So violent tactics by the police may grow support. But violence is counterproductive to both sides. Sounds like if it makes the support grow then it is productive for one side at least. How again is that mutually exclusive? Some violence is good for it, like certain types or something, but some violence is bad?
To me, the devolution of this thing into violent stand-offs with police shows it has run its course. The group in New York, I believe, lost their court case when they were evicted since technically they were squatting and not really protesting. Even if it maintains some momentum, I do not know many people who are sympathetic to the cause any more, and that includes a handful that were active in the protests in San Francisco early on.
Like Gameface said, what message? All they talk about is the violence, the court cases about squatting in parks, and the standoffs with police. The message is lost, as if it was ever that strong to begin with. I applaud them for getting a lot of people behind the movement, but they failed miserably in getting it to actually mean anything. Too bad really. The best thing that might come out of this is the push to move your money from big banks to credit unions, where even some government entities are now following suit. Money is the only thing the banks hear, not chanting.
