Gothic.net News Horror Gothic Lifestyle Fiction Movies Books and Literature Dark TV VIP Horror Professionals Professional Writing Tips Links Gothic Forum




Go Back   Gothic.net Community > Boards > Politics

Politics "Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -and both commonly succeed, and are right." -H.L. Menken

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-21-2011, 07:02 PM   #126
Jonathan
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: northeast us
Posts: 887
This thread has become terrible. You should definitely pay more attention to Saya than post in it any more.
Jonathan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2011, 08:29 PM   #127
Miss Absynthe
 
Miss Absynthe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Hell, it's other people & both of them are you
Posts: 1,001
I think that this is an important debate to have so could we please try to keep things cool and not get personal?
Miss Absynthe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2011, 08:36 PM   #128
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
It helps to remember that Versus is Lawful Neutral.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2011, 09:23 PM   #129
Miss Absynthe
 
Miss Absynthe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Hell, it's other people & both of them are you
Posts: 1,001
From the protester side of things:

I have been to protests, and while I haven't been to any of the Occupy ones (I now live about 4 hours drive away from Sydney, and if I lived in the US I would defs make the drive to join in, but I don't think that the Occupy movement in Australia is as needed (or valid?) here as it is there. We have healthcare, govt assistance and pensions etc. Yes, I am the 99%, but the 99% are pretty well taken care of here - unless they are Indigenous, and I think THAT is what our priorities should be as activists in Australia) I have been to many other protests that have ended with police intervention.

They are stuck in a system that is unfair and that is destroying lives, and the only recourse that they have is protest. What else are they meant to do? And when you balance the protests against what has been happening in Europe (I know that they reasons for protest there are different) then you have got to admit that the Occupy movement have been well behaved and on the most part peaceful.

From the police side of things:

Think about the numbers of it for a few moments: from the news reports that I have seen, there are thousands of protesters... there are not thousands of police on the scene. Each of those cops have the thought running through their head that if things go bad that they could instantaneously be over-run with thousands of very angry and potentially violent people, and those people don't have a physical target that they can level their aggression at, those people think of the police that are there as 'working for the system', which is a small step away from viewing the police that are there as the enemy. And I don't doubt that there are people at the movements who are trying to wind things up for their own agenda (there always are these people at protests). What else are they meant to do?

Now think about the tools that these police have at their disposal. Guns, Tasers and Batons are not made for crowd control, they are single target weapons, and even if there is only a single target in that crowd who needs to be controlled, there is still a crowd of people there who can potentially be injured or killed.

Tear Gas, Pepper Spray, Vehicles and Riot Shields are made more for crowd situations, but Tear Gas is extreme. They are using their vehicles to control and funnel the crowd into an area to keep the public safe, they are using their Riot Shields to keep themselves safe and also to move the crowd and then they are trying to use the Pepper Spray to make things as unpleasant as possible in the hopes that people will give up and go home.

The reason that they want people to go home is for the simple reason that THEY HAVE BEEN TOLD TO GET THE PEOPLE TO GO HOME. It isn't because they don't agree with the protesters, it isn't because they don't agree that the system is fucked. It is because they have a job, and probably kids, a mortgage and debt to pay off and they are just trying to keep their job. And trying to do it well so that people don't get hurt or dead.

I am curious as to why they don't use fire hoses, though... they work well for crowd control and people don't like staying around when they are wet and miserable.

The police are also trained that when you are trying to exercise authority, any act that isn't a direct act of compliance is an act of aggression. You see this with cops and prison guards who are physically restraining a person - if the person moves away or tenses up in any way they will be put to the ground fast and hard. It isn't because of some macho-authoritarian-bullshit, it is because if you are trying to restrain someone and they tense up, you don't know that they aren't setting their stance to take a swing at you. There are situations where the only option to ensure that everyone is safe is to treat the person you are dealing with as a potential threat, because you just do not know what their plans are.

Police are taught 'worse-case-scenario thinking' because that is what keeps them (and the other people around them) alive. If we were talking about nurses for a second here (to use a more benign example) and you told a nurse you had chest pain, the first thought for them is going to be 'heart attack' and not 'indigestion', because if I think that you are going to have an MI then I can be prepared for that and deal with it instead of giving you some Pepto Bismol and then trying to tell your family why you keeled over dead. If I put you on a cardiac monitor and give you some aspirin and morphine and it is just indigestion, no harm and no foul... and hey, you got some free morphine!

If a cop tries to disperse a large group people from an area and they refuse to leave, the worse-case-scenario thinking is that they are going to riot and people are going to get badly injured, if not killed. Unfortunately, what they are spraying into the crowd is not morphine... but at the end of the day, they are just trying to do their job and stop people being hurt.

What I see:

I see a pretty no-win situation. I see the system being quite successful in making the police out to be the bad guys, and the focus of the anger starting to shift away from the 1% and this really bothers me.

I think that we really need to be careful at not only 'maintaining the rage', but at directing it at the correct focus.

But I also think that the police (not the cops on the ground, but those in command) need to be looking at the way that they are being used in this situation. They also need to be paying attention to the fatigue and frustration that the cops on the ground are going to be feeling - it isn't easy to turn up at work each day knowing that you are going to spend your shift being called names and verbally abused - it gets wearisome after a very short while, and this is when mistakes start happening.

I have no freaking idea what they can do about it, because at the end of the day they have to respond to the potential threat, even though the threat is only potential.
Miss Absynthe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2011, 03:02 AM   #130
Acharis
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
Why? Because it hurt?
“Because it hurt”? No. Because even a fine cloud caught in my throat and made it hard to breathe for the split second it drifted over me. Because the person who was sprayed in the face was incapacitated. That’s what it’s for, incapacitating people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
Again, that is not disproportionate. What you describe is not brutality. Of what the police are allowed to do, nothing short of physical action would get that task accomplished. That much is obvious because they are there in the first place to physically evict people that refuse to comply. If you're going to resist by linking arms (again, not threatening at all to you from your perspective) how else would you expect them to go about it? I mean, really. The police are not some kind of martial artists that can touch you and instantly make you comply, so anything physical they do is going to look rough.
I want you to imagine that you have to physically remove someone from your work because they refuse to and are being very disruptive. How would you do it? Politely tugging on their clothing isn't working, so you have to be more aggressive. Even though they're not being violent about resisting by doing things such as being a dead weight or pulling back, it's clear that minimal physical contact is a luxury you don't have. How do you do it? \
I wish I could find the footage of a young girl screaming as he dragged her face across the ground and pinned her down with his body. And the old woman I spoke to at Occupy was punched in the face after letting an officer pass and while just being nearby.
Face it, some of the officers did get carried away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
Again, I remind you that you're not looking at this from any perspective but your own and you're saying "How could anybody possibly think otherwise?" Tell me, do you think that officer was threatening you, or was he warning you that you could get hurt in a matter of fact manner because his day had been far too long and stressful to care about being polite?
No, the reason I bring up my own perspective is to point out (as someone that was there) that the media spin isn’t necessarily accurate. The cameras zoom in selectively on the bad things, but cut out other elements... what you see is chosen ahead. A specific angle is taken, so what you see reported may have a very different flavour to what went down.
(The same happened with Slutwalk – I can tell you the majority of people there were dressed in everyday clothing, the people were more varied and the message clearer than came across in the media.)

As for whether it was a threat or a warning about the horse, I can’t tell. But he sounded pretty shirty. And really – the height/bulk of the horses was intimidating, and I know what happens if you walk up behind one. A warning wasn’t really required.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
Police are always at risk from the moment they clock in. They were using force to carry out their jobs because their jobs were to remove people who were forcing them to do so by not cooperating. You're just upset that someone got a bruised elbow because you think that it can happen any other way.
Bruised elbow? People were bleeding and lying on the ground, and while I’m not sure what injuries occurred I’m sure that wasn’t the limit. All the possessions from the City Square were gathered up and destroyed. Computers, clothing, tents, phones, I assume wallets... all taken away and destroyed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
As I said before, "why" is completely and utterly irrelevant to the police. They follow orders, not think-tank how to thoughtfully engage you so that you'll be willing to compromise. Is it not a decision on their part, so when you compare them to being the henchmen of some police state by slandering them when they take the only course of action to get you to move, you are trying to personify ordinary people as something they are not.
Henchmen? Slander? No. I object to the tactics used and individual officers going overboard. Which some did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolf moon View Post
Are you at all familiar with the concept of civil disobedience or what the movement is actually about? At all? The police are pepper spraying people who are sitting down and linking arms. This has been considered, for decades now, to be a universally understood sign of nonviolence. Prison guards who use pepper spray after an inmate is sitting down, even if that person was actively engaging in violence just moments before, are fired for excessive use of force. Your response to the police using these tactics on seated, nonviolent, nonaggressive protestors is seriously going to be "it's just pepper spray"?
The idea that this violence is justified by the fact that the protestors are not "cooperating" with a request to evacuate a public space is precisely what they're protesting in the first place. "Do whatever we say or we will use violence against you" is not supposed to be how this country works. The fact that you see nothing wrong with this mindset is terrifying.
Thanks wolf moon, that’s what I was trying to articulate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
I think that their protest is justified to disrupt any of that. The movement is really important. It's merely an inconvenience for most people, and I don't blame them for using any of it as a tactic to get attention.
I agree. I have been fricking slack, I should get down there again with some cookies or something to keep up morale.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grausamkeit View Post
Versus, I'm glad that I'm not the only one that can see a different perspective on these situations.

I do wonder, though. Do these protester's ever stop to think what the vandalism or the street clogging they do in some areas is doing to disrupt the lives of others? Do they give a fuck about anything besides their 'peaceful' protest? If they cause a building to be shut down that they have vandalized and someone can't get medication they need to survive(and that person subsequently dies) will they rightly admit to causing someone's death?
There's no vandalism or blockage in Melbourne, Treasury Gardens is clean as whistle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grausamkeit View Post
I don't think Versus is saying the police have the 'right' to use force on the protestors. He's saying they're just doing their jobs and being demonized for it, to boot.
We’re not demonizing. We’re questioning actions, which is a good thing to do when a person or group has a lot of power.
I’ve been helped a lot by police and support their institution, but am becoming concerned. And just because you’ve never met a police officer that abuses their power or makes a bad call, doesn’t mean it doesn’t ever happen in isolated cases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
As adults, the protesters can do whatever they please, and as adults they are also responsible for their actions. The U.S. does not excuse breaking the law for political reasons. Even if their reasons are good ones, they still display criminal intent.
To put plainly, the protesters intend a consequence when they can foresee it happening after certain acts (or omission of acts) continue, and that shows a desire for it to occur. Civil disobedience should be punished because it not only encourages a more general disobedience, but also undermines the law itself.
No, it doesn't show a desire for it to occur and it isn't someone's responsibility if they get hurt. This goes right back to victim blaming, and justifies the whole "Do whatever you're told or you will experience violence".
Acharis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2011, 03:05 AM   #131
Acharis
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Absynthe View Post

[Protesters] are stuck in a system that is unfair and that is destroying lives, and the only recourse that they have is protest. What else are they meant to do? And when you balance the protests against what has been happening in Europe (I know that they reasons for protest there are different) then you have got to admit that the Occupy movement have been well behaved and on the most part peaceful.
Which is what I'm getting at.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Absynthe View Post
From the police side of things:
Think about the numbers of it for a few moments: from the news reports that I have seen, there are thousands of protesters... there are not thousands of police on the scene. Each of those cops have the thought running through their head that if things go bad that they could instantaneously be over-run with thousands of very angry and potentially violent people, and those people don't have a physical target that they can level their aggression at, those people think of the police that are there as 'working for the system', which is a small step away from viewing the police that are there as the enemy. And I don't doubt that there are people at the movements who are trying to wind things up for their own agenda (there always are these people at protests). What else are they meant to do?
Now think about the tools that these police have at their disposal. Guns, Tasers and Batons are not made for crowd control, they are single target weapons, and even if there is only a single target in that crowd who needs to be controlled, there is still a crowd of people there who can potentially be injured or killed.
/snip
The reason that they want people to go home is for the simple reason that THEY HAVE BEEN TOLD TO GET THE PEOPLE TO GO HOME. It isn't because they don't agree with the protesters, it isn't because they don't agree that the system is fucked. It is because they have a job, and probably kids, a mortgage and debt to pay off and they are just trying to keep their job. And trying to do it well so that people don't get hurt or dead.

/snip
What I see:
I see a pretty no-win situation. I see the system being quite successful in making the police out to be the bad guys, and the focus of the anger starting to shift away from the 1% and this really bothers me.
I think that we really need to be careful at not only 'maintaining the rage', but at directing it at the correct focus.
But I also think that the police (not the cops on the ground, but those in command) need to be looking at the way that they are being used in this situation. They also need to be paying attention to the fatigue and frustration that the cops on the ground are going to be feeling - it isn't easy to turn up at work each day knowing that you are going to spend your shift being called names and verbally abused - it gets wearisome after a very short while, and this is when mistakes start happening.
I have no freaking idea what they can do about it, because at the end of the day they have to respond to the potential threat, even though the threat is only potential.
This is true, which is why every effort is made to remain non-threatening.
You'll be happy to know that people shaking the fence were yelled at by other protesters to keep moving until they did, and when one person was calling out about "pigs" at a meeting - they were literally booed down by everyone else.

My problem isn't with “the police”, it's with the times they get carried away or the individual bullies among them. And most of all, the people in positions of power that create this fucked up society (the politicians, the businesses and and the elite). I agree that the anger should be put in the appropriate place.
Acharis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2011, 05:03 AM   #132
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acharis View Post
“Because it hurt”? No. Because even a fine cloud caught in my throat and made it hard to breathe for the split second it drifted over me. Because the person who was sprayed in the face was incapacitated. That’s what it’s for, incapacitating people.
So, your experience with pepper spray is a mist that got caught in your throat, and what you've seen happen to another person? I'm sure it was horrible for you, but your whole reasoning is because it hurt. Pain is a subjective thing, and some people are tougher then most.

Something that you, and most people, do not understand is that just because something hurts does not mean it will hurt you. A common approach to subduing someone is, in fact, to inflict pain. It's not to hurt them to injury, it's to distract them so that they are less able to resist. If you look at any wrestling video, or see how police and soldiers train, you can often see 'rabbit' punches, pressure points, or leverage. There are sensitive areas on the body that are relatively easy to exploit without causing injury, and the whole purpose behind doing so is to break someone's will to resist, not to seriously harm someone.

Here are two videos people in a CS Gas chamber. The first is of people who understand that pain is not indicative of injury. The second is of people who do not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa2kB...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obL3RP-pCBM

Quote:
I wish I could find the footage of a young girl screaming as he dragged her face across the ground and pinned her down with his body. And the old woman I spoke to at Occupy was punched in the face after letting an officer pass and while just being nearby.
Okay, so you saw a woman that making a lot of noise while she was being subdued, and an old woman told you that she was punched in the face because she was too close? And?
Quote:
Face it, some of the officers did get carried away.
I'm sure that some did, but your recollection is not evidence to that.

Quote:
As for whether it was a threat or a warning about the horse, I can’t tell. But he sounded pretty shirty. And really – the height/bulk of the horses was intimidating, and I know what happens if you walk up behind one. A warning wasn’t really required.
Then why did you mention it?
Quote:
Bruised elbow? People were bleeding and lying on the ground, and while I’m not sure what injuries occurred I’m sure that wasn’t the limit.
Again, that's not indicative of injury. You would know what massive blood loss looks like if you ever say it.

Quote:
Henchmen? Slander? No. I object to the tactics used and individual officers going overboard. Which some did.
Yes. You paint them as henchmen of those in power, and you slander them by vocally disapproving of their crowd control. You know nothing about it, so how can you say they are doing it wrong? Again, I ask you: What. Would. You. Do.

Quote:
Thanks wolf moon, that’s what I was trying to articulate.
No. Wolf Moon seems to be under the impression that I do not understand what civil disobedience is, and I suspect she also thinks that she knows how the police can handle it while still doing their jobs.

I gather that the "Ugh. You guys just don't understand!" excuse to get out of the words she uses is something she falls back on a lot.

Quote:
We’re not demonizing. We’re questioning actions, which is a good thing to do when a person or group has a lot of power.
That's fine. It would be beneficial to that pursuit if you would research what you're talking about, though. You can't say "You're doing it wrong," if you don't know how to do it right.
Quote:
No, it doesn't show a desire for it to occur and it isn't someone's responsibility if they get hurt. This goes right back to victim blaming, and justifies the whole "Do whatever you're told or you will experience violence".
You are completely wrong. Allowing something that you foresee to happen is the same thing as making it happen. If you see a man trying to murder another man and do not do anything to stop it, such as call for help or intervene, and it can be determined that your intention was for it to happen.

Or, If you see people shaking fences at a peaceful protest and determine that that action will attract the wrong kind of attention from the police, allowing it to continue is the same as doing it yourself.

That is the very definition of criminal intent. If you do something that you foresee will obstruct the police in pursuit of their job, such as standing in the way with your friends (also known as obstructing justice), it means that you intend for the occurrence of whatever crime they are trying to stop.

You have so much to say about what you feel is wrong, but I want to know what you feel is right. What should the police do when they try to subdue people?
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2011, 06:48 AM   #133
wolf moon
 
wolf moon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acharis View Post
No, it doesn't show a desire for it to occur and it isn't someone's responsibility if they get hurt. This goes right back to victim blaming, and justifies the whole "Do whatever you're told or you will experience violence".
That's literally his argument. Debating is pointless when the person you're talking to doesn't believe you have the freedom to express yourself in the first place.

In other news, I Will Not Move combines footage of state response to Occupy with footage of Obama and Clinton speaking out in support of civil disobedience and protests in other countries.
wolf moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2011, 08:46 AM   #134
Acharis
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
So, your experience with pepper spray is a mist that got caught in your throat, and what you've seen happen to another person? I'm sure it was horrible for you, but your whole reasoning is because it hurt. Pain is a subjective thing, and some people are tougher then most.
Thanks for your concern, but I coped fine. I can be tough enough when I need to.

Anyway, maybe I’m not a big macho soldier that deals with these things every day, but neither am I ignorant as to what violent situations are like and what things like pepper spray do. Just because something doesn’t cause lasting damage doesn’t mean that it’s hunky dory to dish it out lightly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
Something that you, and most people, do not understand is that just because something hurts does not mean it will hurt you.
A common approach to subduing someone is, in fact, to inflict pain. It's not to hurt them to injury, it's to distract them so that they are less able to resist. If you look at any wrestling video, or see how police and soldiers train, you can often see 'rabbit' punches, pressure points, or leverage. There are sensitive areas on the body that are relatively easy to exploit without causing injury, and the whole purpose behind doing so is to break someone's will to resist, not to seriously harm someone.
Yes, I have coped with both acute and chronic pain without medication, and know this. Yes, I have done martial arts and know this. But that doesn’t make it ok to just pile into people who aren’t doing anything.

You do actually seem a little desensitized to violence. You seem to think it’s no biggie if bones aren’t broken or there’s no massive blood loss... but no. I still don’t think it’s ok to become violent with unarmed civilians. There was no violence until the authorities introduced it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
It would be beneficial to that pursuit if you would research what you're talking about, though. You can't say "You're doing it wrong," if you don't know how to do it right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
You know nothing about it, so how can you say they are doing it wrong?
I was there for some of it, and part of the demonstration. I watch footage. I go and speak to the people involved to stay up to date. What else would you ask of me? (Serious question here.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
Again, I ask you: What. Would. You. Do.
How about TALKING? This protest was trying to open a conversation on an important topic – but people in power completely ignored that, and almost immediately sent in riot police.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
I gather that the "Ugh. You guys just don't understand!" excuse to get out of the words she uses is something she falls back on a lot.
To be fair man - you seem to be telling us we don’t get it because we aren’t soldiers/law enforcement/exposed to chronic violence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
You are completely wrong. Allowing something that you foresee to happen is the same thing as making it happen. If you see a man trying to murder another man and do not do anything to stop it, such as call for help or intervene, and it can be determined that your intention was for it to happen.
That analogy’s flawed – what if you were unable to do either? Doesn’t mean you want it to happen or are responsible. But not the point.
My point is that very rarely does anybody have complete control over a situation like that, especially not protesters. If you had asked me beforehand if the police would ever react like that in Australia, I would have said no.

And even if it could have been foreseen that there was a chance of the police getting medieval, it’s still not ok for people to be threatened and intimidated into toeing the line.
People are upset about their rights, quality of life and livelihoods, and rightly so. It’s not ok to make the populace too afraid to question the actions of people in power.

PS. You’re victim blaming again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
Or, If you see people shaking fences at a peaceful protest and determine that that action will attract the wrong kind of attention from the police, allowing it to continue is the same as doing it yourself.
It wasn’t allowed to continue, all the others were yelling at them to get moving along and they did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
That is the very definition of criminal intent. If you do something that you foresee will obstruct the police in pursuit of their job, such as standing in the way with your friends (also known as obstructing justice), it means that you intend for the occurrence of whatever crime they are trying to stop.
I see no crime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
You have so much to say about what you feel is wrong, but I want to know what you feel is right. What should the police do when they try to subdue people?
Not be so overzealous. Not strike pre-emptively and inflame a situation. Not pepper spray octogenarians.
Acharis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2011, 08:57 AM   #135
Acharis
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 729
Damn seven minute edit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acharis View Post
I see no crime.
Only if you parse events into self-serving political duckspeak; and by the previous inaction on the pro-lifers, Doyle has just made these current rules up because he wants to squash discussion rather than deal with anything.
Acharis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2011, 09:47 AM   #136
Grausamkeit
 
Grausamkeit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acharis View Post
We’re not demonizing. We’re questioning actions, which is a good thing to do when a person or group has a lot of power.
I’ve been helped a lot by police and support their institution, but am becoming concerned. And just because you’ve never met a police officer that abuses their power or makes a bad call, doesn’t mean it doesn’t ever happen in isolated cases.
I didn't say that police never abuse their authority.

I said I wasn't worried about it happening to me because I have no history that would make me paranoid of cops.
__________________
I'd rather label myself than have a million other people do it for me. ~ Pathogen

...I've been accused of folly by a fool. ~Antigone

Grausamkeit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2011, 11:05 AM   #137
CuckooTuli
 
CuckooTuli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 708
Did this thread really descend into "damn pussies, bitching about being pepper sprayed at peaceful protests", with supporting examples drawn from frigging war zones?

Seriously?
CuckooTuli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2011, 01:47 PM   #138
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acharis View Post
Anyway, maybe I’m not a big macho soldier that deals with these things every day, but neither am I ignorant as to what violent situations are like and what things like pepper spray do. Just because something doesn’t cause lasting damage doesn’t mean that it’s hunky dory to dish it out lightly.
No, I agree with you. It's a great abuse of power and largely is hypocritical to hurt the people you are supposed to protect needlessly. It's just wrong in every way.

Quote:
Yes, I have coped with both acute and chronic pain without medication, and know this. Yes, I have done martial arts and know this. But that doesn’t make it ok to just pile into people who aren’t doing anything.
Yes, people who are not doing anything.

Quote:
You do actually seem a little desensitized to violence. You seem to think it’s no biggie if bones aren’t broken or there’s no massive blood loss... but no. I still don’t think it’s ok to become violent with unarmed civilians. There was no violence until the authorities introduced it.
That was my initial qualm with saying anything at all. I am acutely aware that somethings don't bother me as much as they should - like an 84 year old woman getting pepper sprayed. In that instance, I don't think it's justified to do so, but my rationalization for it - that I'm positive she wasn't the only person who the police used pepper spray on - draws a more likely conclusion in my mind. My problem is that people specifically look at that instance, and those like it, and draw conclusions. Yes, on it's own and without context, it's awful. Excessive violence is wrong, and there is no justification for it. I can plainly circumvent my own desensitized viewpoint to see that.

But I think it's more likely that that is not the whole story, and unless someone can conclusively say "Yes, this officer identified an old woman who was not involved in any crime and decided to use pepper spray on her," I won't agree that that was excessive. The same is applied to any instance I look at. The confines of the law extend to everybody, and the police's authority to use force in pursuit of upholding the law also applies to everybody.

Quote:
I was there for some of it, and part of the demonstration. I watch footage. I go and speak to the people involved to stay up to date. What else would you ask of me? (Serious question here.)
I would ask you to ask yourself what the police can do differently to enforce the law in those instances. If people do not comply with the police who enforce the law, the police MUST uphold it.

Quote:
How about TALKING? This protest was trying to open a conversation on an important topic – but people in power completely ignored that, and almost immediately sent in riot police.
It is not the job of the police to discourse with anyone. They are only there to uphold the law, and if a protest is in violation of that law, even unknowingly as seems to be the case, they must intervene. To say it differently, what is to become of the rule of law if the police or judges are entitled to rethink it's wisdom in every circumstance in which it applies?

Quote:
To be fair man - you seem to be telling us we don’t get it because we aren’t soldiers/law enforcement/exposed to chronic violence.
No. I'm telling you that you don't understand that the police must escalate force until they can succeed in upholding the law. Wolf Moon is saying that I don't understand that people have a right to protest. I do. The right to rebellion and the right of freedom of expression are what are considered a natural right, and there is a distinct correlation between natural rights and natural law, and in some instances, it is also a positive law. The United States, for example, was founded upon the principals of the right to rebellion and as both a natural law as well as that it was lawful under English law as well. It is the same thing as the right to self-defense. However, there are instances in which natural law conflicts with other laws, such as positive laws.

In fact, I had this same argument on g.net a while ago when the Westboro Baptist Church won their case in the supreme court. I expressed resentment that they were allowed to picket at the funerals of soldiers, but was reminded by Kontan that it was a dangerous line of thinking to suppress anyone's freedom of speech. The reasoning is, of course, because if it is allowed to stop there, then who will draw the limit?

Nobody is being denied freedom of speech or a right to protest. The reason that police are involved is because they are violating the law while they do it. I can't tell you specifically what laws, but obviously there is something if they are involved. I can't call the police and say "This man stole my girlfriend."

Similarly, as I have said, you cannot stop the law on a case by case basis, so then who will draw the limit? If one were to say "Well, this case of civil disobedience is alright because I agree with it, even if it violates the law," then how are you going to justify preventing or punishing other violations? "This woman was continually beaten by her husband, and anticipated that he would eventually kill her, so she was justified in preemptively killing him because it was a case of self-defense."

Quote:
That analogy’s flawed – what if you were unable to do either? Doesn’t mean you want it to happen or are responsible. But not the point.
My point is that very rarely does anybody have complete control over a situation like that, especially not protesters. If you had asked me beforehand if the police would ever react like that in Australia, I would have said no.
Is it not flawed. It is directly from any law book. Obviously, if you are unable to act or omit act, then it is not a choice. How would I recommend that protesters avoid individual rebellion? Have a clear and concise purpose for the protest, ensure that it is protected by the law, and have representatives tell the police when someone is violating that.

Quote:
And even if it could have been foreseen that there was a chance of the police getting medieval, it’s still not ok for people to be threatened and intimidated into toeing the line.
People are upset about their rights, quality of life and livelihoods, and rightly so. It’s not ok to make the populace too afraid to question the actions of people in power.
What? Are you saying that because they are upset, they are allowed to break the law? That doesn't sound like a peaceful protest.

Quote:
It wasn’t allowed to continue, all the others were yelling at them to get moving along and they did.
I know. I was using it as an example to further my point and explain WHY it wasn't allowed to continue. Because it WAS a demonstration of INTENT.

Quote:
I see no crime.
You are being beaten to death. I stand in the way of the police so that they cannot move me, but do not violently resist them. You don't see my actions as a crime?

Quote:
Not be so overzealous. Not strike pre-emptively and inflame a situation. Not pepper spray octogenarians.
How? Do what instead? We've already established that you understand what NOT to do. What SHOULD be done? I've already explained, as well as Miss Absynthe, that it is not the job of the police to engage in a political discourse with you, so keep trying.
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2011, 01:48 PM   #139
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by CuckooTuli View Post
Did this thread really descend into "damn pussies, bitching about being pepper sprayed at peaceful protests", with supporting examples drawn from frigging war zones?

Seriously?
You are such a hippy.
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2011, 02:01 PM   #140
CuckooTuli
 
CuckooTuli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
You are such a hippy.
On the contrary - I'm a double-'ard bastard. For example, I'm pretty sure I could prevent even a patently deliquent octagenarian from doing crime, without recourse to pepper spray.
CuckooTuli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2011, 02:15 PM   #141
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolf moon View Post
That's literally his argument. Debating is pointless when the person you're talking to doesn't believe you have the freedom to express yourself in the first place.
I just said that people have the right to freedom of expression. Nobody is stopping them from protesting. The police intervene because they are breaking the law while doing it.

Our argument is that you think violence is the only criteria for violence, while I think that force is justifiable in the enforcement of the law. The difference is that I am supported by every single definition of law enforcement.
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2011, 02:16 PM   #142
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by CuckooTuli View Post
On the contrary - I'm a double-'ard bastard. For example, I'm pretty sure I could prevent even a patently deliquent octagenarian from doing crime, without recourse to pepper spray.
Not while adhering to the other concerns that you are not remembering.
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2011, 03:27 PM   #143
Jonathan
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: northeast us
Posts: 887
The argument that "pepper spray is no big deal" is fucking absurd on its face, particularly when you provide video of armed forces personnel reacting horribly to it. This is one of the stupidest things I've had to read on this board.

Here's eight minutes of schadenfreude from UC Davis. The "Pepper Spray Incident."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjnR7xET7Uo

What should the police have done?
They should have skipped the first 36 seconds of video, and walked up to the protesters as they did at :37, and taken them into custody. Pepper spraying the students was not required in any sense. It was an unnecessary infliction of pain, and any reasonable human being can see that.

It was not only not justifiable, it was an irresponsible escalation of the situation. I am glad to see that the students attending UC Davis had more self control than people that were issued weapons of varying degrees of lethality.

The use of force continuum is near universal guideline of what is considered to be appropriate responses to various levels of resistance. Contrary to fucking Dungeons and Dragons Lawful Stupid, there is more than an all or nothing response. The officers involved clearly violated it. The students were seated, many times with their hands clearly visible (several pulling their hoods in close). The use of pepper spray was gratuitous.
Jonathan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2011, 07:35 PM   #144
wolf moon
 
wolf moon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
Is it not flawed. It is directly from any law book.
Speaking as someone who has spent a lot of time actually reading law textbooks, this statement is inaccurate.

Jonathan: I'm really rather fond of you.
wolf moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2011, 07:44 PM   #145
Alan
 
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,932
Speaking as probably the only individual here that lives in a city where police brutality is commonplace, I will say that I can understand why some people say using pepper spray isn't 'really' police brutality, but it is still unwarranted aggression which should not be tolerated.
I have seen friends getting shot for protesting and I kind of wish protests in America would escalate to that point, but not because 'then it would be a real protest', rather because Americans would never tolerate such acts of aggression on the part of police and it would wake up people into realizing that they ARE part of the 99% and they DO feel solidarity with the OWS.
And the reason they would get riled up that badly by having one person killed by the police, in contrast with us who just accept it as an inevitable tragedy of marching against the state, is precisely the same reason that you people still get upset at the mere use of pepper spray. So I commend that.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KissMeDeadly
You fucking people [war veterans] are only a step below entitled rich kids, the only difference being you had to do and witness horrible things, instead of being given everything.
real classy
Alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2011, 07:57 PM   #146
wolf moon
 
wolf moon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan View Post
Speaking as probably the only individual here that lives in a city where police brutality is commonplace, I will say that I can understand why some people say using pepper spray isn't 'really' police brutality, but it is still unwarranted aggression which should not be tolerated.
I have seen friends getting shot for protesting and I kind of wish protests in America would escalate to that point, but not because 'then it would be a real protest', rather because Americans would never tolerate such acts of aggression on the part of police and it would wake up people into realizing that they ARE part of the 99% and they DO feel solidarity with the OWS.
And the reason they would get riled up that badly by having one person killed by the police, in contrast with us who just accept it as an inevitable tragedy of marching against the state, is precisely the same reason that you people still get upset at the mere use of pepper spray. So I commend that.
This is really interesting. I was discussing this conversation with a friend of mine who grew up in Russia, literally without the right to assemble or protest in public places. She found the idea of pepper spray as a "nonviolent" or acceptable response to public assembly and dissent pretty abhorrent. But then her family moved here because they were hoping to escape that mentality, so I can see why it would be frightening.
wolf moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2011, 08:34 PM   #147
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
The argument that "pepper spray is no big deal" is fucking absurd on its face, particularly when you provide video of armed forces personnel reacting horribly to it. This is one of the stupidest things I've had to read on this board.
First, to clarify, that was not pepper spray, that was CS Gas, a type of tear gas. Second, that was a high concentration of it in a closed environment, which is significantly worse then pepper spray. Third, I also provided a video of people who were not reacting horribly to it under the same conditions as evidence that aerosol pepper spray, a significantly lesser agent, is not seriously harmful and induces panic the majority of the time.

Quote:
Here's eight minutes of schadenfreude from UC Davis. The "Pepper Spray Incident."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjnR7xET7Uo

What should the police have done?
They should have skipped the first 36 seconds of video, and walked up to the protesters as they did at :37, and taken them into custody. Pepper spraying the students was not required in any sense. It was an unnecessary infliction of pain, and any reasonable human being can see that.
That would require at least 2-3 police officers per individual. It's evident that the police officers present could not devote that many to do that without exposing themselves. Further, it would have been an infliction of pain, regardless. Typically anything that doesn't require the individual to move under their own power does.
Quote:
It was not only not justifiable, it was an irresponsible escalation of the situation. I am glad to see that the students attending UC Davis had more self control than people that were issued weapons of varying degrees of lethality.
If they had more self-control, they wouldn't have left their tents on campus, like they were instructed not to, and they wouldn't have interfered when the police came to take their tents, like they were told not to. I'm not victim-blaming when I say that their actions directly contributed to the results.

It could be argued that the use of pepper spray deescalated the situation because they didn't meet much resistance after using it.

Quote:
The use of force continuum is near universal guideline of what is considered to be appropriate responses to various levels of resistance. Contrary to fucking Dungeons and Dragons Lawful Stupid, there is more than an all or nothing response. The officers involved clearly violated it. The students were seated, many times with their hands clearly visible (several pulling their hoods in close). The use of pepper spray was gratuitous.
A good deal of law enforcement agencies allow pepper spray to be used even when met with passive resistance. He did not violate it because certain steps can be circumvented if the situation warrants it. I described this earlier, in fact. They were opposed by a large number of students, and to have individually moved the students with physical force would have exposed them. Part of the use of force continuum is that force protection, i.e. the safety of the official and the public, warrants the omission of certain steps.

I will admit this, however: He was too close when he used it. An additional 2 or 3 feet would have lessened the effect. I can't say if he stood so close because he did not consider it, he didn't care, or if he didn't want to spray the people that were not involved on accident.

Additionally, do not call me stupid. I will fucking uppercut you.
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2011, 08:36 PM   #148
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
America does have that mentality too:

Quote:
When can police use pepper spray?
Officers are permitted to use pepper spray as a "compliance tool," says Charles J. Kelly, a former Baltimore police lieutenant who wrote his department's use of force guidelines. Indeed, pepper spray is often preferable to using batons or lifting protesters up. "When you start picking up human bodies, you risk hurting them. Bodies don't have handles on them."
http://theweek.com/article/index/221...s-pepper-spray

Quote:
Understanding the psychology of policing is also very important, said Dunham.

“In their culture, it’s important to have authority. Most policemen will say that the only thing they have to protect them is authority, and they’re very sensitive to people who do not respect their authority,” he said. “When an officer gets on the scene, the number-one thing they’re supposed to do is take control” — and that dynamic is heightened when they know that other police will judge their actions.

“If you’re sitting there, and I give you a lawful order to move, and you lock arms, is that an act of resistance? I don’t see it that way. Some people do,” said Alpert.

In light of that dynamic, departmental recommendations against using pepper spray on nonviolent arrestees may be needed. About 45 percent of U.S. police agencies now allow pepper spray to be used in response to passive resistance, like that seen at UC Davis.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...ay-psychology/

I think lying about being surrounded is an indication that he must have known he did wrong, but I'm not sure if its the pepper spray in itself, or if its because he did not use it correctly:

Quote:
What kind of pepper spray did UC Davis police use?
They employed a brand called Defense Technology, says Kyle Wagner at Gizmodo. The intensity of Defense Technology's various pepper sprays is based on "Major Capaicinoid content." The lowest concentration, 0.2 percent, is authorized for tactical deployment. A concentration of 1.3 percent is powerful enough to stop a bear. The type used on the students has a rating of 0.7 percent. The manufacturer recommends the spray be used at a minimum distance of six feet, yet the officers in this case sprayed it on sitting students at near-point blank range.
I liked the tweet I posted because I do find it odd that they've been able to use pepper spray at will since the 90s, and they have been. Not that its right, but its like, did it really have to come to this, spraying white college kids, before most people would care?
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2011, 08:45 PM   #149
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolf moon View Post
Speaking as someone who has spent a lot of time actually reading law textbooks, this statement is inaccurate.
Please define the word "intent."
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2011, 08:52 PM   #150
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
I think lying about being surrounded is an indication that he must have known he did wrong, but I'm not sure if its the pepper spray in itself, or if its because he did not use it correctly
It's possible. In a lot of videos where you see police hit people, they kind of have this "Oh, shit! I'm not supposed to do that" moment.
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:54 AM.