To help move the discussion, here is the 99Rise Statement of Nonviolence:
1. We will use no violence, verbal or physical, toward any person.
2. We will maintain an attitude of openness and respect toward all we encounter in our actions.
3. We will not destroy or damage any property.
4. We will carry no weapons or any means of physical defense, including shields.
5. We will not wear masks or otherwise conceal our faces or identities.
6. We will exercise personal and collective responsibility to ensure all participants adhere to this agreement.

99Rise was well received in Sacramento, in large part because they treated everyone, including legislators and law enforcement with respect. Number 5 might be problematic for NatGat since use of masks has been accepted by the Occupies since the beginning of time. What about adopting the other parts of the statement?

I just wrote this up:

Occupy National Gathering Statement on Non-Violence

This document is not a judgement on tactics of violence as a means of achieving goals.

It refers only to the behavior of the participants of the 2014 National Gathering while they are engaged in NatGat activities and within official Nat Gat event spaces.

It is intended to facilitate a safe space for all participants as well as to respect the integrity of the local organizers and their environment.

On violence
Violence is defined ONLY for purposes of this document as the following:
Physical assault on a person or property
Defacement/destruction of public or private property while it is being used for purposes of NatGat activities

No violence will be tolerated by NatGat participants while engaged in NatGat activities. There will be a zero tolerance policy. If persons are violent (as defined in this document) they will forfeit their right to participate in NatGat activities subject to review (process tbd) by the organizers.

If no process of review is established by the time of the Nat Gat the exclusion will be for the entire remainder of the event.

About this document
This document makes no attempt to judge or define those who use/advocate violence outside of the scope of NatGat and NatGat events. It is intended purely to facilitate a safe space for participants and maintain the integrity of the local community. It is not open for debate and has been agreed to by the NatGat planning committee a public group whose meetings have been open and based on consensus.

Thanks, @les @jackrabbit! These are a great start.

I particularly like the inclusion of verbal in the definition of violence. and yeah, #5 would have to go. Verbal violence does as much, if not far more, damage than physical, imo. (and lasts longer in the psyche).

How about a melded doc with the points listed above and the statement, outlining consequences, below.

Non-violence is agreed to in the OWS Community Agreements

We enter each OWS space with a commitment to:
mutual respect and support
anti-oppression
conflict resolution
nonviolence towards each other
direct democracy
http://www.nycga.net/resources/documents/occupy-wall-street-community-agreement/

@jackie I would like to suggest that we avoid joining together the two documents and instead have two separate ones.

My reasoning is this: As we've seen in the past, the tactic of violence can be very controversial. IMHO, it is best to keep reference to it as simple and clear as possible and to keep it limited within a very specific scope.

I totally appreciate Les' input, but would suggest that, because it touches on multiple issues, it is more open to interpretation and debate as well as increases the scope of the doc. It can be accepted as its own bit which deals with more specific behaviors relating to violence.

Thanks!

I like jackrabbit's version. it's specific to the gathering and clearly lays out expectations and consequences.