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 11-22-2011, 09:08 PM   #151
Jonathan
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: northeast us
Posts: 887
Don't care about gas vs spray minutiae.

Expediency for the sake of convenience is a bullshit excuse to circumvent the continuum of force. If a single police officer was unable to apprehend a seated college student (pretty fucking sad) they could have managed it in pairs. The cool part here is that if the students then violently resisted, or even obstructed officers taking the first student or two out in cuffs, the police would have had much more justification and we wouldn't be fucking around about it as much in this thread.

The level of resistance was unchanged by the spray. They were seated with their heads lowered before the spray, they were seated with their heads lowered after it.

The use of spray clearly escalated the situation. Assholes like us are talking about it now, it's all over the goddamn place, the campus police chief is now suspended, two officers are on leave, and there are cries for the chancellors resignation. That shit wasn't happening before the spray. If they had done their jobs in a responsible manner, there wouldn't be such a public outrage.

I will wreck your uppercut with a spinning bird kick.

The last two pages was a shitty derail. I hope this is the end of it.
Jonathan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2011, 09:19 PM   #152
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Dude, I think you're ignoring the fact that using pepper spray against passive resistance is considered perfectly acceptable and allowable in many police agencies. It has been for some time. Like Versus said, you need to change that before you put the blame squarely on the man who did it, especially if he's been trained to do exactly that.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2011, 09:20 PM   #153
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Also, I wonder if he meant he was individually surrounded, or if he meant his formation? If they couldn't maneuver past the protest as a whole without breaking ranks and losing integrity, the sitting students were the path of least resistance. It would have taken more force to push past the ones that were standing, and from what I can tell they, were boxed in by the people watching.
__________________
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, 09:37 PM   #154
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
Expediency for the sake of convenience is a bullshit excuse to circumvent the continuum of force. If a single police officer was unable to apprehend a seated college student (pretty fucking sad) they could have managed it in pairs. The cool part here is that if the students then violently resisted, or even obstructed officers taking the first student or two out in cuffs, the police would have had much more justification and we wouldn't be fucking around about it as much in this thread.
It's not for the sake of convenience, it's for the sake of safety to the officers and the students If they were to take time devoting officers to it, they would lose momentum and violence of action.
Quote:
The level of resistance was unchanged by the spray. They were seated with their heads lowered before the spray, they were seated with their heads lowered after it.
Are you telling me that they were not less able to resist after being hit with pepper spray?

Quote:
The use of spray clearly escalated the situation. Assholes like us are talking about it now, it's all over the goddamn place, the campus police chief is now suspended, two officers are on leave, and there are cries for the chancellors resignation. That shit wasn't happening before the spray. If they had done their jobs in a responsible manner, there wouldn't be such a public outrage.
I think it's obvious that I meant escalate as in "violence."
__________________
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, 09:41 PM   #155
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
In one of the links I provided they talked about how it probably isn't effective in De-escalating the situation and in cases make it worse, as after the Netherlands restricted use, violence during arrest plummeted despite an increase in arrests made.

But generally I don't think a cop gets to think about statistics when he's on the job. I don't agree with having a police force at all, but a cop is the product of training and protocol and a society that values violence. We don't care when we use that same kind of violence against those who aren't like us, but now that its being used on people we more relate to, now that violence is being shown as unacceptable.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2011, 09:49 PM   #156
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Fuck the patriarchy and it's tools of oppression.
__________________
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 11-23-2011, 05:14 AM   #157
Jonathan
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: northeast us
Posts: 887
Wolfmoon, I bet you're pretty ok too. Let's have tea sometime.

The acting officers failed to meet the standard of minimum necessary force. If their actions were acceptable then they and their superior, the chief of university police, would not be on administrative leave. That isn't something that results from doing your job in am impeccable manner.

I do care when the police use more than the absolute minimum necessary force, whether it is on someone I sympathize with or not.

Anyway, not all cops are bad.
Jonathan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2011, 05:39 AM   #158
Miss Absynthe
 
Miss Absynthe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Hell, it's other people & both of them are you
Posts: 1,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
Wolfmoon, I bet you're pretty ok too. Let's have tea sometime.

The acting officers failed to meet the standard of minimum necessary force. If their actions were acceptable then they and their superior, the chief of university police, would not be on administrative leave. That isn't something that results from doing your job in am impeccable manner.

I do care when the police use more than the absolute minimum necessary force, whether it is on someone I sympathize with or not.

Anyway, not all cops are bad.
I'm thinking that the reason that they are on administrative leave is so the incident can be investigated, not because there have been any actually findings yet.

I'm pretty sure that if their actions are found as being excessive that it won't just be 'administrative leave' that happens to them, but that it will be at the least losing their jobs, probably civil suits filed against them and perhaps criminal charges.

Don't you all have something written somewhere about an assumption of innocence until proven guilty, or has that been changed to innocence until footage goes viral on YouTube?
Miss Absynthe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2011, 06:08 AM   #159
wolf moon
 
wolf moon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Absynthe View Post
I'm thinking that the reason that they are on administrative leave is so the incident can be investigated, not because there have been any actually findings yet.

I'm pretty sure that if their actions are found as being excessive that it won't just be 'administrative leave' that happens to them, but that it will be at the least losing their jobs, probably civil suits filed against them and perhaps criminal charges.
This is less likely than you might think. After Bologna spent his afternoon walking through New York, pepper spraying non-violent protestors at point-blank range without provocation or warning, then calmly walking away, all he got was moved to a quiet desk job with a significantly shorter commute.
wolf moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2011, 09:10 AM   #160
Acharis
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 729
I lol'd at the policeman being 'surrounded'.
In Melbourne it was us that was surrounded by police, and if ugliness had broken out every single one of us would have been at risk of a beatdown regardless of what we were/weren't doing. Literally penned in without escape.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
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.
It’s a relief to see that you realise that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
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.
The use of aggression seems to be fairly indiscriminate, and these incidents distressingly common.

A pregnant woman miscarried after she was pepper sprayed and assaulted by police at a demonstration in Seattle. [ http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/pregn...g-sprayed-with ]
Another Seattle activist, an 84 year old woman, was also severely pepper sprayed. [ http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...rainey18m.html ]
Uni of California President does not approve of having to submit to police brutality on their own campus. [ http://thinkprogress.org/special/201...nt-protesters/ ]
Also noteworthy is Scott Olsen, an Iraq War vet, who was struck by a tear gas cannister fired by cops and sustained brain damage in Oakland some weeks prior. [ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...oakland-review ]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
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.
Obviously the police can’t disobey direct orders. But they can use lesser force. They can go in without the biased expectation of violence which leads to their heavy handed tactics. Considering the possibility, yes – but acting as if it’s already occurring will backfire.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
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?
I meant the people who sent in the police should have first bothered to open their ears.

But more importantly, I’m noticing a common theme here.
You seem to think the law should be sacrosanct and never questioned/altered regardless of how it’s functioning or what effect its having in the real world. I can understand the need for laws to retain their authority and not be undermined, but really?

There have been all sorts of laws. Laws are passed, amended and written out all the time. Inhumane ones like slavery, laws now archaic but still in effect like it being illegal to cross some boder without a bale of hay in the boot... Some made up on the spot for personal agendas or a weapon to avoid dealing with an issue – it’s the ultimate “BECAUSE I SAID SO”.

Also there’s such a thing as the spirit of the law rather than the letter. Laws are blunt instruments, imperfect as the humans who made them.
Rather than being slavishly adhered to, it pays to look at what a law is doing to the populace and refine rather than simply blocking your ears and screaming like a broken record “BUT IT’S THE LAW. STEP OUT OF LINE AND YOU TAKE WHAT YOU GET”. Potentially beneficial things will come about, like r@pe shield legislation did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
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?
I remember that... it was seriously off, I agree and resent that too. If people asked me I wouldn’t say that was a protest, I’d say that was harassment or vilification. But off topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
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."
Occupy is protesting by occupying. And that something is that nobody in charge wants to lift their game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
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."
Hmm... You don't agree with that, but you do agree with “These police saw a bunch of people and anticipated that they’d turn violent, so they were justified in pre-emptively kicking the crap out of them”.

(Though off the top of my head - there may have been instances where the judge was more lenient in the case of domestic violence, because of the real possibility that he may have killed her otherwise.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
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.
What? Are you saying that because they are upset, they are allowed to break the law? That doesn't sound like a peaceful protest.
They’re not simply ‘upset’, they’re seeking justice the Government won’t give them. And the law can be made to serve the lawmaker – goalposts are easily moved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
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?
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.
No, I meant those giving the orders to the police. I’ve already told you what the police should do. Lesser force, more discriminate. And er... peaceful protest is the same as blocking the way while beating someone to death? Wut.

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.
Yes. I realize Australia is a lot more fortunate in that regard, but you’re right – it’s good to have an outcry over pepper spray so it doesn’t get to people being shot.
Acharis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2011, 09:14 AM   #161
Acharis
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 729
Message too long.


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.
/snip
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
Don't care about gas vs spray minutiae.
Expediency for the sake of convenience is a bullshit excuse to circumvent the continuum of force. If a single police officer was unable to apprehend a seated college student (pretty fucking sad) they could have managed it in pairs. The cool part here is that if the students then violently resisted, or even obstructed officers taking the first student or two out in cuffs, the police would have had much more justification and we wouldn't be fucking around about it as much in this thread.
The level of resistance was unchanged by the spray. They were seated with their heads lowered before the spray, they were seated with their heads lowered after it.
The use of spray clearly escalated the situation. Assholes like us are talking about it now, it's all over the goddamn place, the campus police chief is now suspended, two officers are on leave, and there are cries for the chancellors resignation. That shit wasn't happening before the spray. If they had done their jobs in a responsible manner, there wouldn't be such a public outrage.
I will wreck your uppercut with a spinning bird kick.
The last two pages was a shitty derail. I hope this is the end of it.
Yes, I’m also quite fond of Jonathon now. *brews an urn*
Acharis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2011, 11:52 AM   #162
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acharis View Post
It’s a relief to see that you realise that.
I haven't argued that pepper spray can be abused. My argument is that from the police perspective, it wasn't, and when looking at other options available, it still wasn't. Pepper spray is significantly less violent then physical force because it is not as prone to causing long term injury, and when used in conjunction with physical force, allows the freedom to use less physical force.


Quote:
The use of aggression seems to be fairly indiscriminate, and these incidents distressingly common.

A pregnant woman miscarried after she was pepper sprayed and assaulted by police at a demonstration in Seattle. [ http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/pregn...g-sprayed-with ]
Another Seattle activist, an 84 year old woman, was also severely pepper sprayed. [ http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...rainey18m.html ]
Uni of California President does not approve of having to submit to police brutality on their own campus. [ http://thinkprogress.org/special/201...nt-protesters/ ]
Also noteworthy is Scott Olsen, an Iraq War vet, who was struck by a tear gas cannister fired by cops and sustained brain damage in Oakland some weeks prior. [ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...oakland-review ]
Indiscriminate law enforcement is just that: indiscriminate. However,

Please, do not remind a black man who grew up in the bay area about the Oakland City Police Department's recent scandal and try to use it as evidence that the police are overly aggressive. I am acutely aware of their SOPs, and they are anything but indiscriminate, and have been so for a long, long time. This is a kind warning because I feel that you don't realize how angry it makes me that only now are people questioning them as if it's fucking recent development. Because it's okay to prey on black communities for decades, but god forbid a fucking white veteran be hit with a fucking canister while at a protest.

Quote:
Obviously the police can’t disobey direct orders. But they can use lesser force. They can go in without the biased expectation of violence which leads to their heavy handed tactics. Considering the possibility, yes – but acting as if it’s already occurring will backfire.
This what I saying in my original wall of text. My point was that the individual officers cannot be held accountable in this instance, and many like it, because their actions are not in conflict with their internal rules and training. The problems lay in those and not the agent's judgement, as so many people without an iota of experience seem to think they have the authority and credentials to determine.

Quote:
I meant the people who sent in the police should have first bothered to open their ears.
That's not the police's fault.

Quote:
But more importantly, I’m noticing a common theme here.
You seem to think the law should be sacrosanct and never questioned/altered regardless of how it’s functioning or what effect its having in the real world. I can understand the need for laws to retain their authority and not be undermined, but really?
I did not say that laws should be not questioned or changed. To the contrary, I think there are an enormous amount of laws that can be exploited and should be changed so that they apply to everybody.

I said that law enforcement agencies should not be demonized as brutal or heavy handed when they respond to those laws being broken. They have absolutely nothing to do with what laws they are required to enforce, and it's bullshit to say that they are oppressive because they do, as so many people have done.

Quote:
I remember that... it was seriously off, I agree and resent that too. If people asked me I wouldn’t say that was a protest, I’d say that was harassment or vilification. But off topic.
It's relevant because it was an an exercise of freedom of expression, just like acting upon non-violent protesters was an exercise of law enforcement. You can't decide what should be expressed, just like you can't decide what laws should be enforced. You have to either say "This is no longer a law," or "This law is just as relevant as any other." There is no middle ground.
Quote:
Occupy is protesting by occupying. And that something is that nobody in charge wants to lift their game.
So willfully violating the law. Thank you.
Quote:
Hmm... You don't agree with that, but you do agree with “These police saw a bunch of people and anticipated that they’d turn violent, so they were justified in pre-emptively kicking the crap out of them”.
As I have already said, numerous times, violence is not a criteria to use pepper spray. Resistance, non-compliance, refusal of a lawful order is the only criteria. You cannot preemptively kill someone in self defense because the criteria for self defense is displayed intent to harm at the moment of self defense. You can, however, use pepper spray to preemptively kick the crap out of someone because the criteria to do so is resistance, non-compliance, refusal of a lawful order. Remember that that is completely in their authority to do so in pursuit of law enforcement.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
If you think pepper spray is too dangerous, write your congressman and ask to ban it's use. Don't bash the police for making a judgement call that you all, by providing support, gave them the authority to do.

Quote:
They’re not simply ‘upset’, they’re seeking justice the Government won’t give them. And the law can be made to serve the lawmaker – goalposts are easily moved.
Their level of anger is not an excuse to violate a law. There. Is. No. Excuse. Either change the law, or understand that law enforcement agencies must respond. Not may, can, will, should: Must.
Quote:
No, I meant those giving the orders to the police. I’ve already told you what the police should do. Lesser force, more discriminate.
The police cannot do that. They do not exercise free will. Just like me and my job.

Quote:
And er... peaceful protest is the same as blocking the way while beating someone to death? Wut.
It is the same because it is the same crime. That's not to say that there is no difference in punishment, but that is not the jurisdiction of the police.

Quote:
Yes. I realize Australia is a lot more fortunate in that regard, but you’re right – it’s good to have an outcry over pepper spray so it doesn’t get to people being shot.
Jesus fucking Christ. Because the police haven't started shooting people yet, right?
__________________
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 11-23-2011, 12:14 PM   #163
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
The acting officers failed to meet the standard of minimum necessary force. If their actions were acceptable then they and their superior, the chief of university police, would not be on administrative leave. That isn't something that results from doing your job in am impeccable manner.
That's speculation. I could just as easily say that they would have been fired if they were wrong.
__________________
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 11-23-2011, 12:25 PM   #164
wolf moon
 
wolf moon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
Their level of anger is not an excuse to violate a law. There. Is. No. Excuse. Either change the law, or understand that law enforcement agencies must respond.
Really? The reason these people are out there in the first place is because they can't change the law. This began with a decision to occupy Wall St. in protest of the fact that our government is essentially under corporate control. We can't change the laws because we don't have the billions of dollars we would need to do so. People resort to civil disobedience because their government is not listening to them. If our government was working well enough that a phone call to a representative or a vote for a different party was an effective means of creating change, there would have been nothing to protest in the first place. You can't create an impossible situation and then blame people for not being able to get out of it.
wolf moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2011, 12:58 PM   #165
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolf moon View Post
Really? The reason these people are out there in the first place is because they can't change the law. This began with a decision to occupy Wall St. in protest of the fact that our government is essentially under corporate control. We can't change the laws because we don't have the billions of dollars we would need to do so. People resort to civil disobedience because their government is not listening to them. If our government was working well enough that a phone call to a representative or a vote for a different party was an effective means of creating change, there would have been nothing to protest in the first place. You can't create an impossible situation and then blame people for not being able to get out of it.
You misunderstood me, ma'am. I said "Either change the law" or "understand that the police must get involved." I did not say that people should stop protesting, even in violation of the law. They should continue to do so because it seems to be the only way, like you said.

Despite that I feel the movement is in the right, I feel that the law must be upheld regardless because to circumvent it, in any way, undermines the rule of law as a whole.

You misinterpreted me as saying that they should pack their bags and go home because it's against the law.
__________________
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 11-23-2011, 02:08 PM   #166
Jonathan
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: northeast us
Posts: 887
Acharis, you're pretty great yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Absynthe View Post

Don't you all have something written somewhere about an assumption of innocence until proven guilty, or has that been changed to innocence until footage goes viral on YouTube?
Yeah, that applies to courtrooms. People can have any opinion they wish, it doesn't have to be decided by a jury or be subject to judicial review.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus
Despite that I feel the movement is in the right, I feel that the law must be upheld regardless because to circumvent it, in any way, undermines the rule of law as a whole.
Then the law is already undermined because this one time a police officer gave me a verbal warning when I was speeding. I sincerely hope that the police officer managed to find a cleric to cast the fifth level spell atonement so he can regain his daily use of smite evil (not to be used on protestors).
Jonathan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2011, 02:27 PM   #167
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Personally, I wish people that speed would be shot. But that's just me.
__________________
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 11-23-2011, 04:18 PM   #168
AshleyO
 
AshleyO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grausamkeit View Post
I think that's a bit of a dramatic scenerio.

If I refused to let an officer into my house asking for a warrant, they would have to get a warrant. I have never been abused or harassed by police so I have absolutely no reason to assume that people doing their jobs are on some power trip and are out to get me.

I find this to be pretty interesting.

You seem to be okay with people protesting... so long as it doesn't hurt people.

That's part of the problem a bit. The protests are TOO peaceful. They're TOO polite.

But it seems that asking politely for softer chains gets some pepper spray in the face or maybe getting dragged about by the hair or getting punched by a cop when they don't think the right people are looking.

I guess the thing I'm talking about and the point I'm making is that if this were actually going to be a revolution, politeness wont go far because your enemy can either politely ignore you or politely disagree with you ad infinitum while they continue to get their privileged way. And if there actually WERE a real revolution, it's not to say you draw the line at your family getting hurt, as it's more about choosing the correct side. If it were a real revolution, your family would already be under threat by either side of the debate. War CAN come right to your doorstep and being neutral isn't exactly a good choice.
__________________
"Women hold up half the sky" -Mao

"God always picks the strangest things to get angry about. Get an abortion or gay married and he'll aim a tornado right at you.

Rip off a million poor people and Wall street has no problems. " -Rebecca B
AshleyO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2011, 09:19 PM   #169
Grausamkeit
 
Grausamkeit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,271
Dammit, Ashley, why you gotta come at this with logic an' shit?

I know what you're saying. This needs to happen. I'm just selfish when it comes to my loved ones.
__________________
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 11-23-2011, 11:22 PM   #170
Solumina
 
Solumina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cali
Posts: 8,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
You misunderstood me, ma'am. I said "Either change the law" or "understand that the police must get involved." I did not say that people should stop protesting, even in violation of the law. They should continue to do so because it seems to be the only way, like you said.

Despite that I feel the movement is in the right, I feel that the law must be upheld regardless because to circumvent it, in any way, undermines the rule of law as a whole.

You misinterpreted me as saying that they should pack their bags and go home because it's against the law.
I didn't get that impression from you, I just got the impression that you think someone can't both understand why police officers have done what they have done and still be outraged about it, which I very much disagree with.
__________________
Live a life less ordinary
Live a life extraordinary with me
Live a life less sedentary
Live a life evolutionary with me
-Carbon Leaf
Solumina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2011, 01:30 AM   #171
CuckooTuli
 
CuckooTuli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 708
Quote:
Originally Posted by AshleyO View Post
I find this to be pretty interesting.

You seem to be okay with people protesting... so long as it doesn't hurt people.

That's part of the problem a bit. The protests are TOO peaceful. They're TOO polite.

But it seems that asking politely for softer chains gets some pepper spray in the face or maybe getting dragged about by the hair or getting punched by a cop when they don't think the right people are looking.

I guess the thing I'm talking about and the point I'm making is that if this were actually going to be a revolution, politeness wont go far because your enemy can either politely ignore you or politely disagree with you ad infinitum while they continue to get their privileged way. And if there actually WERE a real revolution, it's not to say you draw the line at your family getting hurt, as it's more about choosing the correct side. If it were a real revolution, your family would already be under threat by either side of the debate. War CAN come right to your doorstep and being neutral isn't exactly a good choice.
There's a great William S. Burroughs quote to this effect: "The people in power will not disappear voluntarily - giving flowers to the cops just isn't going to work. This thinking is fostered by the establishment; they like nothing better than love and nonviolence. The only way I like to see cops given flowers is in a flower pot from a high window."
CuckooTuli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2011, 03:36 AM   #172
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solumina View Post
I didn't get that impression from you, I just got the impression that you think someone can't both understand why police officers have done what they have done and still be outraged about it, which I very much disagree with.
I realize that. I suspect that people skimmed the wall of text and just picked at what they wanted to. I've been saying this the whole time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
What people want to do to change it is fine, I don't really care that they're resisting and I say more power to them. However, their resistance is implicit in that it supposed to be aware that they are allowing the police to exercise their judgement in how to disrupt them as they break the law. And it is complete bullshit, knowing this, for the protestors to blame the instruments of that end state.
I probably could have added to that and explained that the training and rules they follow are what's in the wrong, but I thought that was already apparent.
__________________
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 11-24-2011, 08:23 AM   #173
Acharis
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
I haven't argued that pepper spray can be abused. My argument is that from the police perspective, it wasn't, and when looking at other options available, it still wasn't. Pepper spray is significantly less violent then physical force because it is not as prone to causing long term injury, and when used in conjunction with physical force, allows the freedom to use less physical force.
I'd still prefer a firemans lift or a frogmarch. Or if the officers back may be hurt by carrying weight, the institutional pinch.

(Can't find a definition for that; but it's a compellingly uncomfortable grip on the pressure point/muscle under someones armpit, which with minimum force and very easily allows you to force someone to walk. Basically it's a restraint technique, and if it sounds slow or ineffective just try it on some of the others in your platoon.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
Please, do not remind a black man who grew up in the bay area about the Oakland City Police Department's recent scandal and try to use it as evidence that the police are overly aggressive. I am acutely aware of their SOPs, and they are anything but indiscriminate, and have been so for a long, long time. This is a kind warning because I feel that you don't realize how angry it makes me that only now are people questioning them as if it's fucking recent development. Because it's okay to prey on black communities for decades, but god forbid a fucking white veteran be hit with a fucking canister while at a protest.
Uh, what? In answering walls of text without a multi-quote function, I quickly copypasta'd some miscellaneous background articles from another source for anyone who cared to read - to show that there have been quite a few out of line incidents. It was not aimed at you and I actually had to go look to try and figure out what you were objecting to.

I'm a bit unclear as to what you're saying there... in saying that the Oakland police force are anything but indiscriminate, do you mean that they've been selectively targeting black people for decades? Or have I read wrong and you had another meaning?
If so - I don't deny that there has been and is racism perpetrated by the police, and neither do I condone it. Just because I denounce one thing doesn't mean I think another is okay.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
This what I saying in my original wall of text. My point was that the individual officers cannot be held accountable in this instance, and many like it, because their actions are not in conflict with their internal rules and training. The problems lay in those and not the agent's judgement, as so many people without an iota of experience seem to think they have the authority and credentials to determine.
That's not the police's fault.
True... but I do think it's possible that some may have panicked or lost their tempers. It happens.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
I did not say that laws should be not questioned or changed. To the contrary, I think there are an enormous amount of laws that can be exploited and should be changed so that they apply to everybody.

I said that law enforcement agencies should not be demonized as brutal or heavy handed when they respond to those laws being broken. They have absolutely nothing to do with what laws they are required to enforce, and it's bullshit to say that they are oppressive because they do, as so many people have done.
But the execution of that response should be watched and moderated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
It's relevant because it was an an exercise of freedom of expression, just like acting upon non-violent protesters was an exercise of law enforcement. You can't decide what should be expressed, just like you can't decide what laws should be enforced. You have to either say "This is no longer a law," or "This law is just as relevant as any other." There is no middle ground.
I don't know... It could be that different definitions apply to the Westboro Church demonstration. (I'm thinking of 'harassment' and 'hate speech'.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
Their level of anger is not an excuse to violate a law. There. Is. No. Excuse. Either change the law, or understand that law enforcement agencies must respond. Not may, can, will, should: Must.
How do you think those changes are brought about? By protest and the support of the people. By agitating for change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
It is the same because it is the same crime. That's not to say that there is no difference in punishment, but that is not the jurisdiction of the police.
Beating someone to death isn't the same as sitting in a park, even if passive resistance is involved in both.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
Jesus fucking Christ. Because the police haven't started shooting people yet, right?
I meant in Australia, in the context of peaceful protest. (Trying to make my posts less wordy = context fail.) We do not want to get to the point other countries are at.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolf moon View Post
Really? The reason these people are out there in the first place is because they can't change the law. This began with a decision to occupy Wall St. in protest of the fact that our government is essentially under corporate control. We can't change the laws because we don't have the billions of dollars we would need to do so. People resort to civil disobedience because their government is not listening to them. If our government was working well enough that a phone call to a representative or a vote for a different party was an effective means of creating change, there would have been nothing to protest in the first place. You can't create an impossible situation and then blame people for not being able to get out of it.
^This. I find a strongly worded letter doesn't usually do much, so the only way to be heard is to upset matters a bit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
You misunderstood me, ma'am. I said "Either change the law" or "understand that the police must get involved." I did not say that people should stop protesting, even in violation of the law. They should continue to do so because it seems to be the only way, like you said.
Despite that I feel the movement is in the right, I feel that the law must be upheld regardless because to circumvent it, in any way, undermines the rule of law as a whole.
You misinterpreted me as saying that they should pack their bags and go home because it's against the law.
There we go, we're coming closer to the same page. Yes people are trying to change the law or find a loophole. There is a legal advice team for Occupy Melbourne, I know that much.

I do understand the police were duty-bound to act, but I just can’t see beyond the sheer imbalance of power and the zeal with which they carried out their orders. I’m used to seeing police officers protecting the unarmed citizens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
Acharis, you're pretty great yourself.
:3

Quote:
Originally Posted by CuckooTuli View Post
There's a great William S. Burroughs quote to this effect: "The people in power will not disappear voluntarily - giving flowers to the cops just isn't going to work. This thinking is fostered by the establishment; they like nothing better than love and nonviolence. The only way I like to see cops given flowers is in a flower pot from a high window."
I remember reading that one! Very pithy and droll. ^_^

Quote:
Originally Posted by AshleyO View Post
I find this to be pretty interesting.
You seem to be okay with people protesting... so long as it doesn't hurt people.
That's part of the problem a bit. The protests are TOO peaceful. They're TOO polite.
But it seems that asking politely for softer chains gets some pepper spray in the face or maybe getting dragged about by the hair or getting punched by a cop when they don't think the right people are looking.
I guess the thing I'm talking about and the point I'm making is that if this were actually going to be a revolution, politeness wont go far because your enemy can either politely ignore you or politely disagree with you ad infinitum while they continue to get their privileged way. And if there actually WERE a real revolution, it's not to say you draw the line at your family getting hurt, as it's more about choosing the correct side. If it were a real revolution, your family would already be under threat by either side of the debate. War CAN come right to your doorstep and being neutral isn't exactly a good choice.
Exactly. People push for change, and are told to push softer/back off a bit. They do, and are told the same again... until finally they’re not pushing at all, and the status quo remains unchallenged.

I don’t advocate for anything gung ho or violent. No, no, no. But I had been saying something similar to AshleyO, pointing out to someone there that there was an intrinsic disadvantage to a peaceful protest that complied with everything it was asked to do. (After the violent eviction I mean.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grausamkeit View Post
I know what you're saying. This needs to happen. I'm just selfish when it comes to my loved ones.
I know Graus, I’m the same. As much as I believe in the Occupy mission I have put my personal safety first - first in avoiding violent situations and second in being too cautious to sleep in the open/tents with random men near.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
I probably could have added to that and explained that the training and rules they follow are what's in the wrong, but I thought that was already apparent.
Okay. I don’t agree with everything you say, but that statement doesn’t make me rage. I can accept that one.
Acharis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2011, 10:47 AM   #174
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by CuckooTuli View Post
There's a great William S. Burroughs quote to this effect: "The people in power will not disappear voluntarily - giving flowers to the cops just isn't going to work. This thinking is fostered by the establishment; they like nothing better than love and nonviolence. The only way I like to see cops given flowers is in a flower pot from a high window."
That's a really cartoonish way of thinking of nonviolent protest. What I don't get from people who say that nonviolence doesn't do anything is what they plan to do to overthrow a heavily armed police force and possibly the army.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2011, 11:03 AM   #175
Grausamkeit
 
Grausamkeit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
That's a really cartoonish way of thinking of nonviolent protest. What I don't get from people who say that nonviolence doesn't do anything is what they plan to do to overthrow a heavily armed police force and possibly the army.
Bring out the elephants?
__________________
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
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 01:32 AM.