Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

“Nonviolent” Occupy Chicago march: “F*** the Police”

“Nonviolent” Occupy Chicago march: “F*** the Police”

Occupy Chicago held a “F** the Police” rally as they marched through the streets Tuesday night shouting “From Chicago to Greece, F*** the Police.” A short video clip I took as the crowd was just beginning to form follows (language warning: not safe for work):

Compared to last fall’s protests, the level of anger and violence has escalated both in the demeanor and chants of the protesters. More overtly visible Communist and anarchist flags and symbols were in evidence in the clothing, flags, and chants of the Occupy crowds.

Video cannot capture the feeling of walking among the Occupy of spring 2012; the group Tuesday night seethed with anger and a desire to engage with the police, taunting and yelling at them as they lined the streets. Many were dressed in all black with masks or bandannas covering their faces.

Chicago Riot Police with helmets and clubs were called in as they attempted to keep the march on the streets, and they lined the roofs of the buildings along Halsted Street. One of the Occupiers yelled “Sieg Heil” as the marchers made their way north.

“It’s quite possible the police are worried about property damage,” said a man livestreaming the march as police corralled the protesters off the sidewalks.

At 8:00 pm CST, one of the Occupiers struck an elderly man; the man walked away rather than press charges:


By 8:30pm, storm clouds had gathered and tensions were on the rise and a few minutes later they stormed the CTA train station screaming, “Whose Trains! Our Trains!”

Occupy Chicago was already trying to distance itself from the violence of the march Tuesday night, saying that it wasn’t affiliated with their group. However, the official twitter stream promoted the location of the march and “@occupychicago” along with the hashtag #FTP:

The protest was neither nonviolent nor about NATO; this was about a show of force against the local authorities and setting the tone for the rest of the week.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Anne, they’re setting the tone for the upcoming elections.
This is all planned by the White House, the unions, and the anarchists(with Bill Ayers’ blessing).

Wake up, America. These losers WANT death and destruction.
They fantasize about the Arab spring as if it was a GOOD thing.

Watch the media glorify these wretched losers.

    LeonardShelby in reply to Tamminator. | May 16, 2012 at 3:04 am

    I’m confused. Anarchists love Obama now? I thought Obama was for BIG government. Perhaps you should look up “anarchist’ in the dictionary.

      Based on what I wrote here, anarchists definitely don’t love Obama:

      http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=12947

      pst314 in reply to LeonardShelby. | May 16, 2012 at 9:01 am

      And yet, curiously, we keep seeing anarchists advocating forced “wealth redistribution”. “It is a puzzlement”, as the King of Siam said.

        LeonardShelby in reply to pst314. | May 16, 2012 at 10:31 am

        I’m neither an anarchist nor a Democrat and I can answer this one. Your logic essentially amounts to “rainwater falls from the sky and the seas are full of water, so the sky must be a sea.” “Wealth redistribution” as practiced by American liberals is based on the legitimacy of the state, whereas anarchists might suggest “wealth redistribution” based on the illegitimacy of the state. An anarchist argument for “wealth redistribution” could, for example, go this way: Who has money now is based on a long history of state-secured privilege. It has less to do with any notion of merit and hard work and more to do with the political power one and their predecessors wielded. Crony capitalism is NOT a free market. The state is nothing more than a gang of thieves, and wealth attained by theft is not the legitimate property of the thief or its hangers-on.

        You may disagree on legitimate and practical grounds, but linking anarchists and Democrats based on “wealth redistribution” fundamentally misunderstands, well, pretty much everything.

          pst314 in reply to LeonardShelby. | May 16, 2012 at 10:36 am

          “An anarchist argument for “wealth redistribution” could, for example, go this way…”
          And it would be utterly dishonest, because anarchists were demanding “wealth redistribution” back when there was very little crony capitalism.
          Maybe Ambrose Bierce had the best suggestion for how to respond to anarchists, socialists, and other parasites. See his Devil’s Dictionary definition of grapeshot. 😉

          LeonardShelby in reply to LeonardShelby. | May 16, 2012 at 11:36 am

          You DO know how the railroads got built in this country, don’t you? Massive land giveaways to private corporations. You do know that once upon a time, certain people were property in this country, don’t you? That’s what we call a system of state-enforced privilege whereby a class of people was declared non-people and their labor stolen over a vast period of time. Crony capitalism is RECENT?

          dmacleo in reply to LeonardShelby. | May 16, 2012 at 11:53 am

          exactly what percentage of land was given to railroads vs what they paid for.
          you can start with Pacific Railroad Act of 1862 and 1864 to learn something.
          I am sure you’ll skip over the 30 year bond loans required to be paid back with interest.

          this friggin myth has gone on unchallenged for far to long.

          LukeHandCool in reply to LeonardShelby. | May 16, 2012 at 12:16 pm

          You give the average dummy who fancies himself an anarchist way too much credit for critical reasoning capacitity and self awareness.

          I don’t know who is worse. The 30-year-old Obama-worshipping, self-proclaimed anarchist hipster who works in our office at the police department (no less!!) …

          … or the couple living a half-block away in a $3 million house with a Lexus SUV parked in the driveway and an A.N.S.W.E.R. yard sign protruding from their front lawn.

          These types are clueless … which facilitates their being fellow travellers.

    Scorpio51 in reply to Tamminator. | May 16, 2012 at 8:09 am

    ” they’re setting the tone for the upcoming elections.”

    Yes, this is what the White House is counting on. DHS has stocked up on guns and ammo for this reason.

    Martial law may not be far behind. The election will be suspended. Obama has nothing to run on.

      They won’t suspend the election. A suspension of the election in the midst of civil unrest would be the absolute worst decision that could be made. That would be an immediate recipe for civil war.

      All of the Patriot groups (and there are a LOT of them) would say “see, what we’ve been saying for years is true and Obama has set himself up as a dictator. Openly fight them before they come for your guns and stop your ability to fight.”

      No. Americans could tolerate a lot of punishment. They even might tolerate martial law for a brief period (so long as the government doesn’t attempt to disarm them). However, the moment it looks like either elections or freedom to bear arms is actually directly threatened, expect an army to arise. I know there are about 30,000 in Michigan who would quickly answer the call, mostly with prior military training. I know there would be several thousand from Upstate NY, many with advances survivalist training who would answer. My suspicion is that a large swath of the Texas and Arizona populations would rebel as well.

      All things considered, with that sort of impetus, it would not take very long to raise, organize and lightly outfit an army of several hundred thousand to a million individuals.

The increased appearance of communist and anarchist paraphernalia as compared to last year’s events indicates a lesser degree of control by the Democrat party.

Not because the Democrats are opposed to such things, but because the Democrats are opposed to being publicly identified with such symbolism and were actively suppressing those displays last year.

Now, that the ‘movement’ has taken on a life of it’s own they cannot exert such message discipline and the truth is on full display.

    LeonardShelby in reply to ThomasD. | May 16, 2012 at 3:24 am

    Again, Democrats aren’t opposed to anarchism? I’m pretty sure these worldviews are diametrically opposed, most notably on the size and/or very existence of government.

      “CLASSICAL” democrats (as with classical Liberals) are opposed to overreaching government but also opposed to anarchy.

      The current Statists who have called themselves Democrats & Liberals in order to gain acceptance in the public are in favor of both over-reaching government because it imposes control on the public AND of anarchy because it JUSTIFIES the existence of the over-reaching government in the first place.

Not a very big crowd.

This is the start. A violent summer and Barry declaring martial law. Working as intended.

LeonardShelby | May 16, 2012 at 12:00 am

I am curious as to who is responsible for this wildly inaccurate and biased reporting. The protesters picked up a large amount of hecklers in Bridgeport, including the “old man” in question, who was with a group of other verbally and physically aggressive men obviously trying to provoke the protesters to violence so headlines like this one could be written. It was the “old man” who initiated force by shoving the protester, and was then taken escorted into the police station. I speak as an eyewitness. The protest was completely devoid of violence on the part of the protesters. Not a hair on the head of any individual, citizen or cop, was harmed. I am disappointed by the lack of truth on this site, and if this is not corrected, I will be further disappointed by the lack of journalistic integrity.

LeonardShelby | May 16, 2012 at 12:03 am

I should add that once shoved, the protester did not retaliate.

    currently in reply to LeonardShelby. | May 16, 2012 at 12:34 am

    What are they protesting against (or for)?

    Where you there just observing or were you part of the protest? And why did the protesters “pick up” a large amount of hecklers that were verbally and physically aggresive?

    Please elaborate, don’t retaliate.

      LeonardShelby in reply to currently. | May 16, 2012 at 1:09 am

      I was observing the protest. The news reports are generally accurate. There were no arrests. The police generally acted professionally. Neither they nor the protestors initiated violence against the other. The news reports report the “scuffle” between the old man and the protester with no more detail, presumably because the reporters did not witness how it began. They also accurately reported the cut on the man’s head after the scuffle. I did not see how he got it. Only this blog reports, inaccurately, that the protester initiated the violence. This is untrue. The protester was shoved first. After the scuffle, both police and protesters acted quickly to de-escalate the situation, and matters calmed down quickly. To those familiar with Chicago neighborhoods, the hecklers in Bridgeport should come as no surprise (one charming gentleman chanted “Free Jon Burge,” also in the news reports). The protest roughly doubled in size prior to entering Bridgeport as it passed through Back of the Yards and Canaryville from residents joining in. This is also in the news reports. If you are interested in a sociological study of a few Chicago neighborhoods, the wildly varying resident reaction to this protest should be of interest. However, none of this changes my initial point, the inaccuracy of this blog’s report of the scuffle between the old man and the protester. I do not know if video exists, but if it does, it will verify the accuracy of what I am saying: the old man initiated the violence.

        currently in reply to LeonardShelby. | May 16, 2012 at 1:43 am

        Okay, you elaborated but didn’t answer my main question.

        What’s the message of the protesters? I feel sure it’s not “free Jon Burge”.

        Were they anarchists or not? What do they want?

          LeonardShelby in reply to currently. | May 16, 2012 at 2:05 am

          I could try to relay the protester’s message to you, but I don’t feel like I would do an adequate job. If you are genuinely interested, I might suggest you seek out protester interviews in the press (I seem to remember seeing a few). There were almost certainly quite a few anarchists present and many of the signs, banners, and chants were anarchist in nature, but the protest was open to all, and many joined along the route. I certainly don’t think the residents who joined were all anarchists, but yet the protest resonated with them on some level. Without a doubt, the warmest reception was in the poorest communities. Why all the concern with anarchists, if I may ask?

I think you’re suffering from some short term memory loss there, Lenny.

    LeonardShelby in reply to Quint. | May 16, 2012 at 2:13 am

    I look forward to the author elaborating on her basis for the assertion that “one of the Occupiers struck an elderly man; the man walked away rather than press charges.” She did not see it, so she must have been told it.

      wodiej in reply to LeonardShelby. | May 16, 2012 at 7:00 am

      There are hundreds of documented cases of violence and crime among this group. Rape, murder, assault, public indecency, drug use, etc.

      cpddet in reply to LeonardShelby. | May 16, 2012 at 9:35 am

      I was there as well I was on the roof of the police station.Had a very good view of the street. The protesters were definatley trying to get a rise out of the police officers. based on thefact that they were screaming Fuck you and flipping the bird at the officers on the street. As to the old man, yes he did push a proester, as hard as an 80 year old man with cancer could. It was because they got alittle too close for his comfort. Then he was struck by one of the protesters and the neighborhood guys stepped in to defend him. If you are not from Chicago and the Bridgeport neighborhood ,you wouldnt understand. Its a close knit neighborhood and they didnt like this nonsense being there.

        LeonardShelby in reply to cpddet. | May 16, 2012 at 9:58 am

        Thank your for your honesty as to who started the fight, officer. And don’t sell your heroic defender short, he got quite a shove in. As for the rest of it, the protesters “got a little too close for comfort” in the middle of a street full of protesters once the poor, cancer-stricken old man and the “neighborhood guys” waded into a street full of protesters looking for a fight? I realize violence doesn’t count when your people do it, but really, this is some seriously excessive excuse-making, don’t you think?

        But as we have confirmation from a sympathetic voice that the old man started the fight, can we get a correction in the piece, or does ideology once again entitle you to your own facts?

          dmacleo in reply to LeonardShelby. | May 16, 2012 at 12:01 pm

          so a rowdy crowd gets too close to an old man, he probably gets scared pushes one away from him, he gets beat on and you’re ok with that.
          you’re a piece of trash.

          LeonardShelby in reply to LeonardShelby. | May 16, 2012 at 12:12 pm

          That is also not what happened. Why is it that everyone around here feels the need to arrange the facts around their worldviews? The old man and his companions walked into the crowd of protesters and confronted them. Typically, such exchanges begin and end with strong words on both sides. In this case, one man decided to initiate violence.

          dmacleo in reply to LeonardShelby. | May 16, 2012 at 12:21 pm

          so now the witness above isn’t good enough for you.
          trash.

          LeonardShelby in reply to LeonardShelby. | May 16, 2012 at 12:27 pm

          I am a witness, moron.

          cpddet in reply to LeonardShelby. | May 16, 2012 at 12:36 pm

          The people from the neighborhood didnt wade into the protesters. They were on the fringe watching, just curious. The protesters were milling about screaming obscenities at the police. Thats when the old man pushed the kid away. From my vantage point the group of protesters then rushed toward the old man and were repelled by other people from the neighborhood. Four or five guys willing to take on about fifty, that is Bridgeport. You guys should do better research about the communities before you enter them. The area where the march started is Really tough, its a good thing all those police were around you. Those guys would have really hurt you. From what I saw and heard from residents last night , is that very few people in Chicago support you and wish you would just leave.

          LeonardShelby in reply to LeonardShelby. | May 16, 2012 at 12:58 pm

          The protest began by walking down 50th St from Halsted to Morgan, up Morgan to 49th Pl. and back to Halsted. During that time, there was no police escort in this Rough neighborhood and the welcome was much warmer than in Bridgeport. Interesting that the only violence in this protest was commenced not by the protesters or gangbangers, but your supporters in Bridgeport, officer.

          cpddet in reply to LeonardShelby. | May 16, 2012 at 1:10 pm

          They wernt supporting you over on Morgan,they were laughing at you. If they supported you they would have continued walking with you, but hey stopped. Again there is very little sympathy for your cause here in Chicago by the residents

          LeonardShelby in reply to LeonardShelby. | May 16, 2012 at 1:17 pm

          1. I know for a fact you weren’t there, so quit making stuff up, and 2. Many did join the march, as reported by the many reporters who were actually on that leg of the march. Google news is your friend. Check it.

          cpddet in reply to LeonardShelby. | May 16, 2012 at 1:25 pm

          I was right behind the news truck , travelling down 50th place. They dozen or so guys stopped as you guys turned. What You dont understand is you entered a rival gang territory and they would not go that far, thus stopping and retunring .They walk past me as I was following you guys. I can google all I want , doesnt mean its the truth. Reporters get things wrong many times why would this time be different? You dont have the support you think you have.

          LeonardShelby in reply to LeonardShelby. | May 16, 2012 at 1:49 pm

          Wait, I’m confused, did these guys turn around because they were afraid of a rival gang or because they didn’t support the protesters? I’m afraid it is you who are twisting yourself in knots. I saw the march swell from residents joining in through Back of the Yards and Canaryville. The reporters reported it. You’re the odd man out, here.

Just like nazi Germany in the 30’s.
Not at all like the TEA Party rallies.
This is in Bill Ayers’ home town. Coincidence? Nah.

Where’s all those high tech non-lethal weapons for the non-violent dirtbags, although they just may enjoy crapping their pants in synchronicity .. depends.

Anne, I’m a videographer living with my girlfriend on the NW side, so if you find yourself in need of some better quality video of these colossal pr*cks, drop me a line and I’d be glad to work with you.

These fools would be the first ones whining and crying if the police stopped doing their job.

[…] Legal Insurrection: “Nonviolent” Occupy Chicago march: “F*** the Police” […]

Meanwhile, in Denver, the City Council voted 9-0 to make sleeping out a criminal offense. Some have protested, accurately saying that the City Council has now criminalized homelessness. Unauthorized camping out in Denver, on private or public property is now a crime. The City Council is responding to last year’s Occupy protest.

I have never been, and hope to never be homeless. Some people fall into this or choose it. Either way, they are the victims of the Occupy movement. The Occupy crowd took and abused a “privilege” of the homeless. Their selfishness has made the lives of others worse. Will the surrounding communities now need to also criminalize homelessness, lest the homeless wonder where it isn’t a crime?

    LeonardShelby in reply to Milwaukee. | May 16, 2012 at 10:58 am

    The “now look what you made me do” excuse of wife beaters and authoritarians alike. The Occupiers are not responsible for the state’s jackbooted overreaction to them. The state is.

      Calling it an over-reaction is a bit much. It sounds like a proportional and reasonable reaction and regulation to individuals attempting to abuse the public. Isn’t that what the Liberals often call for though? ex: a few credit card companies charge high interest rates to some of their clients; Liberals say that all banks and credit card companies must be regulated to a maximum rate.

      The Occu-idiots don’t seem to understand that their actions have consequences, not all of which are borne by them. Some are borne by the taxpayers (extra police, clean up and debris removal costs), some by the public (extra time and effort of avoiding protests, changing schedules) and now, some by the homeless population (no outdoor sleeping without a permit).

      Milwaukee in reply to LeonardShelby. | May 16, 2012 at 6:35 pm

      Deep sigh. I suppose you’re right LeonardShelby. The City Council just wasn’t clever enough to write a law which allowed good old-fashioned homeless people to sleep in any crevice they could find, while keeping the Occupy crowd from using the same law to allow them to occupy a public or private space. Those guys just gave up, and said “the hell with this” and passed a law affecting everybody. I’ll bet you’re clever enough, why don’t you give it a try? How can we allow those down trodden individuals who are either down on their luck, or who think the best way to go through life is sleeping in alleys while excluding demonstrators who want to over throw our political and economic systems from sleeping in the park? Considering how long Denver has been around, and how long Denver has had homeless people, it’s interesting that this didn’t become a pressing issue until after the Occupy crow occupied a public park.

      By the way, isn’t “occupy” something that conquering armies do to the lands of dispatched foes?

Anne Sorock | May 16, 2012 at 11:07 am

There is nothing factually incorrect about any of the statements in this post. On-the-scenes video footage is forthcoming, which will allow those of you who were not there to decide for yourselves if this march was “nonviolent.”

    LeonardShelby in reply to Anne Sorock. | May 16, 2012 at 11:27 am

    Why did you make it seem like the old man was the victim rather than the instigator of the conflict? Does that strike you as an honest way to report this story?

Anne Sorock | May 16, 2012 at 11:27 am

Here is a video of the scuffle (language warning, again): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoUdWZRnw0g&feature=player_embedded#!

    LeonardShelby in reply to Anne Sorock. | May 16, 2012 at 11:30 am

    The camera dropped down and did not capture the old man starting the fight. You now have two eyewitnesses that state that is what happened. Correct your story.

      cpddet in reply to LeonardShelby. | May 16, 2012 at 12:40 pm

      Answer me this. Why would a group of 20 somethings rush an old man and then hit him, if they were supposed to be nonviolent

        LeonardShelby in reply to cpddet. | May 16, 2012 at 12:53 pm

        Because that isn’t what happened. The old man initiated the violence. Answer me this officer, what is the charge when someone shoves a cop?

          cpddet in reply to LeonardShelby. | May 16, 2012 at 1:07 pm

          Deny what happened thats ok. He didnt shove a cop, and why did a young person hit an 80 year old man?

          LeonardShelby in reply to LeonardShelby. | May 16, 2012 at 1:13 pm

          You: “As to the old man, yes he did push a proester, as hard as an 80 year old man with cancer could. It was because they got alittle too close for his comfort.” You’ve already admitted that the old man started with the violence but you spun it your way. You can’t now retract that and pretend that he didn’t.

          Intruding into personal space can be a form of assault (legally a tort, not a crime). If the old man perceived a threat offensive contact or of violence caused by an immediate show of force on the part of the younger man, the shove to remove the younger man from the immediate zone of the older mans person may have been privileged.

          I have not seen the video. This is legal theory.

          That being said, a lot of individuals like to think that the person who uses physical force is the person in the wrong. That is not always the case.

    cpddet in reply to Anne Sorock. | May 16, 2012 at 1:20 pm

    In the above video, you see residents arguing with protesters. The old man is clearly visible. A young protester wearing a black and red stripped knit cap approaches him quite quickly during a heated argument. The old man pushes him away, then this much younger man lunges at the old man attacking him, causing injury to his head. Nonviolent? You are twisting yourself in knots trying to defend the actions of out of towners trying to incite violence.

      LeonardShelby in reply to cpddet. | May 16, 2012 at 1:45 pm

      Rubbish, the meathead in the red baseball cap shoves the protest organizer in the green bike helmet trying to defuse the situation at the 10 second mark. I didn’t even see that at the time, but I’m glad it’s on the video. Theres the first act of violence against the protesters. At this point, red hat and old man are still moving forward acting aggressively. The protester in the striped cap moves in front of the camera. No indication that it was a threatening action. The old man shoves and the camera goes down. The next thing we see is the breakup.

“You DO know how the railroads got built in this country, don’t you? Massive land giveaways to private corporations.”

You DO know, don’t you, that there were railroads that were built without government giveaways? Likewise steamship companies, mining companies, oil companies, etc, etc?

And yet those companies were just as much a target of anarchist & socialist ire.

    LeonardShelby in reply to pst314. | May 16, 2012 at 11:58 am

    I was merely responding to your ridiculous comment that crony capitalism is a recent phenomenon. It has dragged on in this country since before it was a country. The recent whoppers (whereby the banks own the Treasury, Wall Street own the SEC, and the Democrat-passed health care plan is just welfare for health insurance and Pharma companies) still pale in comparison to a bunch of rich white guys deciding that they could own black people, having the state enforce that privilege through one odious law after another. The rich, generally speaking, attained and maintained that wealth by proximity to the levers of state power.

      I’ve heard this argument before, usually in relation to racism being an invention of the “White Man” to keep the “Black Man” down. It’s usually shouted by people who are wholly ignorant of history, and who like to scream at me that I am a product of “white privilege” because I am reasonably successful. The often ignore the years of hard work, long hours and literal blood, sweat and tears I’ve had to put into my work to achieve that modest success, and the screamers would rather attribute their lack of success to an unfair system rather than recognize that they’re just not willing to put in the WORK.

      Read “The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity” by Benjamin Issac, which details the origins of Racism as far back as 5th Century BCE Greece, which includes, strangely enough, some discussion of Slavery. It’ll be eye-opening in your thinking about the underlying causes of slavery and about “a bunch of rich white guys deciding they could own black people….”

        LeonardShelby in reply to Chuck Skinner. | May 16, 2012 at 2:00 pm

        You valiantly argue against a point I didn’t make. I point out that slavery is the American experience is a form of crony corporatism, not who invented it. The use of state power to service the needs of a preferred class against others. It began then and continues unabated, albeit in different forms, to the present day.

And you are ignoring my observation that an anarchist justification for wealth redistribution based on a crony-capitalism argument is dishonest because our anarchist friends have and will attack any company regardless of how little purely free-market its practices. In the end, the anarchists merely covet.

    LeonardShelby in reply to pst314. | May 16, 2012 at 12:13 pm

    I look forward to learning of this mythical free market corporation under attack by anarchists that you speak of.

[…] » “Nonviolent” Occupy Chicago march: “F*** the Police” […]

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend