Thats not to say Americas situation is 100% a-ok. Yknow, patriot act, warrantless wiretapping, etc. All bad. But its not quite a police state that these hippies have been screaming about for heaven knows how long.
Yup - I don't see why people can't wait until they are actually in a police state until they start protesting about it
.....oh wait.
1) Because a small girl totally cant flip out and pull a weapon on an officer who is dumb enough to let a pissed off protester in her face.
2) You're right, lets also start complaining about the Islamic Overlords that rule america. Because, why wait till they are actually in power.
Yes that was hyperbole. Im just saying is that the whiney overprivelaged white kid needs to cut out with the "boohoo Bush is a fascist lets burn soldiers' effigies and wear bandannas at protests so that the man doesnt all come down crashing on me" Theres more effective, and less annoying, ways to deal with issues other than making a fool out of yourself and others such as myself simply because im in the same age bracket.
I don't see how, "These kids were acting immature" equates to "they deserve it."
Honestly, some of the posts in this thread are terrifying. It is neither foolish nor naive to expect maturity and restraint from the police. They aren't there to be agents of "eye for an eye" or to put those college kids "in their place" no matter how loud they were being.
Barring some actual violence coming from the protesters, these acts from the police are ridiculous.
"Who knows what they protesters could have done! Police have to do what's right to prevent violence!"
Sweet, that's an awesome sentiment. Why didn't the just tazer everyone from the start. Who the fuck knows what they could have prevented that way! Fuck it all, shoot the newsmen too. Think angry protesters aren't smart enough to dress up as anchormen? Think again!
JamesKeenan on
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
I don't see how, "These kids were acting immature" equates to "they deserve it."
Honestly, some of the posts in this thread are terrifying. It is neither foolish nor naive to expect maturity and restraint from the police. They aren't there to be agents of "eye for an eye" or to put those college kids "in their place" no matter how loud they were being.
Barring some actual violence coming from the protesters, these acts from the police are ridiculous.
"Who knows what they protesters could have done! Police have to do what's right to prevent violence!"
Sweet, that's an awesome sentiment. Why didn't the just tazer everyone from the start. Who the fuck knows what they could have prevented that way! Fuck it all, shoot the newsmen too. Think angry protesters aren't smart enough to dress up as anchormen? Think again!
Man, did I say "STUPID HIPPIES LETS SHOOT EM ALL RARRR DONT PROTEST! GET BACK TO YOUR HOMES, CLEAR THE STREET"
Explain to me how that much force was required in that situation, not in imaginary-land where she's hiding a machete under her skort.
I saw a chick in a cops face yelling "do it again!" and he shoved her. She fell. She was then either A) Unconscious from the fall (possible, but im really not betting on it) or Hamming it up for a camera. (not necessarily the case)
We dont know what happened before this. We dont know if she swung at the cop, if shes been doing this all day, or what. We have the part of the video the author wants us to see, what seems to be a cop beating a poor little girl.
How is "That much force" required? What did you want him to do? "Ma'am please stop acting aggressive torwards the officers" ?
CangoFett on
0
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
1) Because a small girl totally cant flip out and pull a weapon on an officer who is dumb enough to let a pissed off protester in her face.
:facepalm:
What video were you watching?
Explain to me how that much force was required in that situation, not in imaginary-land where she's hiding a machete under her skort.
Add to that the fact that she is obviously with Code Pink, an all female protest organization. They don't exactly have a track record of riot and assaulting law officers.
Add to that the fact that she is obviously with Code Pink, an all female protest organization. They don't exactly have a track record of riot and assaulting law officers.
Except they do have a record of assault. Not to mention disrupting political meetings and events.
From what I've read this woman was asked to move back taunted the officer and made hand motions towards his weapon. I do not have linkable proof at at this time, but I'm looking. Though that would expain why the video is cut to start the moment she's hit.
Either way look up what Code Pink has done before, they literally ask for it and keep pushing until they get it. Except with their failed hunger strike over Iraq, they were actually pissed off that the US Government flat out ignored them.
Now other concerns, has anyone here read about the make shit jail set up for the DNC? I'm serious from what I've heard on the radio they said a cement factory was converted into a temporary prison with chain link cells with razor wire ceilings.
We dont know what happened before this. We dont know if she swung at the cop, if shes been doing this all day, or what. We have the part of the video the author wants us to see, what seems to be a cop beating a poor little girl.
This is entirely true, however, I don't know what the expectation is for police in the US, but in the UK if someone "swings" at the police then they will be arrested at that point in time and he would have the full support of the law (and the community) to do that - the moment someone attempts to strike the police officer you are no longer protesting peacefully. He would not be justified to simply retaliate, he is there as an officer of the law, not a nightclub bouncer.
As you rightly point out we cannot see what she has being doing all day, so it could be argued with equal weight that she was sat peacefully nearby doing her knitting. The point is whatever happened prior to that moment is, to an extent, irrelevant. If she had been persistently harrassing the officer "in his face" then I would expect her to have been warned and then arrested if she persisted. For the specific action of smacking her to the ground the officer in the video has no justification.
How is "That much force" required? What did you want him to do? "Ma'am please stop acting aggressive torwards the officers" ?
Yes.
As an officer of the law he is expected to do just that. If the woman ignores several warnings to step back from him then I would not have any sympathy for her if the officer were to arrest her for impeding his duty or for threatening behaviour towards an officer.
He has an opportunity to try and resolve the matter calmly, he chooses not to excercise that option and instead smacks a woman to the ground.
trevellian on
0
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
Add to that the fact that she is obviously with Code Pink, an all female protest organization. They don't exactly have a track record of riot and assaulting law officers.
Except they do have a record of assault. Not to mention disrupting political meetings and events.
From what I've read this woman was asked to move back taunted the officer and made hand motions towards his weapon. I do not have linkable proof at at this time, but I'm looking. Though that would expain why the video is cut to start the moment she's hit.
Either way look up what Code Pink has done before, they literally ask for it and keep pushing until they get it. Except with their failed hunger strike over Iraq, they were actually pissed off that the US Government flat out ignored them.
Now other concerns, has anyone here read about the make shit jail set up for the DNC? I'm serious from what I've heard on the radio they said a cement factory was converted into a temporary prison with chain link cells with razor wire ceilings.
They are annoying, that's for sure. They aren't the Weather Underground though. I seriously doubt this girl was going for his gun either. That one tends to be right up with "fell down the stairs." It's not like Code Pink hides who they are either, they aren't masked anarchists throwing garbage cans through the plate glass at McDonalds. They just tend to be strident, middle aged women who really aren't a threat to anyone.
And yeah, their Holding Facility or Processing Center or whatever they are calling it is right out of that movie The Siege. It's nothing compared to the one they stuffed way beyond capacity at the Republican Convention in '04. It was an abandoned Bus Terminal, with a floor soaked in chemicals, ancient asbestos and chain link fence holding pens. The one in Denver looked clean in comparison.
It's all about presentation. The people "starring" in these videos, as well as the people responsible for editing them, all have a message to convey, and that message is obviously that of an overbearing, iron-fisted police state.
All such messages, whether they come from "official" sources or "independant" sources, must be taken with a grain of salt. You have to ask yourself "What's the missing context here?" because there will be missing context.
I can't bring myself to feel any way about these videos because I know important contextual facts are missing and that they're presented by people with clear agendas. These kinds of videos are, just like their official, government-approved counterparts, propaganda.
He has an opportunity to try and resolve the matter calmly, he chooses not to excercise that option and instead smacks a woman to the ground.
For all we know, he did
We heard "Try it again" then there was the smack, so obviously these 2 have been going back and forth at it for a bit. Even as he hit her, he was telling her to get back. My guess is he told her without the hit a few times. As for the rumour of her going for his weapon, I doubt it. If she had gone for his gun, she wouldve been wtfpwned in a matter of seconds. All he did here was a strong shove back while keeping ahold of his baton.
CangoFett on
0
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
edited August 2008
Well, the video has a few seconds of tape before it pans to the cop and the girl and they weren't screaming at each other until she said "Fucking do it again!" And the cop knocks her down with the "Back it up, Bitch, back it up!"
I mean, yeah, a lot of context is missing, so it's hard to tell, but if she was screaming in his face the whole time, there was a pause in the screaming before the strike. My impression is that he'd already pushed her back with the baton once, not as hard and then when she goaded him, just walloped her. The crowd was not acting threatening either, it was between the cop and the girl and it seems really unprofessional to me.
He has an opportunity to try and resolve the matter calmly, he chooses not to excercise that option and instead smacks a woman to the ground.
For all we know, he did
We heard "Try it again" then there was the smack, so obviously these 2 have been going back and forth at it for a bit. Even as he hit her, he was telling her to get back. My guess is he told her without the hit a few times. As for the rumour of her going for his weapon, I doubt it. If she had gone for his gun, she wouldve been wtfpwned in a matter of seconds. All he did here was a strong shove back while keeping ahold of his baton.
If the woman was violent, she could have been arrested. If she was interfering with his duties she could have been arrested. In neither case could she have been put down in a manner that was clearly not intended to subdue her (the police officer made no effort to control her when she went down or arrest her). It was punitive and therefore illegal.
It's all about presentation. The people "starring" in these videos, as well as the people responsible for editing them, all have a message to convey, and that message is obviously that of an overbearing, iron-fisted police state.
All such messages, whether they come from "official" sources or "independant" sources, must be taken with a grain of salt. You have to ask yourself "What's the missing context here?" because there will be missing context.
I can't bring myself to feel any way about these videos because I know important contextual facts are missing and that they're presented by people with clear agendas. These kinds of videos are, just like their official, government-approved counterparts, propaganda.
So, what you're basically saying is that unless the police videotape themselves doing fucked-up shit, you're not willing to accept that they're doing fucked-up shit?
It sounds like this is boiling down to a battle of axioms. Here are mine.
1.) Cops should not employ riot-restraining methods (i.e. teargas, rubber bullets, hitting) unless and until protestors start employing violence. No, harsh language doesn't count as violence. Nonviolent protest in the form of people sitting or laying down and refusing to move can be met with nonviolent arrest (i.e. carrying them away). It's all about proportionate response.
2.) I can see two situations where it's a good thing to disperse an otherwise legal protest just because people need to get somewhere: ambulances and firetrucks. Otherwise, and especially when the times and locations of the protests are published in the local paper beforehand, deal with it.
He has an opportunity to try and resolve the matter calmly, he chooses not to excercise that option and instead smacks a woman to the ground.
For all we know, he did
We heard "Try it again" then there was the smack, so obviously these 2 have been going back and forth at it for a bit. Even as he hit her, he was telling her to get back. My guess is he told her without the hit a few times. As for the rumour of her going for his weapon, I doubt it. If she had gone for his gun, she wouldve been wtfpwned in a matter of seconds. All he did here was a strong shove back while keeping ahold of his baton.
If the woman was violent, she could have been arrested. If she was interfering with his duties she could have been arrested. In neither case could she have been put down in a manner that was clearly not intended to subdue her (the police officer made no effort to control her when she went down or arrest her). It was punitive and therefore illegal.
Listen, this woman was clearly a threat to him. There were only thirty or forty other cops in full riot gear within 15 feet of him. What if she were actually She-Hulk? She could have killed them all. She needed to be put down.
It sounds like this is boiling down to a battle of axioms. Here are mine.
1.) Cops should not employ riot-restraining methods (i.e. teargas, rubber bullets, hitting) unless and until protestors start employing violence. No, harsh language doesn't count as violence. Nonviolent protest in the form of people sitting or laying down and refusing to move can be met with nonviolent arrest (i.e. carrying them away). It's all about proportionate response.
2.) I can see two situations where it's a good thing to disperse an otherwise legal protest just because people need to get somewhere: ambulances and firetrucks. Otherwise, and especially when the times and locations of the protests are published in the local paper beforehand, deal with it.
Yeah, this. In Seattle in the late 90's, we had "riots" at a WTO conference. The "riots" mostly involved acts of violence by the police, with a few assholes breaking windows. The first step towards it turning ugly was police firing tear gas. The people threw it back.
Officer John Vanderwalker of the King County Sheriff's department knocked on the window of a car legally parked in a private lot. When the girls inside rolled down the window, he pepper sprayed them. One might doubt how realistic this story is, except the girls inside filmed the whole thing.
So yeah, "riot" control when there isn't a riot makes things a lot worse.
So yeah, "riot" control when there isn't a riot makes things a lot worse.
This is what is so absurd in all this. The police know this, they are trained, typically, to avoid confrontation as much as possible because it leads to conflict. The general rule of police work is to try and find a peaceful solution that doesn't involve violence. And sometimes that means dealing with someone screaming in your face.
If you're faced with a crazy person screaming at you push them away. That is not illegal. But using a club to "cross check" them is. I recall seeing a repo show where a confrontation in process and the repo guy kept pushing the guy away when he got close, but he wouldn't throw a punch even when the guy clearly deserved it and the incident ended without a fight.
But in this case the local government had to see this coming. Sticking massive amounts of police in riot gear around a crowd will cause trouble.
If you had 50 riot police outside your street in the morning when you're leaving for work, bad things would happen. You'd bump one and you're walking to your car or something ridiculous, or someone would stroll onto the road and make you swerve or something stupid. Some other cop would see your swerve and say, he tried to hit me! ATTACK!
There is no way in hell a peaceful protest can take place if you put riot police everywhere. Do you know what would happen if they did this to the crowd in time square on new years eve? There is a ton of police presence but it's there in a totally different capacity.
This is all intentional by the local government reps, chief of police, mayor, etc. So why in the hell are they doing this? Don't be mad at the cops in all this, they're dicks, but that is how we train them. When we suit them up in riot gear we don't give them ice cream to hand out, we want them to fuck shit up if needed.
You don't put riot police until a major city unless you want people to riot....so why do they want people to riot, or why did they choose to take this route?
Is the police presence about what you'd expect when a senator visited baghdad? Are we to believe we need that level of protection here?
I don't really know why the DNC calls for that much security. I mean, I have my doubts anyone is going to try and kill some dems or Obama. Shit, no one has tried to kill Bush and... well I'm really quite surprised with that. I suppose "the terra-ists!" might be of some concern.
There's been at least 4 people arrested and charged with plotting to kill Obama in Denver. One admitted to it, another jumped out of a 6th floor window to escape police*
Not to mention the recent "Kill the liberals. No no we really mean it." people we've had recently with the one Right Wing guy and the "liberal" church and the guy who killed the one Dem politician a week or two back in his office.
and the guy arrested for illegal possession of firearms who brought in cases with a rifle and two handguns to the same Denver hotel Nancy Pelosi was staying in.
There's been at least 4 people arrested and charged with plotting to kill Obama in Denver. One admitted to it, another jumped out of a 6th floor window to escape police*
There's been at least 4 people arrested and charged with plotting to kill Obama in Denver. One admitted to it, another jumped out of a 6th floor window to escape police*
Not to mention the recent "Kill the liberals. No no we really mean it." people we've had recently with the one Right Wing guy and the "liberal" church and the guy who killed the one Dem politician a week or two back in his office.
and the guy arrested for illegal possession of firearms who brought in cases with a rifle and two handguns to the same Denver hotel Nancy Pelosi was staying in.
*he somehow survived with a broken ankle
I'd follow up these stories with, "Why are the media people not talking about this then? Why is there just silence coming from the major news sources if there are assassination attempts and crazies coming out of the wood work?
And how does having massive amounts of riot police help prevent the crazies from getting in? Or accomplishing what they want? Are the crazies hiding in the crowds and hoping for an opportunity to use them to get close to their targets?
The Republican convention should be interesting because as a denizen of Minnesota I have a feeling the St Paul police are going to be much more lenient than their cohorts in denver given the general political bent of the state and the political party that is having the convention. We may get to see what happens when the police take a more relaxed stance and give protestors more room to agitate. Let's agree to reconvene next Thursday for a compare / contrast discussion between the two different styles of handling protestors
It's not a peaceful protest if you're blocking the street or places of work. Intentionally preventing people from going about their business is a form of aggression.
Cabezone on
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
It's not a peaceful protest if you're blocking the street or places of work. Intentionally preventing people from going about their business is a form of aggression.
It's not a peaceful protest if you're blocking the street or places of work. Intentionally preventing people from going about their business is a form of aggression.
It's terrifying that you are serious. Therefore, you are a terrorist.
But despite his frustrations, [Lakewood Police Agent Jake Bowden] said it’s been a good week, mostly because it could have been a lot worse. “I thought people would be a little more grumpy because of the heat,†he said. “But everyone’s behaved themselves. Even the rioters.â€
See that's the issue. They are presumed rioters when they are behaving!
It's not a peaceful protest if you're blocking the street or places of work. Intentionally preventing people from going about their business is a form of aggression.
Out of curiosity, Cabezone:
We've seen the Constitutional law granting people the right to peaceful protest. Can you show me the law granting people the right to not be inconvenienced? Or the one granting the right to take the same path to work every day? Or the right to not be made late for work?
It's not a peaceful protest if you're blocking the street or places of work. Intentionally preventing people from going about their business is a form of aggression.
You wanna know who is adding 30 minutes to my commute both ways next week? The goddamn RNC.
It's not a peaceful protest if you're blocking the street or places of work. Intentionally preventing people from going about their business is a form of aggression.
Out of curiosity, Cabezone:
We've seen the Constitutional law granting people the right to peaceful protest. Can you show me the law granting people the right to not be inconvenienced? Or the one granting the right to take the same path to work every day? Or the right to not be made late for work?
Because I'm pretty sure they don't exist.
I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the constitution about me punching people in the face either, this is a poor argument to make.
The Tacoma protests were preventing the military from reaching the port to load ships. A peaceful protest would have been people standing by the wayside while the ships were loaded. The right to protest in no way gives people the right to stop me from going to work.
We've seen the Constitutional law granting people the right to peaceful protest. Can you show me the law granting people the right to not be inconvenienced? Or the one granting the right to take the same path to work every day? Or the right to not be made late for work?
Because I'm pretty sure they don't exist.
I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the constitution about me punching people in the face either, this is a poor argument to make.
He didn't ask for a quote from the constitution, he just said show me the law.
The constitution was mentioned as the right of peaceful protest is enshrined in the constitution.
We've seen the Constitutional law granting people the right to peaceful protest. Can you show me the law granting people the right to not be inconvenienced? Or the one granting the right to take the same path to work every day? Or the right to not be made late for work?
Because I'm pretty sure they don't exist.
I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the constitution about me punching people in the face either, this is a poor argument to make.
He didn't ask for a quote from the constitution, he just said show me the law.
The constitution was mentioned as the right of peaceful protest is enshrined in the constitution.
There are harassment laws everywhere in the US.
We are disagreeing with what peaceful means. I do not consider it peaceful if people prevent me from going to work. I do consider it peaceful if the same people wish to stand outside my work to picket and verbally protest. Physically blocking me from going somewhere is not peaceful.
Cabezone on
0
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
edited August 2008
When a lone student stood in front of a column of tanks and stopped them from proceeding, was he protesting violently or peacefully? Was the Chinese government in the right for massacring the students who were protesting peacefully in Tiananman Square, and then the parents who came to check on their children afterwards? These students were preventing the military from carrying out their instructions and the response that the entire world condemned is the one you encourage.
A peaceful protest can and does include the blocking of a street.
I just find it funny that if the police had not been there and if there was a riot everyone would be bitching about the police not being able to handle a situation.
Heh, that's exactly what happened at the 2000 DNC. Earlier that year there was a riot after the Lakers won the NBA title and the cops just sat around and basically watied for every to riot themselves out. And got crucified for it by the press for being unprepared and not having a riot brigade on-site to nip the riot in the bud.
So when the 2000 DNC and "Shadow Convention" came around the cops took the opposite tact and were all over LA in force, and broke up the Rage Against the Machine/Ozomatli concert. And got crucified for it by the press for being overly jumpy and having too heavy-handed a police presence on-site.
When a lone student stood in front of a column of tanks and stopped them from proceeding, was he protesting violently or peacefully? Was the Chinese government in the right for massacring the students who were protesting peacefully in Tiananman Square, and then the parents who came to check on their children afterwards? These students were preventing the military from carrying out their instructions and the response that the entire world condemned is the one you encourage.
A peaceful protest can and does include the blocking of a street.
We are disagreeing with what peaceful means. I do not consider it peaceful if people prevent me from going to work. I do consider it peaceful if the same people wish to stand outside my work to picket and verbally protest. Physically blocking me from going somewhere is not peaceful.
Yeh I can see that.
I guess we'll just have to differ there, I would not consider that as violent protest - provided it was just a case of them standing/sitting in the road singing out of tune cheesy protest songs, if they were physically bodychecking you or trying to run you off the road then that would be violent.
It's an inconvenience, sure, but violent? meh, not so much.
trevellian on
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
When a lone student stood in front of a column of tanks and stopped them from proceeding, was he protesting violently or peacefully? Was the Chinese government in the right for massacring the students who were protesting peacefully in Tiananman Square, and then the parents who came to check on their children afterwards? These students were preventing the military from carrying out their instructions and the response that the entire world condemned is the one you encourage.
A peaceful protest can and does include the blocking of a street.
Look, I got to get to work on time I don't need no whiny bitch wanting to express his opinion getting in my way.
He is assaulting my right to live a mundane routine-oriented life without having to be confronted with different ideas of what a good government is.
We are disagreeing with what peaceful means. I do not consider it peaceful if people prevent me from going to work. I do consider it peaceful if the same people wish to stand outside my work to picket and verbally protest. Physically blocking me from going somewhere is not peaceful.
Were they preventing you from getting to work by physically pushing you back from your building's entrance?
I just find it funny that if the police had not been there and if there was a riot everyone would be bitching about the police not being able to handle a situation.
Heh, that's exactly what happened at the 2000 DNC. Earlier that year there was a riot after the Lakers won the NBA title and the cops just sat around and basically watied for every to riot themselves out. And got crucified for it by the press for being unprepared and not having a riot brigade on-site to nip the riot in the bud.
So when the 2000 DNC and "Shadow Convention" came around the cops took the opposite tact and were all over LA in force, and broke up the Rage Against the Machine/Ozomatli concert. And got crucified for it by the press for being overly jumpy and having too heavy-handed a police presence on-site.
Yeah, my heart really goes out to the LAPD. They get unfairly villainized.
We are disagreeing with what peaceful means. I do not consider it peaceful if people prevent me from going to work. I do consider it peaceful if the same people wish to stand outside my work to picket and verbally protest. Physically blocking me from going somewhere is not peaceful.
Were they preventing you from getting to work by physically pushing you back from your building's entrance?
Are they re-routing all the bus schedules in the whole fucking city?
I do not consider it peaceful if people prevent me from going to work. I do consider it peaceful if the same people wish to stand outside my work to picket and verbally protest. Physically blocking me from going somewhere is not peaceful.
Do you consider sit-ins to be a peaceful means of protest?
Posts
1) Because a small girl totally cant flip out and pull a weapon on an officer who is dumb enough to let a pissed off protester in her face.
2) You're right, lets also start complaining about the Islamic Overlords that rule america. Because, why wait till they are actually in power.
Yes that was hyperbole. Im just saying is that the whiney overprivelaged white kid needs to cut out with the "boohoo Bush is a fascist lets burn soldiers' effigies and wear bandannas at protests so that the man doesnt all come down crashing on me" Theres more effective, and less annoying, ways to deal with issues other than making a fool out of yourself and others such as myself simply because im in the same age bracket.
Honestly, some of the posts in this thread are terrifying. It is neither foolish nor naive to expect maturity and restraint from the police. They aren't there to be agents of "eye for an eye" or to put those college kids "in their place" no matter how loud they were being.
Barring some actual violence coming from the protesters, these acts from the police are ridiculous.
"Who knows what they protesters could have done! Police have to do what's right to prevent violence!"
Sweet, that's an awesome sentiment. Why didn't the just tazer everyone from the start. Who the fuck knows what they could have prevented that way! Fuck it all, shoot the newsmen too. Think angry protesters aren't smart enough to dress up as anchormen? Think again!
:facepalm:
What video were you watching?
Explain to me how that much force was required in that situation, not in imaginary-land where she's hiding a machete under her skort.
Man, did I say "STUPID HIPPIES LETS SHOOT EM ALL RARRR DONT PROTEST! GET BACK TO YOUR HOMES, CLEAR THE STREET"
Nah, Im just all, "Dang hippies annoy me"
I saw a chick in a cops face yelling "do it again!" and he shoved her. She fell. She was then either A) Unconscious from the fall (possible, but im really not betting on it) or
We dont know what happened before this. We dont know if she swung at the cop, if shes been doing this all day, or what. We have the part of the video the author wants us to see, what seems to be a cop beating a poor little girl.
How is "That much force" required? What did you want him to do? "Ma'am please stop acting aggressive torwards the officers" ?
Add to that the fact that she is obviously with Code Pink, an all female protest organization. They don't exactly have a track record of riot and assaulting law officers.
Except they do have a record of assault. Not to mention disrupting political meetings and events.
From what I've read this woman was asked to move back taunted the officer and made hand motions towards his weapon. I do not have linkable proof at at this time, but I'm looking. Though that would expain why the video is cut to start the moment she's hit.
Either way look up what Code Pink has done before, they literally ask for it and keep pushing until they get it. Except with their failed hunger strike over Iraq, they were actually pissed off that the US Government flat out ignored them.
Now other concerns, has anyone here read about the make shit jail set up for the DNC? I'm serious from what I've heard on the radio they said a cement factory was converted into a temporary prison with chain link cells with razor wire ceilings.
This is entirely true, however, I don't know what the expectation is for police in the US, but in the UK if someone "swings" at the police then they will be arrested at that point in time and he would have the full support of the law (and the community) to do that - the moment someone attempts to strike the police officer you are no longer protesting peacefully. He would not be justified to simply retaliate, he is there as an officer of the law, not a nightclub bouncer.
As you rightly point out we cannot see what she has being doing all day, so it could be argued with equal weight that she was sat peacefully nearby doing her knitting. The point is whatever happened prior to that moment is, to an extent, irrelevant. If she had been persistently harrassing the officer "in his face" then I would expect her to have been warned and then arrested if she persisted. For the specific action of smacking her to the ground the officer in the video has no justification.
Yes.
As an officer of the law he is expected to do just that. If the woman ignores several warnings to step back from him then I would not have any sympathy for her if the officer were to arrest her for impeding his duty or for threatening behaviour towards an officer.
He has an opportunity to try and resolve the matter calmly, he chooses not to excercise that option and instead smacks a woman to the ground.
They are annoying, that's for sure. They aren't the Weather Underground though. I seriously doubt this girl was going for his gun either. That one tends to be right up with "fell down the stairs." It's not like Code Pink hides who they are either, they aren't masked anarchists throwing garbage cans through the plate glass at McDonalds. They just tend to be strident, middle aged women who really aren't a threat to anyone.
And yeah, their Holding Facility or Processing Center or whatever they are calling it is right out of that movie The Siege. It's nothing compared to the one they stuffed way beyond capacity at the Republican Convention in '04. It was an abandoned Bus Terminal, with a floor soaked in chemicals, ancient asbestos and chain link fence holding pens. The one in Denver looked clean in comparison.
It's all about presentation. The people "starring" in these videos, as well as the people responsible for editing them, all have a message to convey, and that message is obviously that of an overbearing, iron-fisted police state.
All such messages, whether they come from "official" sources or "independant" sources, must be taken with a grain of salt. You have to ask yourself "What's the missing context here?" because there will be missing context.
I can't bring myself to feel any way about these videos because I know important contextual facts are missing and that they're presented by people with clear agendas. These kinds of videos are, just like their official, government-approved counterparts, propaganda.
For all we know, he did
We heard "Try it again" then there was the smack, so obviously these 2 have been going back and forth at it for a bit. Even as he hit her, he was telling her to get back. My guess is he told her without the hit a few times. As for the rumour of her going for his weapon, I doubt it. If she had gone for his gun, she wouldve been wtfpwned in a matter of seconds. All he did here was a strong shove back while keeping ahold of his baton.
I mean, yeah, a lot of context is missing, so it's hard to tell, but if she was screaming in his face the whole time, there was a pause in the screaming before the strike. My impression is that he'd already pushed her back with the baton once, not as hard and then when she goaded him, just walloped her. The crowd was not acting threatening either, it was between the cop and the girl and it seems really unprofessional to me.
If the woman was violent, she could have been arrested. If she was interfering with his duties she could have been arrested. In neither case could she have been put down in a manner that was clearly not intended to subdue her (the police officer made no effort to control her when she went down or arrest her). It was punitive and therefore illegal.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
1.) Cops should not employ riot-restraining methods (i.e. teargas, rubber bullets, hitting) unless and until protestors start employing violence. No, harsh language doesn't count as violence. Nonviolent protest in the form of people sitting or laying down and refusing to move can be met with nonviolent arrest (i.e. carrying them away). It's all about proportionate response.
2.) I can see two situations where it's a good thing to disperse an otherwise legal protest just because people need to get somewhere: ambulances and firetrucks. Otherwise, and especially when the times and locations of the protests are published in the local paper beforehand, deal with it.
Yeah, this. In Seattle in the late 90's, we had "riots" at a WTO conference. The "riots" mostly involved acts of violence by the police, with a few assholes breaking windows. The first step towards it turning ugly was police firing tear gas. The people threw it back.
Officer John Vanderwalker of the King County Sheriff's department knocked on the window of a car legally parked in a private lot. When the girls inside rolled down the window, he pepper sprayed them. One might doubt how realistic this story is, except the girls inside filmed the whole thing.
So yeah, "riot" control when there isn't a riot makes things a lot worse.
This is what is so absurd in all this. The police know this, they are trained, typically, to avoid confrontation as much as possible because it leads to conflict. The general rule of police work is to try and find a peaceful solution that doesn't involve violence. And sometimes that means dealing with someone screaming in your face.
If you're faced with a crazy person screaming at you push them away. That is not illegal. But using a club to "cross check" them is. I recall seeing a repo show where a confrontation in process and the repo guy kept pushing the guy away when he got close, but he wouldn't throw a punch even when the guy clearly deserved it and the incident ended without a fight.
But in this case the local government had to see this coming. Sticking massive amounts of police in riot gear around a crowd will cause trouble.
If you had 50 riot police outside your street in the morning when you're leaving for work, bad things would happen. You'd bump one and you're walking to your car or something ridiculous, or someone would stroll onto the road and make you swerve or something stupid. Some other cop would see your swerve and say, he tried to hit me! ATTACK!
There is no way in hell a peaceful protest can take place if you put riot police everywhere. Do you know what would happen if they did this to the crowd in time square on new years eve? There is a ton of police presence but it's there in a totally different capacity.
This is all intentional by the local government reps, chief of police, mayor, etc. So why in the hell are they doing this? Don't be mad at the cops in all this, they're dicks, but that is how we train them. When we suit them up in riot gear we don't give them ice cream to hand out, we want them to fuck shit up if needed.
You don't put riot police until a major city unless you want people to riot....so why do they want people to riot, or why did they choose to take this route?
Is the police presence about what you'd expect when a senator visited baghdad? Are we to believe we need that level of protection here?
There's been at least 4 people arrested and charged with plotting to kill Obama in Denver. One admitted to it, another jumped out of a 6th floor window to escape police*
Not to mention the recent "Kill the liberals. No no we really mean it." people we've had recently with the one Right Wing guy and the "liberal" church and the guy who killed the one Dem politician a week or two back in his office.
and the guy arrested for illegal possession of firearms who brought in cases with a rifle and two handguns to the same Denver hotel Nancy Pelosi was staying in.
*he somehow survived with a broken ankle
Hey, if it worked for Omar....
I'd follow up these stories with, "Why are the media people not talking about this then? Why is there just silence coming from the major news sources if there are assassination attempts and crazies coming out of the wood work?
And how does having massive amounts of riot police help prevent the crazies from getting in? Or accomplishing what they want? Are the crazies hiding in the crowds and hoping for an opportunity to use them to get close to their targets?
Oh wait, you're serious.
It's terrifying that you are serious. Therefore, you are a terrorist.
See that's the issue. They are presumed rioters when they are behaving!
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Out of curiosity, Cabezone:
We've seen the Constitutional law granting people the right to peaceful protest. Can you show me the law granting people the right to not be inconvenienced? Or the one granting the right to take the same path to work every day? Or the right to not be made late for work?
Because I'm pretty sure they don't exist.
You wanna know who is adding 30 minutes to my commute both ways next week? The goddamn RNC.
We should gas those motherfuckers.
I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the constitution about me punching people in the face either, this is a poor argument to make.
The Tacoma protests were preventing the military from reaching the port to load ships. A peaceful protest would have been people standing by the wayside while the ships were loaded. The right to protest in no way gives people the right to stop me from going to work.
He didn't ask for a quote from the constitution, he just said show me the law.
The constitution was mentioned as the right of peaceful protest is enshrined in the constitution.
There are harassment laws everywhere in the US.
We are disagreeing with what peaceful means. I do not consider it peaceful if people prevent me from going to work. I do consider it peaceful if the same people wish to stand outside my work to picket and verbally protest. Physically blocking me from going somewhere is not peaceful.
A peaceful protest can and does include the blocking of a street.
Heh, that's exactly what happened at the 2000 DNC. Earlier that year there was a riot after the Lakers won the NBA title and the cops just sat around and basically watied for every to riot themselves out. And got crucified for it by the press for being unprepared and not having a riot brigade on-site to nip the riot in the bud.
So when the 2000 DNC and "Shadow Convention" came around the cops took the opposite tact and were all over LA in force, and broke up the Rage Against the Machine/Ozomatli concert. And got crucified for it by the press for being overly jumpy and having too heavy-handed a police presence on-site.
Yeah, teargas is just like a bullet.
Yeh I can see that.
I guess we'll just have to differ there, I would not consider that as violent protest - provided it was just a case of them standing/sitting in the road singing out of tune cheesy protest songs, if they were physically bodychecking you or trying to run you off the road then that would be violent.
It's an inconvenience, sure, but violent? meh, not so much.
Look, I got to get to work on time I don't need no whiny bitch wanting to express his opinion getting in my way.
He is assaulting my right to live a mundane routine-oriented life without having to be confronted with different ideas of what a good government is.
Were they preventing you from getting to work by physically pushing you back from your building's entrance?
Are they re-routing all the bus schedules in the whole fucking city?
The bus that I take to work maybe?
Do you consider sit-ins to be a peaceful means of protest?