Police: At least 50 Wall Street protesters arrested at Brooklyn Bridge

  • Thread starter Thread starter News Feed
  • Start date Start date
N

News Feed

Guest
Dozens of chanting Occupy Wall Street protesters were arrested Saturday for blocking traffic at the Brooklyn Bridge, police said.

Q5lUQ3cAUOw


Continue reading...
 
The number arrested on the bridge was far more than 50. It is between 700 and 800. Furthermore I recall reading that day that the police had allowed the protesters onto the bridge but I couldn't find that subsequently. It seems that the news changed.
changethestory.jpg
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
At least they are paying something for their protection. The problem is that the people are subsidising the protection of JP Morgan.
Click to expand...
I thought the neutrality of the law is the very core of it's existance. And the fundament of any modern nation.
 
Speelgoedmannetje said:
I thought the neutrality of the law is the very core of it's existance. And the fundament of any modern nation.
Click to expand...
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." Anatole France.

On the other hand, those with enough money can afford to ignore the law, even then, should they chose to steal bread.
 
But but but this is just open and clear bribing! I mean, in poor countries they at least have the decency to be hush-hush about it :eek:
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
The number arrested on the bridge was far more than 50. It is between 700 and 800. Furthermore I recall reading that day that the police had allowed the protesters onto the bridge but I couldn't find that subsequently. It seems that the news changed.
changethestory.jpg
Click to expand...

That's considered one of the more liberal US papers, is it not?
(Yes, yes I know Jim, they're *all* liberal...)
 
Robert said:
That's considered one of the more liberal US papers, is it not?
(Yes, yes I know Jim, they're *all* liberal...)
Click to expand...

Yup, liberal is the label but as you are seeing their intentions are even darker.
 
redrumloa said:
Yup, liberal is the label but as you are seeing their intentions are even darker.
Click to expand...
The fact is, red, liberal is a label that has been handed to you to use by the corporate shills and shills for the bankers. The "liberal" media are also corporate shills and shills for the bankers - that's what they are, not liberal, not progressive, but so long as the propagandists can keep you saying that they will keep the right divided from the left so they can't get together on the few things they agree on like jailing the crooks that broke the system.

So long as they can keep enough people yelling about "liberals" or yelling "Democrats" or "Republicans" then they are safe.
 
Here's a first hand (or maybe second, hard to tell) account of what happened on the bridge: MIC CHECK!

It seems that the protest organizers warned against marching up the motor way and instead recommended they take the sidewalk. This warning was ignored. Also, it seems the police were on the opposite side of the bridge and met them half way. So having read that, it may be that the original New York Times article was just plain wrong - police on the opposite side of the bridge couldn't "allow" them to do anything because they were just too far. It also had this to day:
The reality was that the arrest was a muddle, a mistake exacerbated by some police (“some” because other protesters said they’d been let free, their plastic handcuffs snipped off, by cops who told them to beat it). It was also their media breakthrough.
Click to expand...
 
Video. Kind of looks like the police let them up there - almost as if it would be a more convenient place to arrest a few.
 
Kinda looks like a case of 1000 protesters vs 7 or 8 police. Not sure what you'd expect the police to do, but to me it looks like they're falling back to regroup.

Regardless, my link made it pretty clear that the protesters fully understood that going over the motorway was illegal and they advised themselves not to do so. I think what happened is that some got carried away and did something they shouldn't have. Overall this shows that the protesters are for the most part law abiding and respectful, but you get large numbers of people in one spot and there's bound to be some misbehaving going on. This goes for the protesters and the police alike. The fact is the police could have cracked down on them a lot harder as well (this still looks pretty mild compared to Toronto's G8/20). But not only that, the police helped them get more media attention and at little cost (most were let go almost immediately).

So in other words, I think we should get back to talking about what the protesters are there for.
 
Dylan Rat, eh? Michael Moore, eh? Yep, this "movement" is co-opted. Communism is not the answer. Destroying the Constitution is NOT the answer. Dylan Rat speaks with forked tongue.
 
redrumloa said:
Dylan Rat, eh? Michael Moore, eh? Yep, this "movement" is co-opted. Communism is not the answer. Destroying the Constitution is NOT the answer. Dylan Rat speaks with forked tongue.
Click to expand...
Sounds like someone has fed you poison. Which propaganda mill are you getting this swill from?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top