Women's Blockade

Navigation

User login

Online users

Judith
Domenica the Mouse
dr
SPS Habitat
oldtimeydave
The Original Yoda
systematist
JMK

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

Community Acupu...
Roger and Launchpad
alwayssharethejoy
olympianwatch
mpeper

Women's Blockade

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 2:40am.

On Tuesday November 13th, 2007, 43 people were arrested while attempting to blockade the transfer of military cargoes from the Port of Olympia. Of these 43 arrestees, one was yours truly. Yes I submitted to arrest. But the big story is that of the 43 arrested, 39 were women.

The PMR Women's Caucus organized the nonviolent blockade, and forced the Olympia Police Department to change its tactics from assault and dispersal to peaceable arrest. All 43 arrests were conducted in a peaceable manner.

Which begs the question: why hasn't the OPD used arrests to enforce against blockades previously? Why has the OPD chosen to deliberately harm and injure people - with chemical weapons assaults; pushing, shoving, and tackling with batons; the use of projectile weapons; and even concussion grenades - instead of making arrests in a peaceable manner?

The OPD has used violence against peaceful protesters, escalating tensions and creating an unsafe environment.

Please stop these assaults on protesters.

PMR remains committed to blocking the transfer of military cargoes via the Port of Olympia.

I will support and participate in the PMR movement as long as the military is engaged in improper and unjustified (illegal and immoral) military actions.

I work with PMR in an effort to protect our soldiers as well as the populations of occupied countries (e.g. Iraq) from the harm and abuses that wrongful military actions cause.

Please support PMR in its effort to create a more humane, sustainable, peaceful and just world.

Robert Whitlock's blog
Login or register to post comments

In the future whenever

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 7:12am.

In the future whenever someone chooses on their own to throw objects, pour concrete on tracks, dump trash or damage private property members of PMR or any other group claiming to endorse a peaceful gathering must immediately make a Citizen's Arrest and bring the specific individual to the attention of whichever law agency's chaperoning the show. Giving them a "talking to" may work when their only violation is cursing but after a line's crossed that's that.

It would bring more credibility to your organization for average Olympian's who quite frankly were fed up over this past week. It would also aid in keeping tensions at a minimum as the police won't be forced to assume that "it could be anyone", and the Flag-Waving side wouldn't be under the impression that "they're getting away with anything they want."

Immediately turning in those offenders would not be a violent act or a betrayal of your mission. Granted there is a portion of the population that will never give you or "those Greeners" a break, but they're a minority same as those on your side who would rather party by throwing bricks. The rest might still think people willingly getting arrested are foolish but I believe the majority wouldn't have such a hostile reaction.

You can't just say it is so and expect them to buy it; unfortunately in my experience most people are suspicious and if they don't know you (the general "you", not you personally) then you don't count. They'll have to see an example or two from the next demonstrations (and, of course, if no damage to private property or taunts to non-participants happens then all this is a happily moot point.)

I've been extremely critical of what's been going on with the demonstrators but this is an honest attempt at respectfully trying to make a constructive suggestion.

Please give me a second grace. Please give me a second face. I've fallen far down, the first time around, now I just sit on the ground in your way.
Nick Drake

Thank You Merwyn

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 9:28am.

Thank you for your input. I hear you.

It's kind of hard to know who's misbehaving

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 9:43am.

when the flash bangs are going off and you dodging rubber pellets. Prior to that I saw numerous examples of "self-policing" by he anti-war protesters. On the 13th, everything was quite peaceful until the pepper flew.

I'm not saying that's not

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 9:51am.

I'm not saying that's not how it happened, so please don't get me wrong. How many people were there, how dense was the crowding, and what was the lighting like?

I was once at a Broho show and had no idea that there was a physical fight going on at the door with the ID guy, a couple patrons and a couple sidewalk drunks. Even outside where it's closer, smaller and has less people I have no idea what's happening on the opposite side, nor can I hear anything.

Please give me a second grace. Please give me a second face. I've fallen far down, the first time around, now I just sit on the ground in your way.
Nick Drake

self-policing

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 9:59am.

currently, self-policing is a no-no. What we do instead is to "hold each other accountable" to our guidelines and our code of nonviolence.

Anyone who violates that code is not a member of PMR, and PMR cannot assume responsibility and chooses not associated with those actions.

By and large it has been the police who have escalated the situation, preferring to use heavy amounts of pepper spray and shoving/pushing rather than to peaceably arrest nonviolent protesters.

I think...

Submitted by Tschida on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 10:07am.

After giving warning after warning, and arresting some, it is within their discretion to forcibly move 'protesters' from the road way so they are not blocking it. I think you need to be a little more honest about who is escalating what. Seems to me vandalizing property, and pushing dumpsters and throwing concrete blocks in the street at an intersection, in front of traffic is doing exactly what you are blaming the on the police. You and your group of trouble makers need to stop. C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

What Merwyn said

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 10:37am.

Rob is NOT a trouble maker, unless you bleieve any involvment in the protest makes you culpable. No one here is happy about or defending the vandalism that took place that night. If you have an concrete ideas about how that could have been prevented, I'd be happy to hear about it.

Concrete Idea...

Submitted by Tschida on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 10:56am.

Obey the law. C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

Okay

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 11:15am.

Tsch suggest that civil disobedience is the problem. Unfortunately that would take away a tool that has contributed to many a just cause. Personally, I don't think it's a very realistic solution. People are not going to give up that tool.

Then increase

Submitted by security_six on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 11:22am.

The level of civil disobedience. Blockake the police station and city hall, if you truly have enough people who truly want to change this in this manner then they will mobilize. Otherwise they are nothing more than a small fringe who cannot or will not get their voice heard any other way. I don' think I need to give lessons on civil disobedience here, I am more of an armchair scholar on this subject, but history records much more effective (and much less violent) acts. Of course things are not as bad (yet) as Facist Italy in the 1930's...

“The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. ... They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.” (address to the Italian Senate, 1931) --Benito Mussolini

If the police station or the city hall

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 11:27am.

then why not the port? Not sure I get the difference is all. And it's the port activity they are protesting, not the police or city officials.

My point...

Submitted by security_six on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 7:10pm.

Is that if you truly have the voice of the people and are out to force change, why stop where you are at now? I am claiming that by failing to be more than an unruly mob who cannot or will not achieve their stated goals, and cower behind the label "non violence" that they do not have enough power to do anything, and are a fringe. A more powerful group with the moral support of the people would have shut this city down. No, I take that back. A more powerful group with the moral support of the people would have ended this war already. What happens here will not end the war. What happens in Washington DC will. The only message being sent is that the vocal anti war crowd here is two faced, engages in senseless vandalism and is a front for wanna be play anarchists.

Ok, but this isn't Selma is it?

Submitted by Tschida on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 12:12pm.

People can be demonstrating civil disobedience with out vandalism or harming uninvolved people can't they? Protest at the entrance of Ft. Lewis. Prevent the equipment from reaching its destination. Don't interfere with pedestrians. Protest, and when you are told to move, you do it. The protest actually doesn't have to be confrontational does it? How about voting? Is that a tool or does that not count? How about boycotts of business and government agencies that are opposed to your point of view? How about a march of protest with all the legal permits etc.? There are lots of ways to protest and not break the law isn't there? Why is it my job or why do you put it on me to figure out ways to NOT BREAK THE LAW? Finally this, how about you consider exactly who and what you are protesting, think about who it impacts, and how it reflects on the protesters and their organizing groups. C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

It was against the law

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 6:05pm.

to drink out of the wrong fountain.

We need to uphold the law, right?

It is their right and responsibility

Submitted by security_six on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 11:13am.

To remove people after giving warnings. I expect them to do their jobs.

‘‘A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace.’’

— James Madison, The Federalist Papers (No. 46).

Responding to Tschida first

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 10:13am.

Responding to Tschida first -

I'm going to give Rob Whitlock a personal benefit of the doubt. I don't often agree with him, and I don't think I've ever met him, but too many people I trust have vouched for his non-violent character. I believe that, whatever else went on those nights, Rob didn't take part in any activity other than blocking a road.

Rob -

We must not be using the same definitions. I would have thought "self-policing" and "hold each other accountable" would have been one and the same. Could you please clarify the differences? I think I'm going to like this discussion if it stays civil. Scout's honor on my part.

Please give me a second grace. Please give me a second face. I've fallen far down, the first time around, now I just sit on the ground in your way.
Nick Drake

Yes,

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 12:40pm.

"People can be demonstrating civil disobedience with out vandalism or harming uninvolved people can't they?" That's exactly what they were doing until it all exploded after the police attacked the protesters precisely at the time the strikers were leaving through the other port exit at Marine Drive. The chaos that ensued is not the product of civil disobedience, but poor planning and reactions by the some of the protesters and the police. I think better communication and negotiation between those parties might have prevented that.

I am not sure why protesting at Fort Lewis would be any different than protesting at the port, other than providing PR material for people who like to think protesters are against the troops. That would be a really stupid move.

Moving when asked to defeats the whole purpose of civil disobedience, so that is simply a non-starter. Given that we have a cadre of individuals determined to blockade the port, how is the best way to handle it without creating the problems we had the other night? I'm actually quite interested in figuring that out instead of fantasizing about how I think it should be. The protest “organizers” could reduce the numbers of people sitting in the streets by calling for an end to the blockade. What do you think the police could do to prevent a repeat of the other night? You have plenty advice for the protestors, do you have any for the police?

Excuses...

Submitted by Tschida on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 10:11am.

It is not the job of the city or the police to find a way for you to protest with out vandalism or with out disrupting the city is it? Why do you think I would sit around and try to come up with ways to tell them to do their jobs?

It is however the responsibility of the protesters to OBEY THE LAW.

It would be bad PR to protest at Fort Lewis, because people would think that Oly PMR do not support the troops? No my friend, they would see you and the protesters for what they are. It doesn't serve your agenda to be honest though does it?

Protesting the use of ports is ridiculous, as we have been using ports for strategic movement of equipment and personnel for about two hundred years. The military has access to the port just as private business.

About the cadre of individuals who want attention, they should be arrested, charged, fined (heavily) and turned loose. Don't pay your fine? Do not allow them to attend school until the fines are paid. Garnish wages. This is the one aspect that I think the police and states attorney are falling down on the job.

Drop your child on his face as you protest? Get DCFS involved and find out what is impairing the parents judgment. Last I checked it is an example of poor parental judgment to have you children in the streets in front of traffic.

Why do you feel you need to make excuses for this band of trouble makers? Why do you consistently fail to stand up for law and order in our city?

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

Why?Why?Why?

Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 1:04pm.

Why are you getting so bent out of shape, Chris?

How have these protests had a direct effect on your life? Perhaps you should act on your views. There must be something you can do to effect change, you seem to want change in this case. Otherwise, the horse is dead friend, get off it.

Something I can do?

Submitted by Tschida on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 1:35pm.

Sure help apply pressure publicly to reject the group of thugs breaking the law. Letters to city officials to apply the law to the people who feel they need to break it...perhaps. It is up to me, not you brother. As for endangering children isn't that everybody's business? Or are you somehow absolved of this responsibility? C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

You just posted a doctored

Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 1:47pm.

You just posted a doctored photo and tried to pass it off as real. You just lost any shred of credibility I was trying to give you. As far as I'm concerned you can take your circus back to Anne Coulter's website where it belongs.

That is funny.

Submitted by Tschida on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 3:35pm.

A, you don't know the photo was doctored. B, you thus far have managed to miss the point of the photo, that the retard demonstrator who dropped her child on his face. and C, you never had the slightest intention of ever giving me credibility over anything. So why are you lying about that? Pathetic. C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

Retard?

Submitted by Norm on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 3:37pm.

That's a pretty mature choice of words. Do you know that the child was dropped, or just assume it from the photo?

ok

Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 3:49pm.

A) I have quite a bit of experience with publishing and editing and can simply look at the photo and tell it was doctored, poorly.

B)You can't look at this photo and see anything but the woman picking her child up off the ground.

C)Not true. I've been willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you disagree and just have, sometimes, a poor way of making your point. Until now, that is. If you are going to defend this photo, and continue to state that the woman "dropped her child on his face", then you don't deserve to be taken seriously. You've been asked and pleaded with all along to make your points without resorting to name-calling and you've refused. Again, either enter into civil discourse here and make your arguments with facts and not broad assumptions and stereotypes, or take it elsewhere.

I demand that you remove that obviously doctored photo

Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 1:07pm.

from Olyblog. Have you no respect for journalistic ethics? The bandanas are photoshopped!

D'oh!

Submitted by Norm on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 1:09pm.

Save the photo Gug, I can't see it from my work pc. Send it to me later!

No need

Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 1:15pm.

I doubt Tsch will remove it. He only seems to care about values and ethics when he's criticising people on the left. But if he does delete it, you can also find it at michelmalkin.com. It's the top photo in a series of photos about "anarcists" using children as human shields.

Ahhh...

Submitted by Tschida on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 3:40pm.

If the kid who was dropped, with debris on his face is photo shopped, I will gladly say so and apologize. If you have some info that suggests he was not dropped, something you know, actually credible, say so, other wise perhaps you should check yourself on your accusations. C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

Tsch...

Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 3:48pm.

You are ignoring the fact that the photo was doctored. You have no idea whether or not the child was dropped and neither do I. Sad fact is that shortly after this photo, the toddler was eaten by a dingo. Another sad fact is that you are a smart guy, but incapable of admitting you are wrong because it would mean momentarily letting go of your fierce grip on your alternate reality. Sorry to see that.

This isn't about me, stop changing the subject.

Submitted by Tschida on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 3:49pm.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

It is about you,

Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 3:54pm.

you keep changing the subject.

The photo doctoring in question is about the kids being "masked up", not that a toddler fell over and that woman picked him up. You changed the subject to attempt to justify posting a bogus photo.

I agree with Rob

Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 3:59pm.

When you post something that is clearly fake and refuse to remove it or even acknowledge it. That IS a problem and it IS about you.

If the kids are doctored with bandanas,

Submitted by Tschida on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 4:49pm.

How does that change the point of the photo? C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

Until you fess up

Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 5:01pm.

your questions are immaterial. Until then the more interesting question is why were the photo's doctored to begin with. Actually, it's not an interesting question at all. The answer is quite clear. The photo was doctored to make it look like the children were masked like their "fellow" anarchists and to create a greater sense of outrage among Malkin’s readers. Unacceptable manipulation.

What a way to spin !

Submitted by Tschida on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 5:20pm.

The entire point of the photo is the toddler. You have offered nothing to discredit the photo, just anger and how you feel it was doctored. I see your point about the kids being made to look that way, but again you should come up with something. You know those photos from Israel and Palestine, where they doctored the smoke in to make a different picture? Or when the photographer was putting stuffed animals in his pictures to make a point, and there were photos of him doing it? Maybe you could offer SOMETHING to rebut the photo. Until then, you’re just obscuring the point, wouldn't you agree? But on the other hand that is your domain. I am out of time and have to run. I will try to get on this weekend, Ciao. C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

There is nothing to credit or discredit about the toddler

Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 6:03pm.

it is a ambiguous picture of a mother picking up (or body slamming) her dirty faced toddler. I cannot make anything out of it one way or another. Now that I've addressed you issues, tell me what you think of THIS specific case of photo doctoring.

That Boy Was

Submitted by JstPlnOnry on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 6:12pm.

wearing a red bandana in the photos The O ran of him too.

So she didn't drop her baby on her face?

Submitted by Tschida on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 1:37pm.

BTW, it seems someone has done what you demanded. Such is life on Olyblog I guess. C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

Tsch...

Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 1:48pm.

way to avoid the obvious issue...again. Someone photoshopped the bandanas on those two kids. If you cannot admit to that breach in ehtics, you just lose credibility. By the way, you cannot tell if she "dropped" her child. It appears she is picking up a toddler. Not the first time that has ever happened. My father, a decorated Korea and Vietnam War combat veteran, dropped me more than once during my rough and tumble childhood.

what am I avoiding, exactly?

Submitted by Tschida on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 3:36pm.

Again, she didn't drop the kid on his face? C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

And how do you know they are?

Submitted by Tschida on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 3:37pm.

Just wondering how you know this exactly. C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

I just wanted to make sure

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 1:34pm.

that everyone caught the latest video from the Olympian. I think I have the right link. Toward the end it seems like things have become desperate. I hope that the protestors at least cleaned up after themselves after throwing trash onto plum and 4th. Oh, and it looks like the film crew caught a protestor being shot in the butt with the paintball gun at 1:10 left. I'd say the shooter is either a really good shot, or a really bad shot.

and

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 1:44pm.

The Olympian has done a piece about the "truth" down at the port. Read it here

I've assigned my people to investigate

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 1:47pm.

The Tony Overman story. I'm tryng to figure out which protesters were threatening him (which side of the fence, that is). Totally out of line behavior.

Dunno

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 1:51pm.

BUT from the account that you gave me with your experience, if I were a betting man I'd bet it was some of the anti-protestors. It seems weird that they would be up in arms about their picture being taken, but who knows. BTW, who are your "people" ? :)

If I told you who my people were

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 2:03pm.

I'd have to cut out your tongue. Then you'd be the Dark Lord of Mmnphmng. I'm willing to believe that some anti-war folks may have behaved that way, but it's just not consistant with what I saw that night. So it's worth checking just to be sure.

The question was a joke, and I like my tongue

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 2:09pm.

It's good of you to investigate this though. The truth shall set you (us) free.

If you all could help raise awareness

Submitted by Debmonstrative on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 2:15pm.

of the Peter Bohmer blog I just posted by reading it and commenting, it would be a good thing. It's full of facts that are helpful to all of these other blog musings and arguments. Although it doesn't mention Tony Overman.

I've read it

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 2:16pm.

I haven't commented because I'm not sure what to say. I don't know the guy, unlike some of the bloggers here, and therefore am not sure he is telling the truth, or fabricating things. It is a good read though.

I'm glad you read it

Submitted by Debmonstrative on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 2:26pm.

and what you said makes sense. I think anyone who just wants to comment it's a good read should do so. BTW Bohmer's a pretty straight shooter and well respected. This account is quite fact-based. I doubt he'd throw in actions that didn't exist. I haven't been keeping track of every minute of the protests, but it also jibes with everything else I've seen and heard and witnessed personally. It strikes me as easily the best synopsis I've seen of the events.

Wasn't there a long thread here recently....

Submitted by jlw on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 3:31pm.

about pro-war types who were afraid of being photographed and ending up on a "hippie hit list"? Maybe they thought Tony Overman was a hippie.

Peace became pizza. -- Guglielmo

saw the fallout

Submitted by enpen on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 2:23pm.

I was there. I didn't see the act, I did see the fallout. Tony Overman and several of the protest organizers got in a heated conversation about what he took as threats while trying to take a picture of the fence getting moved. He was livid. The organizers hearing about the story were livid as well and proceeded to make a bullhorn announcement to the assembled protesters to not impede any photographer regardless of whether or not you disagree with their subject matter.

Yikes

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 2:24pm.

Thanks for sharing that with us Enpen.

I'll just say this once.

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 2:44pm.

I do get a sense of indignation from Olympian newsies in terms of a superiority complex.

Superiority complexes...

Submitted by security_six on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 7:13pm.

I expect reporters to have egos. If they portray they have power, and demonstrate that they do, then people will acknowledge that power, which in turn empowers the free press, which in turn is the watchdog of the people.

If you convince enough people you have power in the media, you will be listened to, and spoken to, and your voice and media will be heard, and you will be counted among the watchdogs.

No.

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 7:50pm.

The press IS NOT supposed to be the watchdog of the people, it's supposed to be the watchdog of Democracy.

Whatever...

Submitted by security_six on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 7:53pm.

I'm tired, pissed off at something that happened tonight as I taking my boat past (dangit, had to edit my spelling I am tired...) the marine terminal, and have a couple of drinks. We The People, Democracy, close enough for me right now.

Thanks

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 4:03pm.

I was wondering what happened to Tony and who was involved. My fist thought was it was the counter-protesting bullies I ran into who bothered Overman, but I was wrong and am disapointed. Glad the bullhorns got involved.

I Met Tony Overman

Submitted by JstPlnOnry on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 10:56am.

yesterday while he was taking photos of my grandson for National Adoption Day at the courthouse. He does not come across to me as a man who would be easily intimidated. My first thought after meeting him was that the protesters who cornered him had to be pretty violent in order for him to feel the fear that was described.

Breaking the law

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 1:36pm.

Historical example - "colored people" eating at the lunch counter

Shall I continue? I'm sure the internet is full of examples.

We are watching Pakistan right now. What is happening? Due to "civil disobedience" the folks in charge have abandoned their constitution.

What might be next? Taking guns from the hands of Americans? Making a law that says that citizens can't own guns? Declaration of martial law?

We must be very careful to balance the "law" with "constitutional rights"

an observation

Submitted by a.future.with.n... on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 4:06pm.

on saturday (sunday?) i'm all mixed up, either way, at the blockade on 4th and plum the day people got arrested for blocking the freeway on ramp, i was in a circle of people that jeremy pawolski (sp?) told in detail, about getting hit with a police baton. He went as far as to show us where on his leg he was struck, over the pants of course.

He also said his "camera man" got a face full of pepper spray and was pissed about it. it is possible he embellished a bit because i believe he was trying to gain the trust of the protesters, but if there is confusion about whether or not reporters were hit and sprayed it may have been started by the reporters themselves.

I think the stories are being

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 4:20pm.

reigned in a tad to better fit editorial opinion. Very few people characterized the "attacks" on journalists as anything other than the cosequence of being in "the mix" of things. Now they're bending over backwards to describe just how accidental it all was. "It was really, really, really accidental." Seems overkill to me, but no biggy.

Well, their jobs may be at stake

Submitted by jlw on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 3:39pm.

And God forbid that people in the burbs should realize that the cops clobbered anyone who wasn't a violent anarchist, committing felonies with a sinister black bandanna covering his (or her!) snarling face.

Peace became pizza. -- Guglielmo

Proof

Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 6:39pm.

The most powerful evidence the phot is photoshopped is the drop shadow visible around the edges of the individuals. This is conclusive proof to me that the images are superimposed on the background.

It's Not Doctored

Submitted by JstPlnOnry on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 6:43pm.

I posted what I knew about it over on the Army Desertion thread.

Just got home

Submitted by Norm on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 6:46pm.

I realize I'm not photoshop expert, but the pictures don't look doctored to me, even after zooming in some.

Drop shadows Norm

Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 6:49pm.

drop shadows. Dead give away.

I Assure You, They Are Not Doctored

Submitted by JstPlnOnry on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 6:52pm.

I can't tell you how I know that and I know you have no reason to believe me but they are not doctored.

The only reason they show any type of Photoshop or Paintshop Pro markings is because Michelle Malkin watermarked them before throwing them up on her site.

I have no affiliation with nor do I even know MM so my knowledge has nothing to do with her or her website. Today was the first time I've ever heard of her honestly.

From the desk of Olycop

Submitted by Norm on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 6:56pm.

OC sent me an email, here's an update:

Hey dude,

For info I was there when this was going on. In fact, Lt. "John Doe" (I'm not sure if he wants the Lt's name included or not) directed me to photograph the mom and kids for possible charges later. When I first began photographing the kids had allowed their bandanas to fall from their face. But when mom saw me taking pics, she directed them to put their bandanas back up.

I didn't see the kid get dropped, but all the players and bandanas are real.....

You can pass this on to the nay sayers on the blog if you like.

I Have Been Told The Same Thing

Submitted by JstPlnOnry on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 7:21pm.

She was paranoid about the boys being photographed for some reason, even though she had no problems with her own face being photographed without a bandana. As I said, there are numerous photos of mom and children captured by many people and the boys are wearing their bandanas in some and not in others.

Let's see 'em

Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 7:24pm.

I haven't seen one yet, can you provide a link to one?

It's also against the law, I believe, to photograph minors without their parents consent, even in public.

I'll PM It To You

Submitted by JstPlnOnry on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 7:37pm.

and you can decide as a docent whether to publish it or not.

Huh?

Submitted by Norm on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 8:01pm.

That's a new one by me, mind citing the rcw there? I can't imagine why it would be illegal provided they are in public and not nude, or in a provocative pose maybe.

OK!

Submitted by JstPlnOnry on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 9:06pm.

I just didn't want to get into any trouble again! The photos made public are here

It's also against the law, I

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 11/17/2007 - 12:46am.

It's also against the law, I believe, to photograph minors without their parents consent, even in public.

No way. How do you explain high school football in every Saturday morning paper?

I know they're not going around to each parent getting a signature or consent.

I don't know

Submitted by Rob Richards on Sat, 11/17/2007 - 1:00am.

Maybe I'm full of it.

Yes you

Submitted by Guglielmo on Sat, 11/17/2007 - 1:05am.

are. Again.

Nope

Submitted by Guglielmo on Sat, 11/17/2007 - 12:54am.

I can photograph anything and anyone in a public space.

I can't see evidence of retouching

Submitted by Charlie on Fri, 11/30/2007 - 11:03pm.

I examined the photo of the boys masked in pixel-close detail. Either this was an extraordinarily good job of retouching, or it wasn't retouched at all. My vote is that the photo wasn't retouched.

In matters of evidence, photographers with integrity understand retouching is a no-no, which speaks to shooting in raw format.

Could anyone tell me what it would mean...

Submitted by Rick on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 8:10pm.

...if the bandanas are real?

I'm having a hard time understanding what the implication is.

> Say something interesting or say nothing at all. <

ps:

Submitted by Rick on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 8:11pm.

Does OC want his account reactivated?

> Say something interesting or say nothing at all. <

I was not given that

Submitted by Norm on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 8:12pm.

I was not given that impression. I'll ask him though. Thanks

No

Submitted by Ehver Green on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 8:22pm.

I've received a few e-mails from him as well and he specifically said he does not want it turned back on.

I call

Submitted by Guglielmo on Sat, 11/17/2007 - 9:33am.

A big roasted crow for me to eat.

Retraction

Submitted by Guglielmo on Sat, 11/17/2007 - 9:32am.

My appologies to Tsch. He can provide me three recipes and I'll provide the crow. There is no strong evidence, to me, that the photo is doctored (at least not enough to overturn the play). The drop shadow that I thought reulted from a poor attempt at blending layers is merely the result of the flash. Had I for one second concidered that the camera flash went off during that exposure, I would not have concluded the photo was doctored. My "evidence" for doctoring was the consequence of my own bias and the damn flash (it was a daytime shot. Who would have thought). Sorry about all the browbeating that ensued.

Bullet points: if I got it right

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Sat, 11/17/2007 - 12:00pm.

A. The photo was not doctored.

B. An eyewitness says the child fell out of a lap (I've been around enough children to know it happens all the time.)

C. The photo, by itself, never proved how the child ended up on the ground in the first place.

So maybe everyone that was sounding off on "facts" can call it a draw and not invoke this moment during future strife?

Please give me a second grace. Please give me a second face. I've fallen far down, the first time around, now I just sit on the ground in your way.
Nick Drake

The other photo that day

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 11/17/2007 - 12:41pm.

with the woman sitting in front of the semi with her children, is far more disturbing than the crying child on the sidewalk. As you stated, falls happen, sitting in front of a gigantic truck is questionable though.

Yeah

Submitted by Rob Richards on Sat, 11/17/2007 - 1:19pm.

It's soooo dangerous sitting in front of truck that is turned off and it's driver isn't even in. Seriously, Norm, you think a mother is going to put her children in extreme danger? Do you think out of all the people around the mother not a single one wouldn't say something to her if they thought the children were in danger? This is just a petty attempt to discredit the demonstrators, and you shouldn't allow yourself to be sucked in. The people who started this whole thing posted her name and address on the internet and tried to get people to call CPS on her. This pure vindictiveness.

Hey now

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 11/17/2007 - 1:31pm.

I'm not saying that she needs to have her privacy invaded. If I were babysitting someones child, and they asked to go downtown to sit in front of a truck, running or not, I sure as hell would not let them. Let's not avoid the facts, she brought kids to a protest, and they are in the line of fire right there. I don't care how "safe" you, or she, thinks that it is.

apology accepted

Submitted by Rob Richards on Sat, 11/17/2007 - 2:01pm.

apology accepted

Weird

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 11/17/2007 - 12:43pm.

double post for some reason

What disturbs me is that she is

Submitted by Guglielmo on Sat, 11/17/2007 - 12:43pm.

feeding that child cedar bark.

That's one of the things

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Sat, 11/17/2007 - 4:01pm.

That's one of the things they were fighting about at "the other place" - bark vs. jerky. Some people just want to fight.

Please give me a second grace. Please give me a second face. I've fallen far down, the first time around, now I just sit on the ground in your way.
Nick Drake

Senseless Putting Kids in Harm's Way

Submitted by Charlie on Fri, 11/30/2007 - 11:13pm.

What disturbs me about the woman and kids has nothing to do with the diversionary bandanas. It's that this woman drags into harm's way kids who have no rational sense of political causes.

That truck was intended to be moving. There's no excuse for putting kids in harm's way like that. She's due for charges.

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: