quote:I didn't write this to complain. The terrifying thing isn't that justice is relative. The terrifying thing is to witness injustice and to act as if one sees nothing. While I was getting my masters, I once had a conversation with a girl who at the time had 3 years of work experience under her belt. She is now the HR director of a joint stock company. We were talking about a marketing strategy for Weida's paper industry. Her idea was to carve out a new market by advertising Weida's high quality dinner napkins to China's nine hundred million farmers. Surprised by her cocksureness, I asked her if she knew how farmers wipe their mouths after each meal. She returned my question with a misgiving look. I raised my hand and wiped my mouth on my sleeve. She looked at my graceless action with contempt.
During a macro-economics class, a classmate attacked blue collar workers who'd been laid off, and unemployed high school dropouts: "80% of them are where they are because they don't work hard. They chose not to specialize in something when they were young, so they can't get jobs now! Those kids are perfectly capable of studying and working. I've heard that a lot of students use their holidays to make thousands to pay their tuition." You can't find a person who knows less about the struggles of rural China than this classmate of mine.
quote:Tear gas was commonly used. Not EVERY encounter with police looked like a confrontation with Bull Connor. That's beside the point though.
Ah yes, I'd forgotten about tear gas. No, not every confrontation was a Bull Connor level of excess, but there was also Kent State.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read the following statement in a Washington Post article.
quote:Indeed, the disjunction between how the UC-Davis police read this video (they see an officer doing his job) and how many others read this video (they see a man in a uniform causing great and unnecessary pain to unresisting students) indicates that we have reached a kind of intellectual impasse about what kind of police we want and what limits should be placed on their power.
What struck me is that there is no fundamental contradiction between these two views of the video. The officer was doing his job and he was causing great and unnecessary pain on unresisting students. That is the problem.
We have a police force that is trained to see the public as the enemy and ordered to inflict pain as part of their job.
"Just doing their job" is no more an excuse for these officers than it was for the guards at Treblinka.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it helps, American tear gas is being used right now ...
quote:US firm's teargas used against Tahrir Square protesters Egypt's military junta fired CS gas cartridges made by Combined Systems Inc of Pennsylvania, say demonstrators
The teargas used by interior ministry troops in Cairo's Tahrir Square is supplied by a US company. Demonstrators say cartridges retrieved from the scene are branded with the name and address of Combined Systems Inc (CSI).
The firm is located in Jamestown, Pennsylvania. It specialises in supplying what it calls "crowd control devices" to armies and "homeland security agencies" around the world. It also manufactures lethal military equipment.
Protesters say the CS gas seems more powerful than that used by Egyptian police during the country's last popular uprising in February. "It's stronger, it burns your face, it makes you feel like your whole body is seizing up," one witness said. He added: "It doesn't seem to be combated by Coke or vinegar."
quote:Tear gas was commonly used. Not EVERY encounter with police looked like a confrontation with Bull Connor. That's beside the point though.
Ah yes, I'd forgotten about tear gas. No, not every confrontation was a Bull Connor level of excess, but there was also Kent State.
Kent State was not a Civil Rights protest, it was a Vietnam War protest.
Not being forced to kill people in another country we had no business being in, or pay for it with my tax dollars seems like a civil rights issue to me.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not being forced to kill people in another country we had no business being in, or pay for it with my tax dollars seems like a civil rights issue to me.
While that's a rational argument, you know as well as I do that the terms "Civil Right's Movement" and "Civil Right's Protest" have taken on a meaning much more specific than the literal definition of the words.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not being forced to kill people in another country we had no business being in, or pay for it with my tax dollars seems like a civil rights issue to me.
While that's a rational argument, you know as well as I do that the terms "Civil Right's Movement" and "Civil Right's Protest" have taken on a meaning much more specific than the literal definition of the words.
I'll grant that's true. But it wasn't something in my thoughts when I wrote what I did. I was merely pointing out that the state of protesting response at that point in American history also included killing Americans.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Whenever I need to breezily inflict discipline on unruly citizens, I know I can trust Defense Technology 56895 MK-9 Stream, 1.3% Red Band/1.3% Blue Band Pepper Spray to get the job done! The power of reason is no match for Defense Technology's superior repression power. When I reach for my can of Defense Technology 56895 MK-9 Stream, 1.3% Red Band/1.3% Blue Band Pepper Spray, I know that even the mighty First Amendment doesn't stand a chance against its many scovil units of civil rights suppression.
When I feel threatened by students, no matter how unarmed, peaceful and seated they may be, I know that Defense Technology 56895 MK-9 Stream, 1.3% Red Band/1.3% Blue Band Pepper Spray has got my back as I casually spray away at point blank range.
It really is the Cadillac of citizen repression technology.
He wouldn't move. He wouldn't leave. He wouldn't get on the ground. Pretty much explains it. I would have hit him too.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
So arrest him. When someone breaks the law, though I question right off the bat what law this guy was breaking by standing in the street, but when someone breaks the law, you arrest them. You don't beat them.
He wouldn't move. He wouldn't leave. He wouldn't get on the ground. Pretty much explains it. I would have hit him too.
You would have hit an unarmed person who presented no physical threat to you? Physically restraining him and arresting him would not have been sufficient? I agree he should have gotten on the ground, especially after the officer told him to, but swiping at his head and legs with a truncheon would have been your solution? Do you not appreciate the problem that people see in this kind of behavior?
Of course, we are never there in the moment, but we *can* see through video who is in control, and who is not. The officer here allows himself to get out of control. That is not the kind of position that a policeman should find himself in. And that goes back to the first moments of the confrontation. Had he stood before the person and demanded that he sit, without offering the suggestion of violence, the man may have sat. Had he, upon approaching the man and finding that the man was evading him, stopped and restated his demand, the man may have complied. But what did he do? Each time he approached the man with the threat of violence, and, quite naturally, the man backed away each time- until the officer found himself chasing after the man, hacking at his legs and at one point his head, in an attempt to get him to stop. Why would the man stop, knowing that the end of a truncheon is going to greet him as soon as he complies? The officer has left him little choice, and he responds naturally.
Ultimately, the officer appears to be enraged. Whether he merely *appears* to be so, or not, that is not the image that a police officer ought to project- one of an enraged man with a club. Whatever you think about a civilian putting himself in that position, the officer is supposed to be a professional. If that's what being a professional looks like, then color me very surprised.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:He wouldn't move. He wouldn't leave. He wouldn't get on the ground. Pretty much explains it. I would have hit him too.
That's just an odious thing to say, capaxinfiniti. As much as I've often thought your politics pretty shill-ish, this is different. It's just *nasty*.
Think, for a moment, of what kind of company that statement puts you in. I'll rephrase, but it's still accurate to what you said: "When an American citizen, peacefully protesting in a nonviolent, nonthreatening way, refuses to cooperate with law enforcement-one of the *points* of peaceful, nonviolent civil protest-law enforcement has the go ahead to hit them."
It's talk like that that gets your crew, conservatives that is, tagged with all sorts of unpleasant associations with he Civil Rights movement. It's a nasty, shameful thing to have said and you ought to be embarrassed by it. I hope after thinking about it, you don't mean it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
He wouldn't move. He wouldn't leave. He wouldn't get on the ground. Pretty much explains it. I would have hit him too.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: And when people think like you in law enforcement, they typically legitimize the protesters in a way they could normally only dream of.
posted
Why is that so many conservatives, who are opposed to "big government", have no problem with non-violent people being maced or beaten for refusing to follow police instructions?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly? While I think there's a bit of over-generalization happening here, I recall some research being done a few years back that concluded that a) conservatives feel disgust far more strongly than liberals; and b) conservatives are somewhat more likely to respond with and approve of violence against things that disgust them. It's fairly rare to hear conservatives complaining about violent governnment reactions; when they do, it's usually a complaint that the government actually organized or implemented the reaction badly, and not that the reaction was violent.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
It's fairly easy to see capax's line of reasoning here, he isn't too far off from embittered reactionary central.
quote:Originally posted by What Someone Actually Said: “Leftists are the most violent prone segment of the American population. That's why I hold that Democrats, Liberals and other criminals should be rounded up and in many cases hanged so they won't get lots of innocent people killed and brutalized.”
***********
"Minor problem here as related to Zuccotti Park. While it is private property in the sense most of us think of as private property, it is technically a Privately Owned Public Space. When it was originally built back in the '60s, the builders built it in exchange for being allowed to build the adjacent building taller than would usually be allowed. As part of that agreement, the owners were required to leave the park open 24 hours a day. They could still regulate what activities were allowed in the park, just not the hours. So the owners would have to renegotiate their agreement with NYC in order to be able to close the park during certain hours. Hopefully they'll be allowed to do that and make the modifications necessary to be able to close the park when needed."
*****************
Ideologically, they appear to be more related to the anarchist movement than to anything else. I'm seeing the same sort of rhetoric that theyu used when they burned Seattle a couple of years ago, and attacked the various international financial conferences. If they have a motto, it allears to be Loot Rape Pillage and Burn.
We've dealt with barbarian savages before. We've done so in a rather unpleasant manner. Since it's considered impolite to sell them into the merciful institution of slavery, we're stuck with liquidating them.
Hanging is the green solution.
******************
Where shall my second call upon you, boy?
I don't want to lynch them. I'd be happy to try them by Counter-revolutionary court befire I hang them. That should take about five minutes per OWSer.
They are fighting against my country and the prosperity of my children and grandchildren. They are cirrational and dangerous. Their existence is partly a factor of not having conducted mass executions of communist agents as a result of the McCarthy and House Unamerican Activities investigations.
I am not a nice person. They have taught me hate. Now I want them dead.
I'm not holding my breath, though.
******************
Not saying I agree with Dennis completely, but not saying "no" either. But Winston, you must understand that many of the people doing this protesting are professional whiners. They get paid to make a scene. I have no use for such drivel. And these 'kids' that are bitching about school debt, etc.? They studied and got degrees in areas such "Ancient Mesopotamian Basket Weaving" just as a ludicris example- what possible need are there for such in a depressed worldwide economy?
I know you have a socialist streak that is strong in you, Winston. But try to look at it from other perspectives. Over here across the pond, we ARE more ocnservative and most of us do not hold with these whiny little spoiled brats. If they were my kids, suffice to say an arse whooping would be in store. I also have already told my kids if you get arrested doing something stupid, don't bother calling me. And they understand why!
**************************
What the OWSers don't understand is that Zucotti park is PRIVATE PROPERTY. The second the owners, in this case Brookfield Properties, asks them to leave they MUST leave. If not, they're tresspassing, and Brookfield has every legal right to send in the cops to arrest them.
Some of the public spaces various OWS protest groups have occupied make things more complicated, but Brookfield has the same rights on Zuccoti park that I do with people in my front yard. When I say get, you get.
Only a matter of time before this is increasingly the mainstream of conservative American thought, I've already started seeing it on IRC channels with people who I thought 'normal'. Maybe Capax doesn't think they should be hanged but I wouldn't be surprised if he agreed with the 'professional whiners' rationalization for beating them.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Why is that so many conservatives, who are opposed to "big government", have no problem with non-violent people being maced or beaten for refusing to follow police instructions?
It depends on the government.
quote:“So I hope that we’ll hear more of this [from Mr. Obama] because the young men and women taking the streets in Tehran need our support,” Mr. Graham said on ABC’s “This Week.” “The president of the United States is supposed to lead the free world, not follow it.”
...
Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, said, “I believe that we could be more forceful than we have” in dealing with Iran.
“If America stands for democracy, and all of these demonstrations are going on in Tehran and other cities over there, and people don’t think that we really care, then obviously they’re going to question, do we really believe in our principles?” Mr. Grassley said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: That's just an odious thing to say, capaxinfiniti. As much as I've often thought your politics pretty shill-ish, this is different. It's just *nasty*.
It's talk like that that gets your crew, conservatives that is, tagged with all sorts of unpleasant associations with he Civil Rights movement.
I think you and a few others are overreacting to what I said. The recent spat of conflicts with police are less about the alleged injustices on wall street and more about the anit-authoritarian/anti-police tendencies of some of the people involved in the OWS movement. These people taking the fight to the police wouldn't respect them in any circumstance. Their behavior originates from a twisted sense of "if you're not with us, you're against us" as well as a poor understanding of the demographics of the police force. What happened to the police being part of the 99%? These are the Americans who get drunk drivers off our streets and keep guns and drugs out of our schools; who go to domestic violence calls and see the wife's face bloodied, her eye hanging out of her socket because her husband hit her so hard; these are Americans who care enough about the quality of their country that they risk their lives to protect the safety of their fellow citizens. Meanwhile occupy wall street huddles in parks, banging on drums and overdosing in tents...
OWS would do well to keep the police on their side. These sideshow antics are neither here nor there. They don't advance their cause and they don't garner support. If the complaints of the occupy crowd can't stand on their own merit they shouldn't resort to taunting then vilifying the police in order to draw back the waning American public interest. The police are charged with maintaining order and ensuring the rights of everyone in these cities. Meaning citizens of any ideological persuasion should be able to go about their lives without excessive molestation by the protesters.
quote:Think, for a moment, of what kind of company that statement puts you in. I'll rephrase, but it's still accurate to what you said: "When an American citizen, peacefully protesting in a nonviolent, nonthreatening way, refuses to cooperate with law enforcement-one of the *points* of peaceful, nonviolent civil protest-law enforcement has the go ahead to hit them."
It puts me in the company of the peace officers of this country, and I'm proud to be there. As I implied above, I don't see this as an OWS issue and I sure as hell don't see this as a civil rights issue. Orinoco broke down the incident in a fairly accurate way, thought our analyses of the event differ. I think the officer showed great restraint and control by giving the man plenty of time to comply (and later by hitting only the mans leg, and once, his arm.) Instead the man stood defiantly in front of the officer when he could have continued his protest at an alternate location. Notice the officers first action is to grab the protester by the shoulder, turning him so his back is toward the officer, standard procedure for arresting someone. But the man jerks away, facing the officer and raising his hands. Then he doesn't get on the ground, etc, etc. So I don't feel the actions of this police officer were unprofessional or inexplicable. This guy wanted to be a martyr and he got it.
quote:It's a nasty, shameful thing to have said and you ought to be embarrassed by it. I hope after thinking about it, you don't mean it.
You're trying to shame me into keeping silent about what I believe. Imagine if everyone was told to be embarrased about sharing their opinion. Since when has silencing a dissenting voice been part of your ideology? I know you're capable of constructing a more substantial counterargument.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think you and a few others are overreacting to what I said.
You said a peaceful, nonviolent protestor should be treated violently by the police with an attack by a truncheon. You didn't just say it was OK for that to happen, you specifically approved. People are objecting to that. Big shocker.
quote:The recent spat of conflicts with police are less about the alleged injustices on wall street and more about the anit-authoritarian/anti-police tendencies of some of the people involved in the OWS movement. These people taking the fight to the police wouldn't respect them in any circumstance. Their behavior originates from a twisted sense of "if you're not with us, you're against us" as well as a poor understanding of the demographics of the police force. What happened to the police being part of the 99%? These are the Americans who get drunk drivers off our streets and keep guns and drugs out of our schools; who go to domestic violence calls and see the wife's face bloodied, her eye hanging out of her socket because her husband hit her so hard; these are Americans who care enough about the quality of their country that they risk their lives to protect the safety of their fellow citizens. Meanwhile occupy wall street huddles in parks, banging on drums and overdosing in tents...
Well, goodness gracious me, I forgot that the people who define what OWS is about are far-right conservative Republicans. That sure makes things easier! Every single police officer is a hero who took the job out of a sense of altruistic public duty, and the OWS protestors are drug addicted tent-huddling whiners. Glad that's straightened out.
By the standards you're using, the Tea Party is a bunch of racist, crazy, Birther-believing xenophobes, though. Of course when someone paints with the kind of brush you're doing, and focuses on someone you like rather than blithely and ignorantly dismiss out of hand...well. Then it's an overgeneralization, of course.
quote:OWS would do well to keep the police on their side. These sideshow antics are neither here nor there. They don't advance their cause and they don't garner support. If the complaints of the occupy crowd can't stand on their own merit they shouldn't resort to taunting then vilifying the police in order to draw back the waning American public interest. The police are charged with maintaining order and ensuring the rights of everyone in these cities. Meaning citizens of any ideological persuasion should be able to go about their lives without excessive molestation by the protesters.
Yeah, that's why OWS is spreading. Because they're not garnering support. Your reasoning is laughable, but let's suppose for the sake of argument you're right, the only reason they've maintained or improved their PR is by 'taunting and villifying the police'. Cops aren't allowed to freaking hit people just for being taunted. It's supposed to take more than that before the threshold of violence is crossed.
And before you go all holier-than-thou about the police, and incidentally implying that people are ungrateful for low crime rates, etc., bear this in mind: those rules about violence, when to escalate, etc., they exist as much to protect cops as they do to protect the citizens. But in any event, y'know who the cops answer to? Us. We make their rules for them. That's the way it's supposed to be in an open, representative society. We're not supposed to just sign off on whatever they do, because hey, they're cops.
As others have said, this is actually the sort of thing a conservative should be pretty up in arms about: when and how the government is allowed to use violence against its citizens. But, whew! Good thing it's only a bunch of protesting liberals. Now you don't have to be concerned about the government using violence against peaceful political protestors.
I'll say that again, just to point out how deeply hypocritical your belief in limited government actually is: 'government using violence against peaceful political protestors'.
quote:It puts me in the company of the peace officers of this country, and I'm proud to be there. As I implied above, I don't see this as an OWS issue and I sure as hell don't see this as a civil rights issue. Orinoco broke down the incident in a fairly accurate way, thought our analyses of the event differ. I think the officer showed great restraint and control by giving the man plenty of time to comply (and later by hitting only the mans leg, and once, his arm.) Instead the man stood defiantly in front of the officer when he could have continued his protest at an alternate location. Notice the officers first action is to grab the protester by the shoulder, turning him so his back is toward the officer, standard procedure for arresting someone. But the man jerks away, facing the officer and raising his hands. Then he doesn't get on the ground, etc, etc. So I don't feel the actions of this police officer were unprofessional or inexplicable. This guy wanted to be a martyr and he got it.
Ironically your attitude does a disservice to the police, or do you think helping OWS make martyrs out of peaceful protestors is helpful to the cops? If you think Orincoro broke down the incident accurately, you simply cannot come to the conclusions you're drawing-they don't match up. His viewing of the incident only leads to a substantial disapproval of how the officer behaved.
quote:You're trying to shame me into keeping silent about what I believe. Imagine if everyone was told to be embarrased about sharing their opinion. Since when has silencing a dissenting voice been part of your ideology? I know you're capable of constructing a more substantial counterargument.
Oh, I've got absolutely zero hope that that would've 'shamed you into keeping silent'. It's an Internet forum, dude, I don't have that power. I had a fleeting hope that you'd realize, "Whoa, hey, violence against peaceful protestors by the government...that's bad! I'm not supposed to like that!" since you've been less of a political hack lately than you have in the past. But I was clearly mistaken.
In that post, I was incredulous you'd say something like that, and I (and others) explained why. It actually seemed to me that once you were confronted with what you were saying, you might revise your statement. Now I'm just heaping scorn on your deeply hypocritical, dishonest politics.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, you can object and not overreact. This isn't the first time you've become instantly emotionally riled over a simple remark of mine. I'll try to wade through your condescending, snarky, and sarcastic remarks and comment on your points but really, you come across as someone who lacks control of their emotions. Do you act this way in public or do you reserve your distasteful antics for the internet forums?
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: The recent spat of conflicts with police are less about the alleged injustices on wall street and more about the anit-authoritarian/anti-police tendencies of some of the people involved in the OWS movement.
I think not.
In most publicized instances of police and protestor altercations, the police have escalated tensions through underhandedness, aggression, and a refusal to communicate honestly, and react to acts of civil disobedience with reciprocal responses. Hitting, pepper spraying, and jabbing protestors who make no physical challenge is not a reciprocal response, in case you thought it was- it is an escalation. Just is- and in most of the cases we have discussed here, the police have escalated to violence without cause.
Police have procedures for dealing with riots, and procedures for dealing with unlawful protest, and they are not the same procedures. So far, we've seen a great number of police actions that look like responses to riots, when there was no rioting occurring. Punitive use of violence is not appropriate. That is simply not the purview of the police, and for that we can blame the municipalities and governing bodies of universities that have seen such police behavior, as much as we can blame the police themselves. The protestors have every right, when they challenge the authority of the police in a controlled and non-violent manner, to be treated with reciprocal levels of force. That is a solid principle of civil disobedience and protest in our country.
My take on it is this: The police officers on the ground do not have the judgement needed to understand how to best deal with these situations in a way that will lead to the most equitable outcome for all. They know how to be cops, and cops are good at winning violent struggles and dealing with aggressive people. They are not good at dealing with subtler challenges to their authority, which are really challenges to the system that they represent. As such, sending cops into peaceful protests with riot gear and pepper spray, in phalanx formation, puts the police in mind of being threatened, and places them in a situation which *is* inherently threatening. To them. But it's like sending your army into enemy territory, and then "defending yourself" because you're surrounded. Why did you do it that way? In the case of UC Davis, it was done, I think, out of an overconfidence and rashness on the part of the chancellor and police chief, who believed that they could intimidate the students, and instead found themselves in the position of escalating to violence out of desperation.
It's rather interesting, I think, that this systemic overconfidence and disregard for alternatives come at the tail end of two large scale wars that were essentially founded in this problem. Some of these cops *are* former marines and army. I do wonder if, as a country, we've somehow gotten used to the idea of fighting against an enemy we have completely given up hope of dealing with as an equal.
quote:OWS would do well to keep the police on their side. These sideshow antics are neither here nor there. They don't advance their cause and they don't garner support.
Are you deliberately ignoring that OWS really took off with the help of conflicts with police? Do you really still not understand the concept, or how it was demonstrated in a way you are completely, doggedly overlooking?
quote:You're trying to shame me into keeping silent about what I believe.
More people than just me are probably just trying to shame you into having a clue about what you're talking about, especially when it comes part-and-parcel with a headscratching support of violence.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. Shame, in this case, should be applied to encourage one to rethink their position not just be silent about it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Yeah, that's why OWS is spreading. Because they're not garnering support. Your reasoning is laughable, but let's suppose for the sake of argument you're right, the only reason they've maintained or improved their PR is by 'taunting and villifying the police'.
That wasn’t the point I was attempting to make but I can see the confusion. I don’t believe taunting and vilifying the police is an attempt at improving their PR. I meant that the protesters need these clashes with the police to get front page news coverage because their protest actions alone don’t generate enough public interest that Americans demand or seek out information on the movement.
Regarding OWS spreading: A recent Gallup poll (similar results were obtained by Public Policy Polling) doesn't suggest support for OWS is spreading. The poll shows a majority of Americans are indifferent toward the occupy movement and 20% are opposed. These numbers are very similar to those of approximately 1 month ago, hardly justification for believing support is spreading. In addition, approval of the way the protests are being conducted has dropped significantly in the last 4 weeks while disapproval has increased. Consider also the closing of occupy camps around the country, all without significant (read: hardly any) outrage from the general public.
For a movement whose continued existences is threatened by time, opposition, and indifference, the prospect of stagnating support is ominous.
quote:By the standards you're using, the Tea Party is a bunch of racist, crazy, Birther-believing xenophobes, though. Of course when someone paints with the kind of brush you're doing, and focuses on someone you like rather than blithely and ignorantly dismiss out of hand...well. Then it's an overgeneralization, of course.
Fine. I think there have been overgeneralizations on both sides. My point was to maintain the understanding that police are part of the taxpaying public too.
quote:Cops aren't allowed to freaking hit people just for being taunted. It's supposed to take more than that before the threshold of violence is crossed.
The man made provocative actions then resisted arrest. The man was given multiple lawful orders - leave, move, get down. His civil disobedience was still disobedience. Anyone engaging in it should be aware of the consequences and willing to continue their fight in court, where the judicial system will determine if their actions were indeed civil disobedience and whether the actions of the officer were justified. I acknowledge the existence of alternatives to this type of force - pepper spray, tackling, maybe a shouting contest? - none of which you would likely approved of.
quote:those rules about violence, when to escalate, etc., they exist as much to protect cops as they do to protect the citizens. But in any event, y'know who the cops answer to? Us. We make their rules for them. That's the way it's supposed to be in an open, representative society. We're not supposed to just sign off on whatever they do, because hey, they're cops.
Right, and when you say “us” I hope you understand that to mean you, me, conservatives, liberals, cops, criminals, and everyone else who is part of this country. Just because one person (even a group of people) agrees to certain rules doesn’t make them law, nor do I have to agree with your rules. I sign off on what occurred in this incident because I find the measures taken to be lawful and justified. My endorsement is part of my representation in this representative society.
quote:As others have said, this is actually the sort of thing a conservative should be pretty up in arms about: when and how the government is allowed to use violence against its citizens. But, whew! Good thing it's only a bunch of protesting liberals. Now you don't have to be concerned about the government using violence against peaceful political protestors.
This isn’t an issue of conservative vs. liberal and I encourage you to not make it one. I’m fully aware - even expect - that some conservative probably don’t share my opinion on this incident.
quote:Ironically your attitude does a disservice to the police, or do you think helping OWS make martyrs out of peaceful protestors is helpful to the cops?
I don’t think my solidarity with the police is a disservice. This man being hit did little to advance his cause, nor, I argue, did it significantly detract from the credibility of the police once a reasonable explanation for the officers actions was given.
quote:It actually seemed to me that once you were confronted with what you were saying, you might revise your statement.
I would expect only that the person expound upon the statement. Which I did.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: The man made provocative actions then resisted arrest. The man was given multiple lawful orders - leave, move, get down. His civil disobedience was still disobedience. Anyone engaging in it should be aware of the consequences and willing to continue their fight in court, where the judicial system will determine if their actions were indeed civil disobedience and whether the actions of the officer were justified. I acknowledge the existence of alternatives to this type of force - pepper spray, tackling, maybe a shouting contest? - none of which you would likely approved of.
See, you're talking just like the UCD chancellor- " strategies for gaining compliance" was the line, I believe. Which rather ignores any alternative that is not overtly forceful. For instance, waiting.Talking. Politely conferring with group leaders.
These incidents have all been set off by police action that attempted to disassemble forums that had not been used to the satisfaction of protestors. These occupations are about demanding attention, and when there is not even a consideration of formal airing of grievances and acknowledgement of the protests, this leads to agitation, and resistance to police presence. Part of the genuine shock on the part of UCD's community, including myself as a long time Davis resident and alum, is that the chancellor did not even *consider* allowing the protest to become a public forum. Her first thought was of dismantling and removing it, full stop. That is *troubling* on a university campus, whether the occupation be lawful or not- a governing body and an executive can make exceptions to the interpretation of the law, if there is an obvious need. Civil disobedience appeals directly to that prerogative, to ignore the law in favor of a higher purpose, and so to reform the system through mutual engagement.
As to your point: "civil disobedience is still disobedience." Yes it is. But it is a type of disobedience that, if done correctly, clearly telegraphs its intent, and demands a set of responses that examine the willingness of government and authorities generally to enforce the laws, and to examine their own priorities concerning the issues being protested. Civil disobedience is done publicly, in an organized fashion, for a specific political purpose. The intent of the civil part of civil disobedience is that it is an attempt to legitimize political opposition, and demonstrate the inadequacies of the extant system for dealing with that opposition. It also calls attention to the oppositions lack of appropriate or (ostensible) necessary representation in government.
Uncivil disobedience is represented in petty crime and chicanery: not paying parking tickets, flouting minor regulations, all done in the belief that a person will not be caught, and if caught, not charged. Civil disobedience invites and welcomes consequences. And interestingly enough, civil disobedience has been *stunningly* successful in these instances: revealing lack of restraint among authorities, and overt hostility toward opposition to the establishment. The results very neatly *prove* the point of the protesters- that they are living in a system which is deeply and aggressively intolerant to their views, and deaf to their actual needs.
This video has surfaced showing police clearly and explicitly warning the protesters of the consequences were they to continue blocking the public roadway at UC Davis.
--------------------------------
Occupy L.A. to be evicted Monday. Another instance of city residents and officials losing patience with OWS, despite previous support. LA is a critical warm-weather bastion of the occupy movement. Atlanta is the next best hope for fair-weather protesters, if you don't mind tuberculosis..
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Be sure to keep reminding us at regular, almost scripted intervals how the tide is turning against OWS; that way, you'll never miss the potential timing to be right at least once!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
You do that they're supposed to be blocking the road right?
IP: Logged |
posted
cap: So because the police warned them, now suddenly it's OK? I'll be sure to remember that the next time I don't feel like waiting at a red light. I'll just blare my horn as I drive on through.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: cap: So because the police warned them, now suddenly it's OK? I'll be sure to remember that the next time I don't feel like waiting at a red light. I'll just blare my horn as I drive on through.
That's a false analogy. The law is not on your side nor do you have the right to endanger the lives of other law-abiding citizens by driving recklessly. In any case, the decision of the UC Davis campus police was OK before this video was released. But this video shows the police acted in a patient, professional manner and that their actions weren't sudden or rash. The debate over whether or not the group should have been forced to move can continue but this nonsense about the unethical behavior of the police and putting two officers on administrative leave should stop.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nonsense, eh? Ok. Here's a question for you. If the police acted in a patient, professional manner in informing the students that they would be beaten unconscious if they did not remove themselves from that location, and the police did indeed summarily beat them unconscious when they did not move, would it still be 'nonsense' about unethical behavior? How about if they were shot after a warning? Does the ethical behavior of the police's decided-upon procedure continue to be nonsense at any point along the continuum?
The answer is obviously no (well, at least I hope it's obvious to you) but I can't be sure if you know what that point means, in terms of describing the unethical behavior / administrative leave issue being 'nonsense.'
Actually, I'll go ahead and guess not!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Does the ethical behavior of the police's decided-upon procedure continue to be nonsense at any point along the continuum?
Of course it doesn't. That's a stupid question, coming from someone like you. There are important differences between pepper spraying, beating to unconsciousness, and shooting people with a firearm. The police needed the roadway cleared and chose a course of action that was both quick and efficient, followed orders and protocol, maintained the security of the officers, and resulted in no lasting discomfort for the protesters. Pepper spraying did all of that.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: cap: So because the police warned them, now suddenly it's OK? I'll be sure to remember that the next time I don't feel like waiting at a red light. I'll just blare my horn as I drive on through.
That's a false analogy. The law is not on your side nor do you have the right to endanger the lives of other law-abiding citizens by driving recklessly. In any case, the decision of the UC Davis campus police was OK before this video was released. But this video shows the police acted in a patient, professional manner and that their actions weren't sudden or rash. The debate over whether or not the group should have been forced to move can continue but this nonsense about the unethical behavior of the police and putting two officers on administrative leave should stop.
:snort:
I love that you think it matters whether the UCD police *thought really hard* about pepper spraying non-violent civil disobedient protestors in the face before doing it. Stay classy buddy. Stay classy.
quote: quote: Originally posted by Samprimary: Does the ethical behavior of the police's decided-upon procedure continue to be nonsense at any point along the continuum? Of course it doesn't. That's a stupid question, coming from someone like you. There are important differences between pepper spraying, beating to unconsciousness, and shooting people with a firearm. The police needed the roadway cleared and chose a course of action that was both quick and efficient, followed orders and protocol, maintained the security of the officers, and resulted in no lasting discomfort for the protesters. Pepper spraying did all of that.
And sparked an *international* furor over police violence. Why? Because pepper spraying people is *violent* and *excessive*.
You just... dude, you don't get it. You don't assault people with chemical weapons unless you *have* to. And that doesn't count towards *having* to get your job done. Yeah, they needed to clear a "roadway.*" But whatever, you've steadfastly ignored any of a dozen sounds explanations of why this was not, in fact, "by the book" police work.
*and by the way dude, I happen to have spent a lot of time on that quad, and I happen to have used that "roadway," and it is in fact a footpath across a 15,000 square yard open space, surrounded on all sides by wide bike paths that can accomodate hundreds of bicycles at a time, and flanked by two large pedestrian causeways that have room for, oh, probably 500 people to walk down them... The Davis campus is *huge.* The footpath "roadway" in question is not a vital artery of campus transportation. You've ignored every piece of input from everyone who knows anything about this situation, so do go ahead and ignore that too, and imagine the students were blocking an actual road, and not a footpath across an enormous quad, hindering *no one*.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: The footpath "roadway" in question is not a vital artery of campus transportation. You've ignored every piece of input from everyone who knows anything about this situation, so do go ahead and ignore that too, and imagine the students were blocking an actual road, and not a footpath across an enormous quad, hindering *no one*.
Dude-buddy, I'm aware of the location of this incident and the general-purpose nature of the path. It's not a roadway in the sense of allowing local traffic. But to get to the heart of it, I think your ignoring the purpose behind obstructing the "roadway" in the first place. The intent of this small group was to make it impossible for the police to transport protesters who were arrested before the pepper spray incident occurred. The police weren't going to walk the arrested through demonstrations and across the quad. They had their vehicles near the freshly-dismantled encampment, and were leaving with the arrested, rendering the path temporarily a road.
quote:But whatever, you've steadfastly ignored any of a dozen sounds explanations of why this was not, in fact, "by the book" police work.
I haven't ignored them. I have, in fact, offered arguments and counter-arguments for my view and did so in a respectful, sincere way.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right, Capax, its called "civil disobedience." Obstructing the actions of the police in a controlled, non-violent manner, in order to make their job harder, and cause them, and others, to question the validity of their decisions and the process that led up to the standoff.
You hand waved the *biggest* element of all of this, which is that pepper spray is a weapon of last resort, according to every source I have consulted, and according to the myriad number of experts who have contributed to news reports in the last many days.
It is, and I think you would submit to this point, a weapon of self-defense. It was not used in self-defense.
quote: They had their vehicles near the freshly-dismantled encampment, and were leaving with the arrested, rendering the path temporarily a road.
So? So if it's a road you can pepper spray people in the face? You shouldn't just force their hands apart and arrest them? Too much work? Because it's a road? You can't do what you're supposed to do in *every other variation of civil disobedience arrests?* Since it's a road, assault is warranted? Do examine this reasoning. You're arguing that pepper spray was appropriate essentially because it was convenient.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote: Dude-buddy, I'm aware of the location of this incident and the general-purpose nature of the path. It's not a roadway in the sense of allowing local traffic. But to get to the heart of it, I think your ignoring the purpose behind obstructing the "roadway" in the first place. The intent of this small group was to make it impossible for the police to transport protesters who were arrested before the pepper spray incident occurred. The police weren't going to walk the arrested through demonstrations and across the quad. They had their vehicles near the freshly-dismantled encampment, and were leaving with the arrested, rendering the path temporarily a road.
Do tell us more about this society of yours that should crush dissent whenever it wants.
IP: Logged |
posted
No, see, Blayne... they were *blocking* the *path*, so it was okay to spray *chemical weapons* in their *faces*. Okay??
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I imagine if the police were using white phosphorous we would still hear cries of "but they didn't obey orders and were breaking the law and they were a bunch of useless whiners to boot!"
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Right, Capax, its called "civil disobedience." Obstructing the actions of the police in a controlled, non-violent manner, in order to make their job harder, and cause them, and others, to question the validity of their decisions and the process that led up to the standoff.
I see your arguments circles back to the issue of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience isn’t an argument to fall back on when protesting results in consequences you don’t like. It doesn’t grant you carte blache to break any law you deem necessary to advance your cause. Just because you "cause [the police], and others, to question the validity of their decisions and the process that led up to the standoff" doesn't mean they will agree with you in the end.
quote:they were *blocking* the *path*, so it was okay to spray *chemical weapons* in their *faces*.
If this is how you reduce the issue in your mind, it’s easy to see why our views differ so greatly.
The crime(s) they committed went beyond simply “blocking” the road:
Unlawful assembly (on the road, not the presence on the quad.) Violating a rule or regulation of the institution - disruptive activities, failing to leave when ordered. Failure to stop at the command of a law enforcement officer. Interfering with an arresting officer. Resisting arrest.
If those on the path had allowed the police to leave with the 3 arrested persons, the protesters could have continued their protest unhindered while allowing the police to maintain peace and safety on the campus.
quote:You hand waved the *biggest* element of all of this, which is that pepper spray is a weapon of last resort..
Pepper spray is a non-lethal option that officers can use at their discretion but always according to protocol and regulation. Around 45% of U.S. police departments allow the use of pepper spray in response to passive resistance. Meaning a large percentage of the police agencies in this country don’t believe pepper spray is only for defense. It can function to deter non-compliance, minimize the level of resistance, and reduce the possibility of injury to both the officer and the arrestee.
quote:So? So if it's a road..
I think the issue of it being a road or path or whatever you want to call it is irrelevant, and that claim is supported by my comments above. It could have been grass or ice or asphalt, the intention of the protesters was to keep the police from completing the arrests. That's why they were pepper sprayed.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
