The Occupy Wall Street movement has swept the nation recently. With occupations in countless cities, the news updates have been relentless. More likely than not you have read articles, op-eds, blogs, or watched videos online about the movement. Of course, some have been critical of those involved with Occupy Wall Street, while others have shown blind support. Yet, nobody can deny that there have been blatant displays of intimidation and violence unleashed against occupiers. It began with the now infamous video of the young women being pepper sprayed while they were barricaded in by police and posed no threat. Keep in mind that pepper spray registers higher on the Schoville Index than the hottest pepper on the planet. Then, police in Oakland raided the occupy camp there with tear gas and rubber bullets. An armed services veteran was shot in the head with a tear gas canister and was put in a coma as a result. Next, protesters engaging in civil disobedience at UC-Davis were beaten and repeatedly doused with pepper-spray. The escalation of violent tactics by police to remove what has been a non-violent protest is alarming. In almost all cases, there have been no apparent threats posed by the individuals being brutalized who have assembled simply to express their First Amendment rights.
The First Amendment to the Bill of Rights guarantees the right to peaceably assemble. It seems the protesters have done their part, so it is unnerving to see such hostility from police forces. In terms of the Constitution, the sides have been split on whether the First Amendment guarantee to assemble has limits. A Federal judge in New York has ruled that protesters in Zucotti Park, the home of the movement, had the right to assemble but did not have the right to camp out or even have certain structures or amenities. Since this ruling, there appears to be a concerted effort nationwide to eradicate occupiers and cripple the movement. Some have gone so far as to accuse municipal leaders of cross country collusion claiming that the leaders are sharing ideas on how to best remove the crowds.
If this is the case then the message being spread seems clear: Intimidate protesters with a display of power, erase all traces of the occupiers (using force when necessary), and black out the media coverage. These tactics seem popular as details pop up in citizen journalist reports and videos across the country. It is not difficult to understand why. Simply put, these tactics have produced results. Protesters have had to flee several encampments over the past few weeks. A lot of progress made by occupiers was also eliminated and morale took a hit momentarily. However, the Occupy movement has also noticed a sort-of positive consequence from the violence towards them as more and more supporters turn out to stand in solidarity. The question that remains is clear: Are these actions justified? And, if so, are they effective in the long-term.
In the argument for the justification of violent police tactics the lines are black and white. If there is a clear threat of danger to the lives of the police officers or occupiers then one could excuse harsh tactics. The problem with that is that the Occupy Wall Street movement has been mostly non-violent. The use of force to evict non-violent protesters is extreme and is often used under authoritarian regimes abroad. The scenes from the initial police raid in Oakland had the feel of a scene from the Arab Spring uprisings in the Middle East in early 2011. With no apparent end in sight for the Occupy movement and no signs of peaceful co-existence between police and occupiers on the horizon, these scenes will only grow in number. should municipalities decide to ratchet up their efforts, the displays of power by police forces will only become even more brutal and violent as their desperation grows.
With instances of violence becoming more and more pronounced, it is unclear how effective these tactics are in the long term. In the short term the results are immediate as panicked crowds disperse and re-group elsewhere. Despite the initial success by police to remove protesters, the movement has continued and even gained strength in some parts of the country. Each incidence of violence puts the story of the Occupy movement on the nightly news, as well as every newspaper each morning. As the story of the movement and the subsequent violence spreads comes the increasing support of Americans who are sympathetic to the cause. Eventually, without any other deterrence, the movement will grow to the point where it cannot be contained. Already, Occupy Wall Street has sparked a national debate about the current political environment. Occupy has even influenced Bank of America's decision to redact the $5 monthly fee it planned to charge for its debit cards.
As the movement becomes more and more relevant, it would appear that the long-term effects of police brutality do little to deter occupiers and, in some cases, it can bolster their numbers. With that said, the fact still remains that unarmed, non-violent citizens are being beaten and are enduring chemical warfare simply for expressing their First Amendment rights. It is time to return to true American values and stop the imitation of often maligned authoritarian figures. The Constitution was written to enable these kinds of protests. It is a slap in the face to our forefathers to do anything but keep these liberties protected. A step in the opposite direction is a step towards authoritarianism.