I read that start to finish, since I'll generally read anything you tell me to, and the conclusion I drew from it is that if that piece is representative of your feelings about direct action violence (or "violence"), it's probably best you & I don't talk about the morality of violence.

But that aside: I didn't ask the question because I wanted to condem Occupy Oakland.

I asked because the thread started with the suppression of the assiduously nonviolent (or "nonviolent") Zucotti Park protests.

But if our friends in Oakland are reporting those protests accurately, there was little chance of the Oakland protests not meeting a violent police response; Occupy Oakland was breaking windows, throwing bricks, destroying ATMs, and assaulting residents.

There were instances of property destruction (but not assaulting residents?) at actions organized as OO, but not at Oscar Grant Park, where the evictions happened. It's not as if the evictions were a situation where police were "responding" to property destruction.

Occupations across the country and the world met similar evictions through the use of force, although the use of tear gas specifically has been rare in the US.

If there was any qualitative difference in the police response, I think it has more to do with the character of OPD than the character of OO. The same thing happened at the port of oakland occupation in 2003 (where there was zero property destruction), which was equally brutal: https://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0407-07.htm