Cops Pull TASERs On Protesters Occupying Washington State Capital!

[SablePhoenixBlu1]

I FEEL SORRY FOR THE STATE TROOPERS, ASSAULT ON AN OFFICER, IS ARRESTABLE, & CHARGEABLE.

OCCUPY WALL ST. IS GETTING A REAL BAD NAME!

[buggsmalone]

from the same bankers that brought you 911.. wake up folks its very worth it.. love you

[SablePhoenixBlu1]

@buggsmalone SURE BUT IT HAS TO BE DONE IN A PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZED MANNER, NOT A BUNCH OF WILD PEOPLE, THEYRE ACTING LIKE IDIOTS.

I hope the officer's will be okay.

[chad00023]

NONE OF THE IDIOTS HERE KNOW OR REMEMBER THEIR OATH OF OFFICE. these police are ignorant to the publics rights

[adrienneslip]

liars 4 peeps tazed

[krmass24]

money is fabricated out of thin air. the entire money problem is created by the federal government rothschilds, morgan, rockafellar banksters. People know this now. So how could any person agree with all these fake funny money solutions that take things away rom society to "fix" the problem? Those aren't solutions. They will still be making these things up when the entire world has changed and no one is listening to them. Pathetic, manipulators of human life will fail in their weak plans.

[biorgymd]

LOL... It's funny watching America crumble.

[PhilippineAmerican]

The four fathers of our country and the constitution said that if the government is corrupt the people have the right to overthrow our government.

[bluesgurugod]

@PhilippineAmerican those "four" guys really knew their stuff eh?

[levisarts]

"We are using I=phone technology".. Wonder how much Apple paid for that little ad.

[sstan1337]

It seems to me the police have understood the message a littlebit..... I mean, there was a shoving match and they did tolerate it to an extent..sort of? I´m just saying nobody got hurt and there was only one arrest so... that is an improvment from Oakland and UCD. Just saying.

Maybe the Cops could be persuaded to come to the good side of the force.

[marniespeaks]

keep cutting programs and crime will go up then arrests and jail and then more taxes will be needed to support the jails

they are all idiots - when crime rises here's hopng it hits those who voted for the cuts

[wolfsvsvampirs]

omg Clara!

wow just saying ur fucking bad ass.

[dragnet53]

IPhone technology? Looks shitty to me.

[dipojones]

is this any more proof that Americans dont run their government ?

[johnnycmajor]

@digitalbullshit None of that matters. We have been fucked by the Bush's for a long time. Federal reserve and big bankers and piggy government officials have us. We are doomed now. Only one half of one percent are awake the rest are watching fox news. I mean something of importance 301 views. Where fucked has been slice.

[vavan100]

"keep it peaceful, so we can keep don't giving a fuck"

[ohsk8an]

See what happens when you exercise your seldom used rights?You find out that they are gone.

[fuzzjunky]

obviously they didn't buy iphone 14c-s which is obviously superior to iphone 14c maybe they have someone waiting in line at the apple shop waiting for one that works

[chocomalk]

A group of tax payers enters a publicly funded government building, designed, constructed and paid for by the taxpayers and to serve the interests of the taxpayer, staffed with representatives of the taxpayer who pays their salaries and demand to speak with THEIR EMPLOYEE, IN THEIR BUILDING, and they are told to..."get out".

America!

[whatisahumans]

@chocomalk If Ron Paul gets elected, he'll let the free market decide who's allowed to protest.

[chocomalk]

@whatisahumans

lol

If there was an actual "free market", it would determine that all participants could protest, particularly if it was a publicly paid for market with publicly paid for employes.

In any event, what this has to do with Ron Paul is beyond me, but if he does get elected then I would guess he would look to the constitution.

[andreyo61]

@chocomalk well said. And do you notice how the news ALWAYS talks to the politicians to get "information" for their story, but they practically NEVER interview the protesters? (to get their side of the story)... rather subtle way of marginalizing the HUNDREDS of citizens that are so concerned about "the cuts" that they're prepared to face the police/arrest... like, "these protesters have nothing in common with you folks at home..." ("and more importantly, how's my hair holding up?")

[DBgoober1]

@chocomalk Oh yeah, paying taxes gives you the right to shut down any meeting you want. That would be a great way to run a country. We could all stop everything anytime a small minority wants to complain about something.

[chocomalk]

@DBgoober1

No, it gives you the right to petition for redress of grievances and protest if said grievances are not met regardless of numbers. And if you think that they are complaining for no reason and that the essence of their complaint is either not warranted or shared by a good majority you need to get out more.

[DBgoober1]

@chocomalk LOL...  Sorry sweety, blocking doorways, disrupting meetings and creating a nuisance isn't your right.

[chocomalk]

@DBgoober1

Actually, if it is what it takes for representatives to address said grievances then it is well within the confines of the 1st amendment. Perhaps the term "social contract" is lost on you but when representatives of government no longer hear redress or represent the interests of the people then they have broken that contract and need to step down. If not, their is no contract and no rule of law.

And this is the right place to do this, not Wall St.

[DBgoober1]

@chocomalk LOL.... good second try... Again, the first amendment does not allow you to impede on the rights of others.

[chocomalk]

@DBgoober1

How are they impeding the rights of others by demanding redress of grievance? In a building constructed and maintained by the public largesse? In a building populated by public servants who by their very job description are beholden to the people that pay their salaries, i.e. their employers. In a building, whose very design is as a house of representation for the will of the people and the very place to redress grievances.

And what rights have they impeded?

[DBgoober1]

@chocomalk They are impeding others from freely moving about the building. Their insistance on creating a nuisance by interupting meetings and chanting in unison impedes on those working there. Redress of Grievances is not defined as blocking roadways, hallways or interupting meetings. The first amendment is not a right allowing you to do whatever you please in the name of protest.

[chocomalk]

@DBgoober1

The only ones impeding freedom of movement are the police, the protestors are a nuisance yes, but they are not preventing anyone from access. Only one person interrupted a meeting and was arrested, the rest tried to attend a public meeting but were denied. The first amendment is a right to peacefully assemble, protest and ask for a redress of grievances, how this is to be implemented is not defined and for good reason, the very reason why Madison was opposed to the Bill of Rights.

[DBgoober1]

@chocomalk Oh, my fault, I thought the big mob of people loitering in the lobby and blocking doorways were the protesters. I guess all those folks sitting on the floor must be undercover police officers. Maybe those folks are infultrators highed by the Koch brothers to make OWS look bad. Sorry sweety, say what you want, our founding fathers did not intend the first amendment to mean you can break up whatever meeting you want whenever you want.

[chocomalk]

@DBgoober1

Sorry to burst your bias, but a crowd of people in a government building is nothing new and there was enough room to go around, obviously so since there was enough room for people to attend the meeting and attend work, and enough room for the police to surround them.

And I sincerely doubt you understand what the founding fathers intended as their goal was to limit government powers, not delineate every right for fear something would be left out or interpreted falsely.

[DBgoober1]

@chocomalk LOL, again, your wrong. George Washington rode out himself to quell the whiskey rebellion. He levied fines on citizens that erected liberty poles as a form of protest against the taxes. John Adams defended the britsh solders that shot civilians during the Boston Massacre. He believed that the crowd of protesters were really rioters. But hey, if you want to ignore history why aren't todays judges stopping the OWS evictions? Why are they upholding the majority of arrests?

[chocomalk]

@DBgoober1

Somehow you are comparing an insurrection in which people were tarred and feathered, murdered and numerous other crimes were committed, to a sit in protest, and I can find no mention of fines unless they are attached to other crimes.

And Adams defended Preston as legal representation, as a lawyer. It was his job to paint the "protestors" as a mob. In fact, as justified as their anger was, they were an angry mob, not protestors. And a judges decision does not mean it is a lawful one.

[DBgoober1]

@chocomalk Sit in? It was only a sit in after the cops pulled their tasers out. Before that is was a shove in and disrupt. We already saw in Oakland what OWS does without cops around. We already saw the other videos from occupy Seattle. You have too many people in the OWS yelling for the end of capitalism and revolution to be considered peaceful. You really should look at your movement from the outside.

[chocomalk]

@DBgoober1

Is there video of that push and shove match? It is not shown here even though there was a media presence, they conveniently declined to turn a camera on, preferring to tell us instead. Who can blame them? I mean a bunch of people sitting on the floor is much more riveting than a conflict right?

What happened in Seattle? The majority of the violence has been on the side of the police, so by your standards they should be an immediate threat considering their actions.

[DBgoober1]

@chocomalk That's funny, I see people trying to shove there way into the hearing is this video? Did your bias blind you from that? Here is a nice video showing a mob refusing to allow the police the right of way on a public street, watch?v=YZXff85rMuc. Here is another cute video of a "protester" calling for a revolution, watch?v=ElU_JKjMTbM. Yes, I think taking past actions into account the OWS movement should be considered a threat to public safety.

[chocomalk]

@DBgoober1

What you "see" in this video, is a door opening in a public meeting, someone starts to enter and is prevented. If it was not for the play by play provided for you, there is no conclusive way to determine people were rushing in or if the bailiff was rushing out.

That first video is pointless, they are protestors "protesting". The second, I would agree is a misguided person whose heart is in the right place. What he is asking for is the preferential treatment the rich get.

[DBgoober1]

@chocomalk Yep, your bias is blinding you. Watch again, you have more than one person shoving their way in, also, one is waving for the rest to follow. Someone calling for a revolution has his heart in the right place. Sorry sweety, wrong again. He wants to take what others have earned. Your conclusion from the first video also shows your distortion. Laying in the street and blocking the road is not within your first amendment right. It is creating a nuisance.

[chocomalk]

@DBgoober1

1.

They are the public, in a public building, trying to attend a public meeting and have every right to try to attend and to invite their friends and families, it is not their fault they were denied because of occupancy limits or whatever. We are talking about the bailouts here, socialism for the rich and zero accountability. Providing police and judicial protection for them is criminal. Doing so at the expense of the people and the economy is treason...Cont

[DBgoober1]

@chocomalk You cannot defend a call for revolution and an end to capitalism because a few of them got goverment bailouts. He did not call for getting our bailout moneys back, he called for the end of all capitalism. The majority of the people in America earned what they have. To take it from them is wrong. If you don't know what Oakland did when the cops weren't around you are living under a rock or too blind to see the distruction in OWS.

[chocomalk]

@DBgoober1

One persons demands do not indict a groups. The constitution itself provides means and justification for revolution if necessary.

Many people have called for an end to capitalism, did you know there is a communist party? Welcome to America. I don't agree with him but hey, there is that 1st amendment right?

And since it is so evident and conclusive what happened in Oakland then you can provide a video link right? For us rock people.

[DBgoober1]

@chocomalk What indicts the group is the cheering crowd around him.  As far as Oakland goes, research the movement you are supporting yourself.

[chocomalk]

@DBgoober1

No that is anecdotal evidence at best and would only apply to those individuals in the crowd who actually do and would support such actions.

And the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, you had no problem finding the wrong video, now find the one that supports your claim or get off the pot and realize that refusal to do so is tantamount to saying, it does not exist.

Cheers officer.

[DBgoober1]

@chocomalk OWS is a hate group.

[chocomalk]

@DBgoober1

I think you're a cop, a government stooge, or a clueless individual.

[buggsmalone]

@DBgoober1 its great that you hate ows because you must be in totall hell since earth is ows everywhere you go and this is just the tip of the iceberg.. enjoy that because its like rooting for the clippers against the lakers. living on earth and hating ows is like living in baskin robbins 31 flavors and hating ice cream.. ice cream is a hate group..

haha enjoy that shit bitch

[chocomalk]

@DBgoober1

2.

"He wants to take what others have earned. "

You don't "earn" anything by losing money and receiving tax money to bail you out.

And I never said anything about laying in a street being a right, I asked what OWS Oakland did "when cops aren't around" and you showed me an entirely different video and assumed my argument would apply to that scenario.

And they are within their "right" as long as they understand they will be arrested for breaking policy.

[yanikv]

The first amendment is dead in this country... and everyone knows it...

[andreyo61]

@yanikv It's true. Practically everyone does know it, (when they're not drunk in front of the football game, or fighting for bargains at Mall-Wart, or overwhelmed by the demands of modern life). I guess, for those of us who are sober enough to really know how bad things are, the question is, "What are we going to DO about it?"

OWS was an attempt. It got crushed, (basically). So what do we do now?

[yanikv]

@andreyo61 organization is the only answer... We must continue to organize...or get crushed again and again...

[KlingonSpider]

@yanikv your comment is full of irony. being that your just freely expressed yourself...

[RoyalAssPain]

@KlingonSpider Moron. The worlds isnt just black and white you know.

[KlingonSpider]

@RoyalAssPain no shit Sherlock

[thedudewithbeef]

They should use android :P

[thedudewithbeef]

They didnt use it..so its fine.

[r6turbo12]

@thedudewithbeef so its fine to use intimidation to stop people from exercising their first amendment right?

[thedudewithbeef]

@r6turbo12 im not saying that...im glad they didnt use it. but know we know they did...so its NOT fine :P...

[xxmind0vermatter]

Oh my mistake. I guess the caps lock on tasers and explanation point led me to believe that was newsworthy. The cops are just trying to make sure nothing gets out of hand, you really can't blame them. Large gatherings of angry people can get out of hand really fast.

[HUJUism]

Their iphone technology really fucking sucks!

[tytheeman20]

@xxmind0vermatter The title says PULL TASERS ON. It doesn't say USE TASERS ON. So, what's misleading, sir????

[TrickShot1100]

@tytheeman20 Good point.

I was just going to say that.

Keep up the good work MOX....Thanks.

[YaHuWaHservant]

@xxmind0vermatter You shouldn't read into things lol