the energy will leave the group at some point. The OWS people want to be arrested to bring more attention to their cause… that is what makes the news not day 123 of a peaceful campsite.
But I could be wrong…