Home > News > OWSer Granny Gets Pepper Sprayed in Seattle

OWSer Granny Gets Pepper Sprayed in Seattle

Sorry, I have searched my soul and can find no sympathy for this stupid woman.  When you are blocking an intersection and the police tell you to move, you move.  Or you get pepper spray.  Look at the fool on the right wearing the Craftsman goggles. 

Seattle activist Dorli Rainey, 84, reacts after being hit with pepper spray during an Occupy Seattle protest on Tuesday, November 15, 2011 at Westlake Park. Protesters gathered in the intersection of 5th Avenue and Pine Street after marching from their camp at Seattle Central Community College in support of Occupy Wall Street. Many refused to move from the intersection after being ordered by police. Police then began spraying pepper spray into the gathered crowd hitting dozens of people. A pregnant woman was taken from the melee in an ambulance after being struck with spray.

Categories: News Tags: , , , ,
  1. When
    November 16th, 2011 at 09:47 | #1

    I don’t have any sympathy for her. She is out there disturbing the public just like the rest of them. If you put your body in the middle of a protest expect that things happen. Take responsibility for your own choices. That is what this movement is – people not wanting to be responsible and wanting the State to take care of them from cradle to grave. Commie granny got what she was asking for.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6

  2. Gumboz1953
    November 16th, 2011 at 11:06 | #2

    “If you put your body in the middle of a protest, expect that things happen.”

    Yeah, that’s the footnote to the First Amendment, the one most people miss. People in the United States have Freedom of Assembly and Speech — unless you’re a “commie granny” who is someplace the local police don’t want you to be, or spouting a message the local police don’t like. Then you get pepper sprayed, beat up, handcuffed, and arrested.

    God Bless America.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7

  3. TrickleUpPolitics
    November 16th, 2011 at 11:18 | #3

    Gumbo, you must be a OWSer if you believe that freedom of speech or assembly means you don’t suffer the consequences of exercising your constitutional rights. If you choose to use your right to free speech to threaten public safety or take away someone else’s rights, then you need to and will suffer. Otherwise, you are just a whiny punk.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4

  4. Gumboz1953
    November 16th, 2011 at 11:23 | #4

    I’m not an OWSer, but I”m more and more sympathetic with them, especially after visiting places like this.

    “Suffer the consequences of exercising your constiutional rights”? Seriously, dude. Think about what you just said.

    “Threaten public safety”? Who was being threatened? They were sitting in a public place. Nobody was being hurt or threatened. The commuters had to drive around them. Boo-hoo. Who’s being whiny?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6

  5. PennyThawtz
    November 16th, 2011 at 11:37 | #5

    @Gumboz, she wasn’t just protesting, she WAS BLOCKING TRAFFIC AT AN INTERSECTION. Now, if I was in an ambulance trying to get the ER or trying to pick up my child who was waiting for a ride, I’d want her arrested, too. This is not about free speech and the right to protest. It’s about trampling on the rights of others as you are you doing it.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4

  6. Liberty or Death
    November 16th, 2011 at 12:11 | #6

    Gumboz you’re obviously confused between free speech and civil disobedience! What granny was involved in was civil disobedience, not free speech. What she did was no different from chaining herself to a tree or chaining herself to a doorway to block access in protest.

    Once she decided to take the civilly disobedient route by trying to block traffic and refused to disperse when ordered to by law enforcement it was no longer a free speech issue, it was an act of civil disobedience. At that point law enforcement took the actions necessary to remove her from the streets where she not only posed a public safety risk to others (drivers trying to avoid her could cause an accident) she also posed a safety risk for herself by placing herself in harm’s way.

    That’s the difference between the “protesters” of today and those of the 60′s and 70′s, today protesters want to protest and be civilly disobedient for their cause but when they are pepper sprayed or roughed up a bit they cry and whine! Back in the 60′s and 70′s you were lucky to only be tear gassed or roughed up a bit, usually you got your skull cracked by a baton. Back then it was a given that you would more than likely be risking injury if you decided to take the civil disobedience route, now we have these pseudo protesters that want all of us to believe they are bravely committed to their cause yet the minute they get a little pepper spray in their eyes or are roughed up a bit they run away and whine about how “unfair” it is! They just don’t make smelly hippie protesters like they used to!

    I Don’t feel sorry for her a bit, she chose to be civilly disobedient and that choice had consequences, she should be thankful she got pepper spray and not a baton!

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5

  7. Gumboz1953
    November 16th, 2011 at 12:21 | #7


    Where exactly WAS this ambulance that couldn’t get to the hospital? You think maybe the protesters might have let it through, if such an ambulance had showed up, sirens wailing?

    The street has no rights. The people in the street have as much right to use it as anybody else in the city. (Who paid for the city’s infrastructure? For that matter, who pays the police?) The only people whose “rights” were being “trampled on” were people who disagreed with the message this group was providing, who didn’t feel like hearing it. Like the police with their pepper spray, for example.

    Was the commie granny or the pregnant “ugly” lady really that much of a threat to them?

    It seems that folks here are against “big government” — unless it’s the government silencing people you disagree with. Then that’s okay. I got it now. Have a nice day.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6

  8. Liberty or Death
    November 16th, 2011 at 13:15 | #8

    Heh, Gumboz just doesn’t get it, granny was involved in civil disobedience, not free speech! Also, it’s not like she was “just using the street” as you make it sound Gumboz, she was purposely blocking traffic, something that DID pose a public safety risk. In addition, she refused the direct order of a law enforcement officer to disperse and when she didn’t she was neutralized with pepper spray. As for the “ugly pregnant lady” what the hell was she doing being civilly disobedient at a protest in the first place! She was placing her unborn child at risk, she was in the street blocking traffic where she could have been hit by a car, then because of her actions was exposed to pepper spray! In my opinion that’s just as negligent as smoking, drinking and doing drugs while pregnant! I’m sure she’ll be a great mom! Again, it’s not about free speech, that’s a strawman argument and you know it Gumboz!

    Oh what’s the use, Gumboz will never understand as Gumboz is blinded by ideology; it’s like talking to a wall, pointless!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  9. November 16th, 2011 at 18:21 | #9

    I guess in America, land of the free, grannies and pregnant women belong in nursing homes or in the kitchen and not on the street. I think it was wonderful that they were out there! Good for them. And that people are not horrified that anyone, let alone a granny was pepper sprayed for civil disobedience is in itself horrifying. What chance do ordinary people have any more to protest in America when the police treat everyone like super dangerous terrorists. Mr. Gumboz, meanwhile, and his indignation at the pregnant lady, is completely free of the ideology that he sees in the protestors, yet he is sure to make sure to refer to the woman’s fetus as an unborn child. Nothing ideological about that.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  10. PennyThawtz
    November 16th, 2011 at 18:25 | #10

    Ed, when granny and preggers infringe upon another’s right, it no longer just a protest. They can protest until they are blue in the face. I have no problem with that. But when they infringe upon my rights to pass through an intersection, they get what they get.

    Would your feelings be the same if it were a pro-life group blocking the intersection?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  11. November 17th, 2011 at 10:22 | #11

    No ed would demand the cops get a little rowdy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  1. November 16th, 2011 at 10:22 | #1