NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't know if this was mentioned before, but on the fourth of July, a few friends of mine, along with some others, were peacefully protesting police brutality in our city (It's been a problem in the past.) When this happened.

The local news station's (http://www.krem.com/news/local/stories/krem2_070907_policeprotest.5ce42019.html) version
SPOKANE -- Dozens of protestors marched through Downtown Spokane Monday asking to end police brutality.

Steve Murphy, KREM.com

Demonstrators protest police brutality at Spokane Police Department headquarters.

The protest was in reponse to the arrest of 17 individuals at Riverfront Park on July 4.

About 100 protestors held signs and walked from the Spokane Police Department headquarters to City Hall at 5:30 p.m

Police Chief Anne Kirkpatrick addressed the media regarding the protests. On the subject of the July 4 arrests, she said, "There was not even one use of a taser, there was not one use of pepper spray, we don't know what they're talking about."

She also reiterated that no one would be arrested unless a crime occurred; the protest was peaceful and no one was arrested or injured.

During the July 4 demonstration, protestors were trespassing on the site of a paid venue for Independence Day celebrations at Riverfront Park.

Police say 40 protestors were taunting people in the park, and were using a large American flag as a picnic blanket; when asked to leave by officers, police say the group surrounded them.

One person was arrested for Felony Assault on an Officer.

My personal friend's version (http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20070705015018573)
I no longer believe that any civil rights I may have once had exist anymore. I had so many of my Constitutional rights taken from me this evening, it's ludicrous.

A large group of protesters of all ages and demographics (NOT just a bunch of teens like what's being portrayed by the news) met under the bridge in Peaceful Valley today. A few speeches were read aloud, reading off statistics of deaths by police brutality as compared to deaths of police on the job. An older gentleman gave an inspiring speech about standing up for our First Amendment rights on our Independence Day, and how important this march was to raise awareness of the ever increasing level of police brutality and stripping of civil rights all across the country, including our own city. A few police officers came up, and wanted to announce to us all that they support our right to protest and march, so long as we don't violate any traffic laws, and don't block traffic or anything of the sort, then there would be no problems whatsoever and we would be free to peacefully assemble and speak out.

The march went wonderfully. Police cruisers kept in constant eyesight, making sure nothing illegal was done. Lots of cars honked, waved, and shouted their support. We ended in Riverfront Park, near the clock tower, where our group proceeded to sit down to enjoy a picnic. Police surrounded us, taking pictures of all of our faces against our will. One officer told myself and one other protester that our picnic was too close to the band area by the stage, and to move it over to the other side of a designated blue spray paint line on the grass. I personally asked everyone to stand up, and we moved everything over, complying 100%. The police continued taking photographs, so we photographed them back. We asked one for his badge number and name, and he refused, saying we didn't have the right to know that. The officer then went around the group, and pushed Zach St. John off of a bucket he was sitting on. Zach jumped up, cursed at the officer, and asked why he did what he did. In response, Zach was accosted, handcuffed, choked, and beaten, right in front of all of us. We started chanting "let him go!" and asking what he did wrong. One officer grabbed my friend Meg by the throat and threw her to the ground. I yelled at him, "Why did you do that!? She didn't do anything wrong? What is your problem? No one is doing anything illegal! Let Zach go!"

The officer told me if I didn't get back, he would arrest me. I took two steps back, and asked again what Zach had gone wrong, and why they weren't reading him his rights. The officer ignored me, and I told him I wanted his name and badge number, as well as the other officers, because I wanted to report them for police misconduct. They refused, and took Zach away. Things somewhat died down afterwards, I tried my best, as did others, to maintain a sense of calm with our crowd, and convinced everyone to sit back down and we'd just bail Zach out.

Police called for reinforcements, at least 30-40 of them showed up, and had a huge grip of zip ties in hand. I grabbed a piece of paper and a pen, and was trying to get someone with a video camera to come with me to speak to the police, and get the badge numbers and names of the officers responsible for arresting Zach. Instead, the cops came at us, batons drawn, zip-ties out, ordering us to leave the park because we were trespassing. We huddled together in a group, arm in arm, demanding to know how we were trespassing in a public park. Rather than answering us, the police started violently pushing us backwards onto the road, where more officers were waiting behind us. After separating our group into several smaller ones, they started shoving people with their batons, yelling that we were trespassing and to "get the fuck out of their park". I kept yelling back "why are you doing this? how are we trespassing? we haven't broken any laws!"

The police tore Hannah Jones away from me, and zip tied her hands. I had my arm around Savannah, trying to protect her from the cops baton that he kept shoving us back with. He ripped Savannah from me and arrested her as well. He told me to keep my hands up and that I was under arrest. I told him I would comply, but I wanted to know what I was being charged with first, and how I was supposedly trespassing in a public space. Rather than answering my simple question, the officer struck me in the hip with his baton, then struck me again in the chest with the butt of it. He grabbed me by the hair, told me I was a faggot and that I was going to jail, and handed me off to another officer. My hands were zip-tied behind my back, and I was led to a pile of people all face down, zip-tied, and in pain. I was searched, then thrown face down into the pile. Savannah was crying, and I could see her hands turning purple because her zip ties were tied so tightly. Cassie was the next one thrown into the pile. She screamed and cried as the officers zip-tied her hand, which was cut open and stitched previously to the march. She asked him over and over again to loosen the one on her right hand, because it had stitches. The cops ignored this.

Mikael Phelps was the next one I saw detained. He was yelling at an officer about Cassie's hand, and was zip tied and thrown face down, then called a retard by the officer. After a few more people were apprehended, I was picked up and escorted to a police car. Along the way, i heard many onlookers in the park asking what we had done wrong, the police didn't answer any of them. I was thrown in the back of a squad car alongside David Glen, then taken to County Jail.

I was completely compliant and kept my mouth shut all during processing. I knew I had not committed a crime today, and didn't intend to make matters any worse than they were. When processing was finished, the officer asked me to sign a paper stating that I knew why I was detained. I told him, "Officer, I have no idea why I was arrested. I didn't break any laws. No one told me what I did wrong, and no one read me any rights." The officer told me I was being charged with third degree trespassing, which is a misdemeanor. I told him I wasn't trespassing, I was just in a public park.

While in the holding cell waiting to get led upstairs, I was talking to Zach St John. His arm was cut wide open from the handcuffs, and he learned he was being charged with 2nd degree assault of a police officer, with no bail.

I was fingerprinted, and made to strip off my clothes and put on a pair of pink underwear, pink socks, and blue overalls. I was given a comb, a toothbrush, toothpaste, one blanket, a pink towel, and one sheet, and led to my cell. David and I were in the cell together for several hours before my mother came and posted my $500 bail.

I am now at home, reading through the news websites of what they claimed happen. I want it to be known right now, that neither myself, nor anyone involved in this protest today, committed any sort of crime, nor did we break any law whatsoever. Our protest was against police brutality, and the actions of Spokane's finest this evening proved even more so that the cops in this town are completely out of control. Hundreds of people in Riverfront Park today watched myself and 16 others get my civil liberties taken away, and witnessed us being treated like common animals. Not a single one of us were ever read any rights. Not a single one of us were told why we were being arrested, other than trespassing. From what I heard from the officers in the park today, there was no dispersal order. There was no warning. There was no reason for any of this. I am so utterly disgusted to be an American today.

One of the signs today said "police the police". Who is there to stop people like this from being able to get away with these kinds of actions?

Some video footage:
http://www.spokanetogo.com/news-video/?mgid=6945


I have a court arraignment tomorrow to see about fighting to get my charges dropped. However, I imagine not a single one of those abusive, power-hungry police officers will get any sort of punishment for the atrocious acts they commited on us today.

The police chief mentions pepper spray and tasers, as if there was no police brutality before such things were invented. This really sickens me, and I'm going to find a way to be in the protests against these arrests.

proof beyond your biased friends story?

proof beyond your biased friends story?

I did post the local news story, but sure, I'll dig up some more things. It's hard to find too much good local news on the internets, and it seems national news coverage is extremely limited.

Here's the local paper's version of events. (http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=10571)
Celebrating, clashing over freedoms

Jonathan Brunt and James Hagengruber
Staff writers
July 5, 2007
View slideshows:
Protesters
July Fourth celebrations


In the Inland Northwest, it was a Fourth of July to celebrate freedom – or clash over the freedoms Americans have.

Under the Clocktower in Spokane’s Riverfront Park, 17 people protesting police brutality were arrested about 6:45 p.m. as people gathered in the park for Neighbor Day and the annual firework displays.

Officers charged the group, which included self-proclaimed anarchists and other teens and young adults, after ordering them to disperse. One arrest was after what police say was an assault on an officer. Protesters dispute that.

Spokane Police Sgt. Jason Hartman said the gathering was halted in part because it was interfering with a nearby concert sponsored by Clear Channel Communications Inc. He noted that the protesters hadn’t obtained a permit.

“It was interfering with their event,” he said. The arrests “were based on their failure to comply with our order to lawfully disperse from the park.”

Others saw it differently.

“They were assembled peacefully,” said Jorgi Martin, who witnessed part of the protest. “They were having a picnic, just like everybody else in the park was having a picnic.”
ADVERTISEMENT

About 50 people, from a group calling itself Alternative Solutions and Possibilities and mostly dressed in black, had assembled next to the tower after marching through Peaceful Valley and downtown Spokane in a planned event.

While some in the group began to picnic, sitting on a large American flag, a few others held signs and distributed fliers. Some asked police, who were beginning to congregate around them, if they wanted a copy of their literature on police brutality. Officers declined.

Police soon began to assemble around the group, and a couple with cameras photographed those in the crowd, who responded by chanting, “We are not afraid.” One officer began walking within a few inches of some protesters to take their pictures. A few protesters tried to block the camera with their signs.

A scuffle began, and a protester was taken to the ground and arrested. Police allege the male pushed and tried to choke the officer. Protesters said the officer shoved the man to the ground without provocation.

After the man was dragged off, more officers assembled, and remaining protesters stood tightly together holding a sign that read “Those who hold power must be targeted.”

More officers gathered, and one read an order telling the protesters to disperse. Moments later, police charged the group, ripping down their sign and pushing protesters to the ground. Those who were arrested were forced onto their stomachs. Their hands were tied behind them with plastic ties.

Police and some working at the event formed a circle around those who were arrested. Periodically over the next half hour or so, police went into the crowd and dragged people into the circle to detain them. Many in the crowd cheered as police made arrests.

But the spectacle, which lasted for about an hour, also created a debate between those who felt police were overreaching and infringing on citizens’ rights of assembly and speech and those who felt the protesters were desecrating the flag and disturbing the peace of those who were there to watch fireworks. Police broke up some of the debates that became overly heated.

Those arrested were taken to jail on charges of failure to disperse and trespassing. Hartman also said one was booked on charges of assaulting an officer.

There, I've given you two news sources and a firsthand account. what more do you want?

A group leases an area for their own use, the protesters decide to use it for their protest. Sounds like the protesters chose poorly.

Ugh. I see fascism is alive and well.

Probably shouldn't be a jackass to cops either. That never ends well.

More firsthand accounds, with pictures.

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=9857486&blogID=284567646 (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=9857486&blogID=284567646)

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=9857486&blogID=284567646

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=9857486&blogID=284567646

A group leases an area for their own use, the protesters decide to use it for their protest. Sounds like the protesters chose poorly.
The protesters were not informed of this until after they had been arrested. They were surrounded, told to disperse, and then charged before they could figure out how to disburse.

Probably shouldn't be a jackass to cops either. That never ends well.
So the cops have the right to arrest whoever they want just because? No, I don't think they do.

Sounds like the usual story.

Police are a little over-eager about enforcing permit and "trespassing" laws, especially when they don't really like the group holding an event/protest/picnic/whatever.

But, protesters overreact in turn, accosting the police as fascist pigs when (to the cop's mind, at least), they are just doing their job: they are enforcing permit laws, and whether we like those laws or not it's pretty pointless to complain about them to the police.

Situation escalates. Protesters arrested. Police win...

... what's more, the police get to take you in and collect all kinds of information about you, making it that much easier for them to harass you and your friends, anticipate future actions, and otherwise insinuate their prying eyes into places any self-respecting revolutionary would rather they didn't.

God, I can't stand people who are stupid enough to get themselves arrested at a minor, inconsequential protest. How are we ever going to build the revolutionary underground at this rate??

:confused:

More firsthand accounds, with pictures.

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=9857486&blogID=284567646 (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=9857486&blogID=284567646)

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=9857486&blogID=284567646

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=9857486&blogID=284567646



I don't click on Myspace links, merely out of principle.

God, I can't stand people who are stupid enough to get themselves arrested at a minor, inconsequential protest. How are we ever going to build the revolutionary underground at this rate??

:confused:

In the modern, industrialized world? It's not gonna happen. The potential revolutionary era has passed in the US, Canada, Australia, Japan and Western Europe. The current situation in those countries is not conducive to revolution, and is well designed to become self-perpetuating.

Further, the foreign revolutionary threat of minimal, due to the presence of the ultimate guarantor of national sovereignty: Atomic weapons.

I don't click on Myspace links, merely out of principle.

The pictures are of a bunch of emos and fat chicks with too little clothes. Also some dudes wearing masks.

I don't click on Myspace links, merely out of principle.

Then here's some quotes for you, though you're missing all the pictures and video.

According to individuals involved in the demonstration who witnessed it, one demonstrator, brandishing a sandwich while standing on top of a small bucket was allegedly bumped off of it by a police officer which resulted in the individual putting his hand on the officers shoulder to get his attention to ask why he knocked him down. At this point, several officers began violently subduing the individual, while making claims of having been assaulted by him. According to officers, the individual made a grab at an officer's throat, and thus provoked the confrontation.

One officer approached the group, and standing about 20 yards away, said the group was to "...Disperse or be arrested for trespassing." Withing 5 seconds of this being read, the police line started moving in. Before anything was read, one member instructed everyone to gather in close, united behind a banner reading "Those who hold power must be targeted", so as to make the group easily identifiable, and started another chant of "We are not afraid", which continued until the police's line met the group.
The police ripped the banner from them, and by force began using limb and baton to break up the group and tear away individuals. Members who were not resisting arrest were thrown to the ground, on asphalt, knees holding their faces to the ground, and bound. They started to pile the detainees in the grass, all the while the crowd growing larger.
One girl who was arrested, thrown face first in the grass, started having a panic attack and was having difficulty breathing. I rushed towards one officer to make him aware of this (You will see later that approaching an officer to point out problems was later grounds for arrest), and luckily he was a decent human being. He told an officer that, who replied "I already checked her, she's breathing, she's just panicked". I'm pretty sure that a panic attack is just that, and it causes extreme difficulty breathing, and the second officer refused to do anything.
At this point I looked up to see a close friend, a minor, being cuffed and thrown into the group of detainees. She immediately started telling the officers that she was bound to tight, her hands showing discoloration very shortly after being bond (Later while in a police cruiser an officer was convinced to loosen them up a bit, which he was unable to do cos' they were "On too tight to get loose.") She was released later that night because she was a minor and had cut marks on her wrists from the binders.
Shortly after I saw another friend(The girl on the cover of July 5th's Spokesman Review, look for the bandage.._, screaming in pain, unable to stand at times, being roughly handled by two officers. One officer was twisting and pulling on a bandaged hand, which had received 5 stitches the day before. She was screaming that she had stitches, but they still continued to wrestle her about by her injured hand. Upon being cuffed, she lost feeling in the hand, and brought this to the officers attention, who did nothing but ignore her.
I was telling the same officer I had before that she had stitches and the officers neglectful handling was capable of tearing them out. Another friend, on the other side of the circle, was not as fortunate as I. Bringing attention to the fact that she had stitches and that they were hurting her, was recieved with a "Get back or get fucked up". An officer was heard saying "Get him next". Both were not members of the group asked to leave, both were in the crowd watching friends being abused and arrested.

We took up our space by the clock tower and some companions laid out a blanket, appropriately depicting the Flag. People began talking and eating and things were, as someone my age will be sure to say, mellow. Meanwhile, we noticed police forming a perimeter, initially I would say at a distance of about forty yards--SPD and Riverfront Park Security personnel--to the north, and then along the sidewalk to the immediate south of our location. Gradually, choreographically, the perimeter began to tighten. Pretty soon it was hard to ignore the fact that we were being surrounded by about twenty cops. I didn't count, so I can't be sure of the number. It was not a small number. I began to think about the talk the one cop had given us under the bridge and how compliant everyone was. But the perimeter continued to tighten, we were surrounded, and now there were two rings of cops, the first closing in on the blanket at center, the second on all points of the compass further out. Then the inner ring of cops started taking pictures with the clever little cameras we have these days, and they were positively starting to crowd the folks now hemmed in on all sides on the blanket. Some of the kids started--I would say, squawking--and then obstructing the camera lenses with the signs we'd been carrying.

Then here's some quotes for you, though you're missing all the pictures and video.

That reads like spin, if I dare say so myself.

In the modern, industrialized world?Can no one detect irony anymore?

Can no one detect irony anymore?

Not after being awake for fifteen hours, not really.

Ugh...it's summer and I got up at six-ish. What is wrong with me?

That reads like spin, if I dare say so myself.

What does? The FOUR firsthand accounts of what happened?

Having been both charged with trespassing at a 24 hour 7-11 and the local court house during court hours. Of which the first time I was charged with assualt with intent to resist arrest (although I was absolutely discharged of that), and I was removed from the local courthouse forcibly given no reason (in a case that was later dismissed after I was taken out of the court process in what can only be said to be a total cover up and disregard for civil rights. Of which I was held for a month out of the court system --- that doesn't match the two months I was held in solitary and an assessment center in the court system in a case that was latter withdrawn ) Having been previously peppersprayed (and be thankful you wern't) as well as tackled onto concrete. I think it is plausable your friends version of the events may be accurate. I think the whole who surrounded who is moot but you breached the peace when not leaving - police are notorious for not providing valid cause or reason for violating civil liberties, they don't explain why --- they just give orders... (that is abuse of power without cause, thus unreasonable use of force given the context, but the way they handled the situation was VERY POOR. As for pushing and arresting the person... is questionable as well. I do think police can be forceful or use force unneedly.)

there is one thing I'm wondering were you using an american flag as a picnic blanket? As that is all I can see as the likely offence.

From the trespassing aspect - at common law if there was no no trespassing signs or special notice stating that the occasion was a private occasion at a public grounds I think that the whole thing was bogus on the police grounds - as for local bilaws or event rules , and the fact you stated you complied with moving to the other area. I can only guess that unless someone in your group was assualtive - even verbally. then that is just that...

but as far as photos -- technically it isn't illegal to take photos of people in public places (BUT I personally disagree with that, especially in the case of intentional taking of information without consent - but just like the giant xray machines at the borders that spew potentially cancerous energy beams at people, they are going to do it anyway.

I think you just need to realize that you live in a police state and the police make the decisions - their boses and whoever appoints them.

The little people get screwed.

I in my own opinion have been repeatedly abused by the police, but not every experience has been as bad as it could have been. You may see police as all nice or whatever but once you've seen their demonic side, wether police corrections or military --- it ain't all pretty. Even if you beleive your innocent some don't care an ounce about you as a person or human being.. they do use inhumane methods to control situations to how they'd like them to be.. they are thugs.. you can only hope that you have responsible cops.. but they'll protect their own buts. bluewall crap... don't expect trial to be all honest like either.. cops do lie.

What does? The FOUR firsthand accounts of what happened?

The myspace one sounds iffy. Slightly more awkward adjective laden than what I would expect out of a normal description. Seems to have been written to have emphasized the authors personal perceptions on the matter.

By the blog owners admissions they were informed they were trespassing. By their admission they chose not to disperse and instead grouped together and started chanting. And how was the fellow on the bucket leaving the area? And why do people stand on buckets when eating at a picnic?
Here in my town, protesters do their research. They make sure the public spaces they are protesting in are available. I know this because one of my jobs is issuing permits to use public space. I get calls all the time from protest organizers making sure there's on events planned in the spaces they are planning to use. If they don't feel like planning, they use the free speech plazas in the heart of the city.
I'm just saying, you have to plan these things. You can't be surprised when things in horribly wrong if you don't.

the kerchifs probably didn't help.. people that have nothing to fear have no need to hide their identity...

kerchifs and other face masks really piss off police sometimes.. because they like to be able to see who is wanted and other reasons such as being able to get an accurate description if something gets wonky


in the cops and robberes things.. the bad guys the robbers have the kerchiffs... bandit face conceilment.. theyre up to something.. police mind.. you know

--------

I thought I'd add that police forces here have internal affairs, civilian oversite commitees and inspectors etc.. I havn't really dealt with them much but dealing directly with the cops probably wont get you too far especially in a he said she said situation.. these are professionals afterall (in some cases I know some places in the US don't require x# of years of education etc.. for job postings.

I guess it all depends who appoints the police cheif etc.. for your area..

ICCD-Intracircumcordei;12866645']the kerchifs probably didn't help.. people that have nothing to fear have no need to hide their identity...

That's fucking ridiculous. That's as bad as saying that we shouldn't care about tapped phones because if we're not breaking the law, we have nothing to worry about.

ICCD-Intracircumcordei;12866645']the kerchifs probably didn't help.. people that have nothing to fear have no need to hide their identity...

kerchifs and other face masks really piss off police sometimes.. because they like to be able to see who is wanted and other reasons such as being able to get an accurate description if something gets wonky


in the cops and robberes things.. the bad guys the robbers have the kerchiffs... bandit face conceilment.. theyre up to something.. police mind.. you know

More than that, I'd argue that the the institutional memory of police is something that should not be underestimated. It's a learning issue, and protest groups have to recognize this fact if they want to have minimal confrontation with the police. Past experiences shape present responses, so it's likely that these police have had experiences with groups much like ASAP in the past, where the confrontation did not go well. Given that this is Washington, it's quite possible that some of these officers may have been called in as auxiliaries when the WTO met in Seattle when the protesters when off the deep end. If they were, it's likely they learned a lesson there. Regardless of the ideals we hold our police to, we must remember that the department unconscious will influence their behaviors, lessons from the past will have been learned, perhaps all too well.

At the same time, the police have a much longer institutional memory than your average protest group. The department has been in existence for years, and the stories from the past are passed down from generation to generation. Younger cops interfacing with older cops, who pass the lessons they learned on to them. While protesters may come and go, the police will be there.

When informed that you are tresspassing, FOLLOW THE LAW AND LEAVE!!

ICCD-Intracircumcordei;12866645']the kerchifs probably didn't help.. people that have nothing to fear have no need to hide their identity...Ever heard of a Halloween costume?

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to choose to hide your face. One of them is play.

Reminds me of that Indonesian fellow who was tasered unconscious a while ago. No real surprises here...good luck to your friends. Police are virtually always acquitted, if they are even charged, even if there is overwhelming evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King).

I don't think they have to read the Miranda warning on arrest--only when they want to interrogate you.

Also, why should you need a permit to exercise a constitutional right? If the protest is an abuse, they can be ordered to leave...

By the blog owners admissions they were informed they were trespassing. By their admission they chose not to disperse and instead grouped together and started chanting. And how was the fellow on the bucket leaving the area? And why do people stand on buckets when eating at a picnic?

They were surrounded, and could not disperse. The function was open to the public, and the police never asked for a permit or anything. A quote from a personal account:
This skirmish, which from their perspectives involved assault on an officer, apparently lead to justification for a dispersal order to be read to the former demonstrators turned picnic-ers. While surrounded on all sides y approximately just under 40 officers, the order was read, and they threatened arrest for tresspassing if the demonstrators did not leave the public park which was filled with thousands of people. Just seconds after the order, a line of police ascended on to a group of about 14 demonstrators locked arms and held signs while remaining trapped in the center, and they violently arrested all of them. Many arrestees screamed in pain, and some screamed at the police. As the police moved in to make arrests, a small group of surrounding public cheered them on, and chanted "Arrest them all!" in unison with more people again chanting "Let them go!"

Ever heard of a Halloween costume?

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to choose to hide your face. One of them is play.

Sure there are legitimate reasons to piss in public too if your bladder will explode.. muslims can wear face masks as part of their culture ect..

the air could stink or maybe people are expecting to get IDed and even sprayed or teargassed or just like the look cause it is all rebelly and such.


Just cause there is a good reason.. if there is a bad reason to suspect something bad police will...

as far as I'm aware.. it is not what you are doing or plan to do.. but what they think you may be doing.

The fact you are infront of a police station is also potentially bad.. someone I know was taken into custody for standing for too long outside a police station...

technically taking pictures and tracking police is a good first start to killing them in their sleep.. cops are damn paranoid imo at time... it doesn't matter if you are actually doing something bad, but if you could be doing something 'bad'. It is suspicion not fact.. the court decides fact.. police go with things cause it could be.. in some cases...

its called preventative arrests and it is damn political..

if you tell someone they suck they might not like it.. even if it is for a good cause.. you are stepping on toes.. nothing is wrong with that.. but people often don't give a damn so know it could be a creek.

just know that there could be other ways of solving the issue without causing a stink.

how you present yourself does matter to people that care about how things look.. the courts imo are 99% fact.. whether it actually occured or not doesn't matter its just the spin.


--------

Once again I've been stopped by a cop while wearing a ski mask before in the winter.. and it was a pretty cold day...

I didn't find them to be nice.. they said they were being 'cordial'

as for what I was doing.. was it illegal.. no idea but being stopped on suspicion isn't all that nice. I totally do think people should be able to wear anything they'd like that isn't offensive or nothing at all.. (and police might help you with that too) p.s. after you spread your cheeks just to make sure you start to wonder just what is more annoying being naked infront of a guy or showing him your azhole.. you know what though it could get 'worse' honestly I think the punishment is on the other end of thatone) what police or other more conservative or traditional people might think could be totally different.

Gee... You mean the pigs will be pigs? Who woulda fucking thought. No shit they beat up and intimidate protesters. They've been doing it forever and they'll do it forever, and the people will just try to blame the protesters. Get the ACLU involved, and I'd suggest go for broader coverage by posting a Diary on one of the liberal blogosphere sites. In the end, a couple police will get fired, but they'll just end up as asshole rent-a-cops instead.

And yeah, the one who refused to give you his badge number? He's in deep shit, if that gets brought to his superior's attention.

The problem here is perspective. I don't like police brutality, but most people protesting against it have this odd perception that every police officer is a monster just waiting to beat up whomever they can get their hands on. What's more, they also tend to refuse to respect the authority a police officer has.

Do I think the police officers were a little overzealous? Certainly, and had I been there as one of them I might have pointed that out to them during the situation. But were they brutal? No, and the first-hand accounts are overemphasizing everything. People can't seem to look at both sides of the issue.

That's fucking ridiculous. That's as bad as saying that we shouldn't care about tapped phones because if we're not breaking the law, we have nothing to worry about.

well honestly you shouldn't have to be worrying about tapped phones.. communications have had the capacities to monitor phonelines for a long time now... see that is it just there it doesn't work both ways.. being the person who is tapping the phone is the only way around that.. but they are probably the most likely to be tapped in the security chain.

I'm weird in the way I think smart people don't need to worry about a tapped phone line. There are many reasons with corruption why you woulnd't want your phone tapped as it exposes your bank records or personal details.. government agencies can usually get that information anyway.. and smart people won't use the phone for anything really private anyway. I do think people that choose not to be public should have that choice, but they are the ones who I would think to be under the most suspicion.

The problem here is perspective. I don't like police brutality, but most people protesting against it have this odd perception that every police officer is a monster just waiting to beat up whomever they can get their hands on. What's more, they also tend to refuse to respect the authority a police officer has.

Dude, go to enough protests and see this shit every month in every city, and you'll have a hell of hard time respecting the cops too. If it isn't indemic to police culture, why does it keep happening?

More than that, I'd argue that the the institutional memory of police is something that should not be underestimated. It's a learning issue, and protest groups have to recognize this fact if they want to have minimal confrontation with the police. Past experiences shape present responses, so it's likely that these police have had experiences with groups much like ASAP in the past, where the confrontation did not go well. Given that this is Washington, it's quite possible that some of these officers may have been called in as auxiliaries when the WTO met in Seattle when the protesters when off the deep end. If they were, it's likely they learned a lesson there. Regardless of the ideals we hold our police to, we must remember that the department unconscious will influence their behaviors, lessons from the past will have been learned, perhaps all too well.

At the same time, the police have a much longer institutional memory than your average protest group. The department has been in existence for years, and the stories from the past are passed down from generation to generation. Younger cops interfacing with older cops, who pass the lessons they learned on to them. While protesters may come and go, the police will be there.

I'm guessing the FBI will have them on file.. the FBI has files on all protestors --- that they know of I think.

But yah. I think that the appearance of a protest does matter. I've read about protests actions from both sides or many sides of the situation, so I think perhaps unwarrantedly I may know how each group could respond.

Protests definately make sense at times but the apperance DOES matter as far as media/propaganda is concerned....

there are photos of them ' disgracing the flag' right away that might shut down the rights support even among those ultragood loyal people.. while the left would already be convinced anyway...

Dude, go to enough protests and see this shit every month in every city, and you'll have a hell of hard time respecting the cops too. If it isn't indemic to police culture, why does it keep happening?

Indeed, it does keep happening. But again, it is a problem of perspective. Look at it from the police officer's point of view. They keep being protested at again and again and again that they're all horrible monsters who beat people for the slightest provocation. That kind of thing tends to stress one's mind a little. You also have to take into account all of the crime and everything else they have to deal with each and every day. It's a hell of a lot of stress, and it builds up on people.

I'm not saying that police brutality is okay, though. I'm just pointing out that a police officer is not a light-stress position by any means. (And I intend on becoming one.)

Indeed, it does keep happening. But again, it is a problem of perspective. Look at it from the police officer's point of view. They keep being protested at again and again and again that they're all horrible monsters who beat people for the slightest provocation. That kind of thing tends to stress one's mind a little. You also have to take into account all of the crime and everything else they have to deal with each and every day. It's a hell of a lot of stress, and it builds up on people.

I'm not saying that police brutality is okay, though. I'm just pointing out that a police officer is not a light-stress position by any means. (And I intend on becoming one.)

It's their job to deal with it. They get payed to do it. The least they could do is show some level of professionalism or work ethic. NOTHING excuses police who excercise their power abusively. That's called bullying when children do it, and we don't let them off because they were dealing with the stress of being called a bully.

God knows I've met some nice cops, but it seems that the ones at protests get ordered to be assholes the moment they get there.

They were surrounded, and could not disperse. The function was open to the public, and the police never asked for a permit or anything. A quote from a personal account:

If they were indeed surrounded on all sides by 40 officers then it would likely be entrapment ---

especially if there was no right of way to safely leave

Dude, go to enough protests and see this shit every month in every city, and you'll have a hell of hard time respecting the cops too. If it isn't indemic to police culture, why does it keep happening?
It's part of the training now for crowd control. Do some research into the little powwow cops nationwide held just prior to the FTAA meetings in Miami about 5 years ago, where they were beating the shit out of retirees and the like. Salon did a hell of an article on it, complete with the grisly photographs of people with big whomping knots coming out of their necks.

ICCD-Intracircumcordei;12866720']I'm guessing the FBI will have them on file.. the FBI has files on all protestors --- that they know of I think.

But yah. I think that the appearance of a protest does matter. I've read about protests actions from both sides or many sides of the situation, so I think perhaps unwarrantedly I may know how each group could respond.

Protests definately make sense at times but the apperance DOES matter as far as media/propaganda is concerned....

there are photos of them ' disgracing the flag' right away that might shut down the rights support even among those ultragood loyal people.. while the left would already be convinced anyway...

Has anyone bothered to actually explain civil rights to you? Protesting is not some burdensome action against society that should be treated like it is misbehavior, and it is certainly wrong to say that presentation should matter. Freedom of Speech is for speech you don't like, not speech you do like.

Has anyone bothered to actually explain civil rights to you? Protesting is not some burdensome action against society that should be treated like it is misbehavior, and it is certainly wrong to say that presentation should matter. Freedom of Speech is for speech you don't like, not speech you do like.

As far as American Law is concerned I am sadly lacking with practical knowledge. I have read US consititutional documents and varies US laws and administrative procedures.

As far as Civil rights are concerned I ask you don't paint me as someone against civil rights that is the exact oposite. I strongly support non offensive civil actions, especially to bring awareness to issues.

From what I read of the US Bill of Rights ect as well as USSC findings in some instances on it I have a very general knowledge.

I do know that regardless of what law says you need to be smart about the things. It is apparently a very dirty world, and having a full picture and plan should leave you prepared for whatever situtations might pop up.

It comes out as a scene, loud action. File against the police if you'd like to go ahead with it, but holding protests in a hot area really doesn't do anything to make the situations better.

There is a difference between civil rights and civil disobediance --- that is where the police go from generally nonchalant to bullies.

If you don't have political support you are exposed. If they won't let you organize --- things happened... it doesn't end. Gaining momentum or more support is the only thing I'm seeing from this, bad good I don't know.

I strongly support civil rights. As for knowing about the history of the civil rights movements or recent history around the world.. I have a general knowledge, I've followed civil rights and otherwise.

As being a victim of what I have seen as unneeded abuses I have a very first hand knoweldge.. and the truth is.. you only have those rights you .. or society upholds. It is that simple. Either by god or your fellow man, it is a war or you hold the peace.

I'm not judging the actions just giving responses.

ICCD-Intracircumcordei;12866774']As far as American Law is concerned I am sadly lacking with practical knowledge. I have read US consititutional documents and varies US laws and administrative procedures.

As far as Civil rights are concerned I ask you don't paint me as someone against civil rights that is the exact oposite. I strongly support non offensive civil actions, especially to bring awareness to issues.

Non-offenseive. That's it, you don't get it. It's not about "Non-offensive" speech. It's about offensive speech. Rights are there for the stuff that offends you.

I do know that regardless of what law says you need to be smart about the things. It is apparently a very dirty world, and having a full picture and plan should leave you prepared for whatever situtations might pop up.

It comes out as a scene, loud action. File against the police if you'd like to go ahead with it, but holding protests in a hot area really doesn't do anything to make the situations better.

There is a difference between civil rights and civil disobediance --- that is where the police go from generally nonchalant to bullies.

No, not really, the cops go after peaceful protesters all the time. They especially like to target anyone in black, because they equate anyone in black with anarchy.


As being a victim of what I have seen as unneeded abuses I have a very first hand knoweldge.. and the truth is.. you only have those rights you .. or society upholds. It is that simple. Either by god or your fellow man, it is a war or you hold the peace.

I'm not judging the actions just giving responses.

That's what these kids were doing. That's what the kids at Kent State were doing. That's what the people intimidated during anti-war marches in DC were doing. That's what the people at the FTAA meetings were doing. We enforce our rights by protesting. This is the Cops trying to take away that right.

ICCD-Intracircumcordei;12866774']As far as American Law is concerned I am sadly lacking with practical knowledge. I have read US consititutional documents and varies US laws and administrative procedures.

As far as Civil rights are concerned I ask you don't paint me as someone against civil rights that is the exact oposite. I strongly support non offensive civil actions, especially to bring awareness to issues.

Why only "Non-offensive?" The klansmen were offended by blacks telling them that they were equal, but does that mean the civil rights protests of the 60s should not have happened? Someone will always be offended, and if you've really read the constitution, you'll know that it guarantees us the right to speak and assemble freely, NOT contingent on inoffensiveness.

It's their job to deal with it. They get payed to do it. The least they could do is show some level of professionalism or work ethic. NOTHING excuses police who excercise their power abusively. That's called bullying when children do it, and we don't let them off because they were dealing with the stress of being called a bully.

God knows I've met some nice cops, but it seems that the ones at protests get ordered to be assholes the moment they get there.

...

I wasn't trying to excuse the behavior or say that police brutality is right, because it's not. I was explaining why it happens. It's not something you just deal with that easily. How often have you had to put up with lots of stress on a job for quite some time especially when it deals with people? Any at all? Come back to me when you do and you will have a bit more leeway to say what you're saying.

...

I wasn't trying to excuse the behavior or say that police brutality is right, because it's not. I was explaining why it happens. It's not something you just deal with that easily. How often have you had to put up with lots of stress on a job for quite some time especially when it deals with people? Any at all? Come back to me when you do and you will have a bit more leeway to say what you're saying.

If a police officer has so much trouble handling the stress of their job that they cannot help but to attack innocent civilians peacefully gathering in protest, they should resign.

...

I wasn't trying to excuse the behavior or say that police brutality is right, because it's not. I was explaining why it happens. It's not something you just deal with that easily. How often have you had to put up with lots of stress on a job for quite some time especially when it deals with people? Any at all? Come back to me when you do and you will have a bit more leeway to say what you're saying.

Never been a musician, have you? Crowds, especially crowds who are unfamiliar with you can make peaceful protesters look tame.

(The protestors) were using a large American flag as a picnic blanket...
OMG! The filthy communists! Why isn't this a criminal act on par with treason?
nay! It's worse than treason! They should be executed, then brought back as zombies then killed once more.
The dirty, filthy commies.

If a police officer has so much trouble handling the stress of their job that they cannot help but to attack innocent civilians peacefully gathering in protest, they should resign.

Now that I will wholly agree with.
Never been a musician, have you? Crowds, especially crowds who are unfamiliar with you can make peaceful protesters look tame.
No, but I was on the speech team for a high school, the high school that essentially dominated Colorado. I've given many speeches in front of large crowds.

But it's different as a police officer. Remember how in high school you hated being teased and insulted? Well imagine something at least a hundred times worse, and then have that occur to you just about every second of the job. When you put on that uniform, you become a target. You become hated by the most dangerous of criminals, feared by some of the less dangerous, and insulted and spit upon. You are a direct representation of authority, and boy do people hate you. It wears on you, tears at you, eats away at your mind a little bit each day. Being a police officer is one of the hardest jobs in world, really. The pressures of the job are enormous and they make being a musician look absolutely tame. The worst that happens to a musician is that they're boo'd off the stage or they're horribly embarrassed. A police officer could easily be killed.

It takes a special kind of person to be a police officer, and not all police officers can handle it. That's why police brutality occurs. Again, I am not trying to excuse it, merely explain it.

For the record, any police officer who brutalizes someone ought to resign immediately as far as I am concerned, and any who find the pressures pushing them to the limit ought to at least take a vacation. After all, they're only human, like everyone else.

No, but I was on the speech team for a high school, the high school that essentially dominated Colorado. I've given many speeches in front of large crowds.

It's kinda the same (I debated for a bit), but the debate crowd is still, for the most part, interested in seeing you succede. A hostile crowd is anything but.

But it's different as a police officer. Remember how in high school you hated being teased and insulted? Well imagine something at least a hundred times worse, and then have that occur to you just about every second of the job. When you put on that uniform, you become a target. You become hated by the most dangerous of criminals, feared by some of the less dangerous, and insulted and spit upon. You are a direct representation of authority, and boy do people hate you. It wears on you, tears at you, eats away at your mind a little bit each day. Being a police officer is one of the hardest jobs in world, really. The pressures of the job are enormous and they make being a musician look absolutely tame. The worst that happens to a musician is that they're boo'd off the stage or they're horribly embarrassed. A police officer could easily be killed.

See, by the time I was in High School, I had figured out that getting mad was counterproductive. You win by being the bigger man. Are policemen still elementary students?

And, um, booed off stage, nothing. Boos are fine: it's when the crowd throws shit at you that it gets interesting (happened to me once. A really rowdy crowd, who actually were pretty happy and just started throwing shit because they were into it.).


-snip for brevity-

I think it's more than that, see. I think it's indemic to cop culture now. The whole lot is poisoned by the false belief that protesters give a shit about them. TBH, I wouldn't care at all, if they weren't a threat to my rights and well-being.

OMG! The filthy communists! Why isn't this a criminal act on par with treason?
nay! It's worse than treason! They should be executed, then brought back as zombies then killed once more.
The dirty, filthy commies.

Anarchists, actually. Commies are moderately more tolerable at protests, because they have a shred of rational thought left in them.

Anarchists, actually. Commies are moderately more tolerable at protests, because they have a shred of rational thought left in them.

Only some of them were anarchists. The friends of mine who were there certainly are not anarchists. they used a flag because it was the fourth of july, and it seemed appropriate. It's funny thin the line between supporting America and desecrating a flag can become.

It's kinda the same (I debated for a bit), but the debate crowd is still, for the most part, interested in seeing you succede. A hostile crowd is anything but.
True enough.



See, by the time I was in High School, I had figured out that getting mad was counterproductive. You win by being the bigger man. Are policemen still elementary students?

No, but that's a strawman. Come on, KSP. You know just as well as I do that humans are far more emotionally sensitive than we like to admit. It's that lack of admitting that causes the macho macho manism and results in the lower life expectations of men versus women.

Stress is proven to have horrible effects on people. I've already outlined just a few pieces of the stress a police officer faces daily.

For the record, a rural police officer tends to be far more relaxed than an urban police officer. You'll note that police brutality is almost solely limited to urban police officers, which alone should help prove my point when it comes to stress.

...

Of course, there is always the bad apple that joins the force just to use the power, and there are those that let power go to their heads...


And, um, booed off stage, nothing. Boos are fine: it's when the crowd throws shit at you that it gets interesting (happened to me once. A really rowdy crowd, who actually were pretty happy and just started throwing shit because they were into it.).
Aye, but as I said, even that is simply not even close to what a police officer faces. Sure, they're hostile to you, but they don't hate you. They do not loathe you. They do not despise every thread and fiber of your being as though you were the most pathetic, despicable piece of shit on the planet.


I think it's more than that, see. I think it's indemic to cop culture now. The whole lot is poisoned by the false belief that protesters give a shit about them. TBH, I wouldn't care at all, if they weren't a threat to my rights and well-being.
Well, I think the protesters should. If people thought more about the emotional state of others and took this into account, and recognized everyone as human, we'd have a lot fewer problems.

...

Of course if people were able to do that they wouldn't be human, now would they? They'd be some other kind of being that looks like a human but does not possess some of the more aggressive parts of the survival instinct.

Why only "Non-offensive?" The klansmen were offended by blacks telling them that they were equal, but does that mean the civil rights protests of the 60s should not have happened? Someone will always be offended, and if you've really read the constitution, you'll know that it guarantees us the right to speak and assemble freely, NOT contingent on inoffensiveness.


Offensive is when you infringe someones personal liberties such as right of transit (right of way right of mobility) personal security (security of the person) unreasonable violation of a persons property (intentional damage to property without cause, possesion without cause - confiscation- cause does matter for property violations)

--- things which may be offensive can be 'noise violations' if in an confined area especially at high volumes, where a person has good reason to be in the area and is otherwise being attacked.

also included is enviornmental offenses such as creation of smoke or any other nausiants.

I think free assembly is very vital, but on those same grounds.. not violating peoples basic rights (mobility, personal security, and environmental security) that is freedom of use and enjoyment of use -- comes on both sides.. violation of the other party for your own is not legitimate.. if it does not exist at default then it is already a breach (civil war) which is very common because one party is degrading the other, either due to ignorance or not having information on the issue.

Peoples opinions are not truely offensive it is other peoples personalities which cannot accept an individuals opinion that is the issue... opinion and actuality is for the individual to decide.

---------

as for your constitutional documents I wouldn't take them at face value the judges sure as hell dont.

ICCD-Intracircumcordei;12866863']Offensive is when you infringe someones personal liberties such as right of transit (right of way right of mobility) personal security (security of the person) unreasonable violation of a persons property (intentional damage to property without cause, possesion without cause - confiscation- cause does matter for property violations)

--- things which may be offensive can be 'noise violations' if in an confined area especially at high volumes, where a person has good reason to be in the area and is otherwise being attacked.

also included is enviornmental offenses such as creation of smoke or any other nausiants.
The protest in question involved none of that, so what's your point?

as for your constitutional documents I wouldn't take them at face value the judges sure as hell don't.
They sure as hell take the first amendment at face value, and damn right they should. Freedom of speach, and of assembly still means something, and the day it stops meaning anything is the day America stops being America.

No, but that's a strawman. Come on, KSP. You know just as well as I do that humans are far more emotionally sensitive than we like to admit. It's that lack of admitting that causes the macho macho manism and results in the lower life expectations of men versus women.

Stress is proven to have horrible effects on people. I've already outlined just a few pieces of the stress a police officer faces daily.

Given the example you brought up, that was my answer. Yes, I do know what it's like to get shit from everyone under the sun. Yeah, I was the kid getting crap at school. I know what you're talking about. You know what the best way to respond is? You don't pay attention. Every kid who gets shit has to learn that. The cops need to learn to do that, too. Especially since they carry weaponry and have the right to use it.

Aye, but as I said, even that is simply not even close to what a police officer faces. Sure, they're hostile to you, but they don't hate you. They do not loathe you. They do not despise every thread and fiber of your being as though you were the most pathetic, despicable piece of shit on the planet.

You attribute way too much to the way people feel about the cops. They aren't worth loathing. They're just a macho institution hell bent on having order their way. They aren't worth hating. They are however, worth critiscizing when they step out of line.


Well, I think the protesters should. If people thought more about the emotional state of others and took this into account, and recognized everyone as human, we'd have a lot fewer problems.

You know what the cops need to do? They need to take the advice that I got given when I was hired on as an usher at a movie theater: Quit Taking it Personal. Most protesters wouldn't have a problem with cops if the cops could fucking behave themselves, but every month we hear another story of cops making war on civilians, and then they do it to us too. How can you have respect or compassion for someone who has no respect or compassion for you?

The protest in question involved none of that, so what's your point?

They sure as hell take the first amendment at face value, and damn right they should. Freedom of speach, and of assembly still means something, and the day it stops meaning anything is the day America stops being America.

Not really, there is active censorship, and religious infringement in america, the recognition of what constitutes an official religion and the allowable activities of that religion within its own practice ... etc.. they really don't it is all political. There is some leadway but sure isn't face value.

I do think there should be more freedom of press and more religious freedom around the world, sadly though.. that is largely not the case, even in america.

You win by being the bigger man. Are policemen still elementary students?


They're the police, they're an arm of the state, it has nothing to do with 'winning' or 'losing' for them. I don't imagine they give one jot about what's actually being protested about. They just don't like civilians that much, especially hippies. (Or people in cars).

Oh, I agree with you on principle, KSP. It's just that as much as we might like it if everyone else acted exactly as we do, they don't. Not everyone is as emotionally centered as you are. Not everyone is capable of that. I'm just trying to explain how it can be so stressful, that's all.

That said, thank you quite a bunch for giving me insight into your point of view. Very intriguing and definitely something I need to take note of if I am to be an effective police officer.

I did post the local news story, but sure, I'll dig up some more things. It's hard to find too much good local news on the internets, and it seems national news coverage is extremely limited.

Of COURSE the news media will ignore it; your First Amendment rights to free speech, and "of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances", were being violated and denied to you by these police officers.

The news media "pass over" the transgressions of law enforcement personnel if such "transgressions" involve circumventing the Constitution and denying, violating, or infringing on, your legal rights.

Oh, I agree with you on principle, KSP. It's just that as much as we might like it if everyone else acted exactly as we do, they don't. Not everyone is as emotionally centered as you are. Not everyone is capable of that. I'm just trying to explain how it can be so stressful, that's all.

That said, thank you quite a bunch for giving me insight into your point of view. Very intriguing and definitely something I need to take note of if I am to be an effective police officer.

One of the most convincing arguments that anyone can become as emotionally centered as I am is that you just called me emotionally centered. I had to earn every inch of control I have. I got in fights in school, I was a traditional problem kid. You know how I grew out of it? It wasn't about emotional centering or some sort of special ability. I just let go. It sounds hard, but really it isn't.

The fact of the matter is, protests seem to bring out the worst in cops. I've had long conversations with plenty of officers (mostly at school functions when I was younger), and they were always tolerant, polite, and restrained. How is it that all of that gets thrown out the window when signs start being waved?

Great job not reading what I wrote OP. They don't need permits, they should have done their homework like every other protest group. Do you really think clear channel wanted protesters ruining their concert? If the police weren't already there, you can bet they would have been called. They spent a lot of time, money, and effort putting that concert together. And guess what? If they rent the space it's theirs. Just like you can't wander into wal-mart and protest their. One freaking call to Parks and Rec would have prevented this mess. I know people who have been brutalized by the police for no reason. Anyone who can read between the lines in any of those blogs can easily see the mistakes the protesters made. Learn from it and move on or don't learn from it and let it happen again.

Disrespectful, immature, and I bet they didn't have a permit.

Oh, I agree with you on principle, KSP. It's just that as much as we might like it if everyone else acted exactly as we do, they don't. Not everyone is as emotionally centered as you are. Not everyone is capable of that. I'm just trying to explain how it can be so stressful, that's all.

That said, thank you quite a bunch for giving me insight into your point of view. Very intriguing and definitely something I need to take note of if I am to be an effective police officer.

We understand that it can be stressful, but police have to be held to a higher standard. They have guns, batons, and handcuffs, as well as the right to use them. In order to be trusted with that, they have to be trustworthy, responsible people.

Also, it seems things get worse when you get police in groups. They are subject to mob mentality as well, and seem to enjoy escalating situations sometimes.

If the firsthand accounts hold any water (and I'd like to think that all four of these people arn't likely liers) the cops failed to inform those arrested of their crimes and failed to read them their rights. They set things up in order to be able to arrest the protesters, giving them no choice.

Great job not reading what I wrote OP. They don't need permits, they should have done their homework like every other protest group. Do you really think clear channel wanted protesters ruining their concert? If the police weren't already there, you can bet they would have been called. They spent a lot of time, money, and effort putting that concert together. And guess what? If they rent the space it's theirs. Just like you can't wander into wal-mart and protest their. One freaking call to Parks and Rec would have prevented this mess. I know people who have been brutalized by the police for no reason. Anyone who can read between the lines in any of those blogs can easily see the mistakes the protesters made. Learn from it and move on or don't learn from it and let it happen again.

If clearchannel rented the place there should have been postings of a private event. At common law and common sense if a public place isn't demonstrated to be privatized the public should not be assumed to see it as a private place.. there should have been signage or grounds rules posted rather then leave it up to people to figure out.

If it was private how is it that they got into the place?

As for protest at walmart no but if you are shoping at walmart and the police drag you out...then it'd be a different story


walmart is seen as private property.. a public park most certainly is NOT.

also trespassing is usually violation of policies of the purpose of public access being violated --- so even in a walmart if the action is not disruptive or someone there doesn't ask the protest to stop it would be OK... unless it violates the purpose of the point of entry.. while shopping can be assumed... this is not always the case as walmart also allows for eating some times and other activities dependant on the location... speach and communication including customer service issues are allowable a organized mass customer protest would be customer relations issues because specific complaint process handing is not outlined as far as I am aware.. so a protest could be reasonable if it was a protest to customer service about a service issue.. I would think. as long as it wasn't disruptive to the environment and they wern't asked to leave.. at which point telephone complaint, writting or legal process would be reasonable.

One of the most convincing arguments that anyone can become as emotionally centered as I am is that you just called me emotionally centered. I had to earn every inch of control I have. I got in fights in school, I was a traditional problem kid. You know how I grew out of it? It wasn't about emotional centering or some sort of special ability. I just let go. It sounds hard, but really it isn't.

The fact of the matter is, protests seem to bring out the worst in cops. I've had long conversations with plenty of officers (mostly at school functions when I was younger), and they were always tolerant, polite, and restrained. How is it that all of that gets thrown out the window when signs start being waved?

I wish I could answer that question. Perhaps when I become a police officer I'll be able to. Until then...well, I know we have at least one police officer somewhere on this forum. Perhaps they can enlighten us.

Great job not reading what I wrote OP. They don't need permits, they should have done their homework like every other protest group. Do you really think clear channel wanted protesters ruining their concert? If the police weren't already there, you can bet they would have been called. They spent a lot of time, money, and effort putting that concert together. And guess what? If they rent the space it's theirs. Just like you can't wander into wal-mart and protest their. One freaking call to Parks and Rec would have prevented this mess. I know people who have been brutalized by the police for no reason. Anyone who can read between the lines in any of those blogs can easily see the mistakes the protesters made. Learn from it and move on or don't learn from it and let it happen again.

(a) The concert hadn't started

(b) The park was still public. Not everyone there was there for the concert. They didn't rent the park. At most, they got the permits to use the stage.

The only reason claims of "trespassing" can be made is that some public space is only open to protests when certain permits are obtained. Of course, from the reports and pictures given, it doesn't appear that the people arrested (most of whom were no longer actively protesting anyways), were given any chance to stop.

And another tip for successful protesting, have someone or many someones hang back and casually film what's going on. Most cell phones have the ability.

Great job not reading what I wrote OP. They don't need permits, they should have done their homework like every other protest group. Do you really think clear channel wanted protesters ruining their concert? If the police weren't already there, you can bet they would have been called. They spent a lot of time, money, and effort putting that concert together. And guess what? If they rent the space it's theirs. Just like you can't wander into wal-mart and protest their. One freaking call to Parks and Rec would have prevented this mess. I know people who have been brutalized by the police for no reason. Anyone who can read between the lines in any of those blogs can easily see the mistakes the protesters made. Learn from it and move on or don't learn from it and let it happen again.

Regardless, had the protesters been informed of this mistake and told to move on, they would have obliged. Also, the protest was no longer really going on by then, no one was waving the signs or shouting anything, they were just having a picnic. They had done this every year for several years, and had no problems. And despite all that, failure to do their homework in no way warrants the police response.

The police apparently forgot to do their homework as well, as they seem to have forgotten about Miranda rights, excessive force, and all those other things they were taught in the academy.

It seemed "trespassing" was just an excuse to arrest some protesters. And the system is sick if an excuse is all an officer needs.

In read up on trespass laws. Don't just pull random things out of your ass because they sound neat.

In read up on trespass laws. Don't just pull random things out of your ass because they sound neat.

So you can show us where in the law it says that any private entity being given the permits to hold an event in public space automatically closes that space to the public?

If I am allowed to hold a rally in a public park, does that automatically mean that all other members of the public who may come there are trespassing on my property?

The charges of "trespassing" have nothing whatsoever to do with Clear Channel, as Clear Channel has no claim to the property. At most, they can be brought because the protesters were protesting on public space without a permit - essentially "misusing" public space. The park was open to the public whether they were interested in the concert or not.

And another tip for successful protesting, have someone or many someones hang back and casually film what's going on. Most cell phones have the ability.

Maybe bit with video taping police leading to felonies
http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews/2007/06/brian_d_kelly_didnt_think.html

That may not be a smart idea anymore

Remind of how standing on buckets and chanting is dispersing. Seriously, kids protesting and not knowing what the fuck they are doing gives legitimate protesters a bad name. But of course now everyone can scream ' evil police' which is what you certain people love to do. People that can't act like grow ups shouldn't be doing grown up things.

Regardless, had the protesters been informed of this mistake and told to move on, they would have obliged. Also, the protest was no longer really going on by then, no one was waving the signs or shouting anything, they were just having a picnic. They had done this every year for several years, and had no problems. And despite all that, failure to do their homework in no way warrants the police response.

It would appear, even from their own pictures, that some participants were still waving signs.

In read up on trespass laws. Don't just pull random things out of your ass because they sound neat.

1: Who are you responding to?
2: Your own stance seems to reveal little knowledge of tresspass laws.

Go to the City of Spokcane's website. I'm sure you can find ords there. I'm not doing everyone's homework for them.

Remind of how standing on buckets and chanting is dispersing.

The standing on the bucket thing happened well before there was any request made for the group to disperse. In fact, by all accounts, the bucket-stander was arrested and gone before any such request was made.

The chanting, from all available accounts, appears to have started after the police began to arrest the person standing on a bucket.

I can't quote. And if I'm so wrong, in fine the Spokane city ord that supports your claim.

So the police were standing super close for what reason? And why was someone standing on a bucket when they were supposedly just having a picnic?

40 cops don't magically appear either. They say them coming, chose so stay.

So the police were standing super close for what reason? And why was someone standing on a bucket when they were supposedly just having a picnic?

Three of the reports say he was sitting on the bucket. And the cops were photographing the people involved. They had no good reason to get so close, but they had one bad reason: to make people nervous and try to provoke something.

40 cops don't magically appear either. They say them coming, chose so stay.

The cops could have been there just to keep an eye on things. and despite that, the cops had no right to do what they did. That is the fucking point you seem so keen on ignoring.

So are you telling me the blogger lied that you quoted? Those protesters fucked up. The more lies they tell on their blogs the more I'm liable to believe they provoked the reaction they got.
Cry ebil cops all you want. It's not true in this case.

You also keep ignoring the jack of common sense these protesters apparently had.

So are you telling me the blogger lied that you quoted? Those protesters fucked up. The more lies they tell on their blogs the more I'm liable to believe they provoked the reaction they got.
Cry ebil cops all you want. It's not true in this case.

What fucking lies? Just what the fuck are you talking about?

You also keep ignoring the jack of common sense these protesters apparently had.

even if this is true (Which I don't think it is, and I feel the protesters were fully in the right) the cops stepped over the line, beating people who were not resisting arrest, and generally being brutal and ignorant. Yes, perhaps the protesters should have planned better, but that does not justify the slightest bit what was done to them.

If the protesters were in the wrong, the cops should have calmly informed them of this. Instead, they chose harassment, entrapment, and brutality.

Anyone want to bet whether or not the majority of these charges are dropped before the charges come to trial? That's the SOP these days for breaking up protests--round everyone up, rough them up a bit on the way, take them to jail and then quietly dismiss everything before the trial starts. The world moves on and no one even thinks to ask what happened.

More than that, I'd argue that the the institutional memory of police is something that should not be underestimated. It's a learning issue, and protest groups have to recognize this fact if they want to have minimal confrontation with the police. Past experiences shape present responses, so it's likely that these police have had experiences with groups much like ASAP in the past, where the confrontation did not go well. Given that this is Washington, it's quite possible that some of these officers may have been called in as auxiliaries when the WTO met in Seattle when the protesters when off the deep end. If they were, it's likely they learned a lesson there. Regardless of the ideals we hold our police to, we must remember that the department unconscious will influence their behaviors, lessons from the past will have been learned, perhaps all too well.

At the same time, the police have a much longer institutional memory than your average protest group. The department has been in existence for years, and the stories from the past are passed down from generation to generation. Younger cops interfacing with older cops, who pass the lessons they learned on to them. While protesters may come and go, the police will be there.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Spokane is 280+ miles from Seattle. Unless they were transferred between the two cities between now and then, they sure as hell weren't called as auxiliaries to the WTO debacle. It's about the same distance as Detroit is from Chicago, and farther apart than DC is from NYC.

That said, however, institutional memory is certainly long in the police force. Prevailing institutional attitudes toward anyone waving a sign or chanting don't help, either.

EDIT: This story got no press in Seattle. Despite the distance, enough folks in western WA are from or have relatives in eastern WA that Seattle stations and papers usually cover anything interesting on the east side (of the Cascades).

About 50 people, from a group calling itself Alternative Solutions and Possibilities and mostly dressed in black, had assembled next to the tower after marching through Peaceful Valley and downtown Spokane in a planned event.

Aha! They are part of the Weirdo Front!!!!!!!

proof beyond your biased friends story?

If they can charge you with second degree assault, your friend did way more than what you said he did.

Police videotape these things for their own purposes nowadays, since they know it's a matter of he said vs. he said.

If you don't have your own videotape, you're going to lose.

If they can charge you with second degree assault, your friend did way more than what you said he did.Or, it means the police are lying and planning to do so.

The myspace one sounds iffy. Slightly more awkward adjective laden than what I would expect out of a normal description. Seems to have been written to have emphasized the authors personal perceptions on the matter.

Heh how else would you expect a first hand witness account to read?

Or, it means the police are lying and planning to do so.

I'm afraid I"m going to have to err on the side of caution and accept the police's side of the story unless it can be substantially proven beyond the words of the protesters alone. By that, I mean witnesses to the event. I'd ask a police officer to say something except that they're probably ordered to stay quiet on the whole ordeal.

Which only makes sense considering how much the media will make out of any tiny little minimolehill.

I'm afraid I"m going to have to err on the side of caution and accept the police's side of the story unless it can be substantially proven beyond the words of the protesters alone. By that, I mean witnesses to the event. I'd ask a police officer to say something except that they're probably ordered to stay quiet on the whole ordeal.

Which only makes sense considering how much the media will make out of any tiny little minimolehill.

I would have said erring on the side of caution would be to discount the police story.

I mean look at it this way, the police are not going to like a demonstration about police brutality are they. And if there is cause for a demonstration, then there must be a history of that which is being demonstrated against.

To my mind, the police just didn't appreciate this besmircment of thier 'good' name and done all in their power to stop it. which sorta shows that the demonstrators have very valid point.

Also in a park! I don't know about your laws in America, but a park is public property, they should not even have been asked to leave, unless there where ingageing in lewd conduct.

I would have said erring on the side of caution would be to discount the police story.

I mean look at it this way, the police are not going to like a demonstration about police brutality are they. And if there is cause for a demonstration, then there must be a history of that which is being demonstrated against.

To my mind, the police just didn't appreciate this besmircment of thier 'good' name and done all in their power to stop it. which sorta shows that the demonstrators have very valid point.

Also in a park! I don't know about your laws in America, but a park is public property, they should not even have been asked to leave, unless there where ingageing in lewd conduct.

I trust the police. They saved the asses of my sisters and little brother and every other student at Platte Canyon when that bastard took hostages at the high school and murdered my sister's best friend.

So perhaps I'm biased, but as I explained earlier in this thread, protesters against police brutality for the most part have this strange perception that every police officer is a raging monster just waiting for the slightest provocation to brutalize someone. Please refer to my previous posts and the resulting debate with KSP as I do not wish to go over this again.

I trust the police. They saved the asses of my sisters and little brother and every other student at Platte Canyon when that bastard took hostages at the high school and murdered my sister's best friend.

So perhaps I'm biased, but as I explained earlier in this thread, protesters against police brutality for the most part have this strange perception that every police officer is a raging monster just waiting for the slightest provocation to brutalize someone. Please refer to my previous posts and the resulting debate with KSP as I do not wish to go over this again.

I think it is good that you trust your police force, and for the main I'm sure that they do a very good job, but what you say about 'raging monsters' also holds true the other way. Do you for instance belive that all police officers are to be truested, that not a one would engage in corruption or be brutal for no reason?

If you do then I'm afraid you show a great deal of naiveity.

As to the validity of this story, I am inclinded to belive it, not because I have a distrust of the police, or feel that every one of them is a raging monster, but you can see by the language used, by the fact that this thread has been posted, that the people there who witnessed and were a part of this, feel hard done by, truely feel that their civil liberties were walked all over.

I think it is good that you trust your police force, and for the main I'm sure that they do a very good job, but what you say about 'raging monsters' also holds true the other way. Do you for instance belive that all police officers are to be truested, that not a one would engage in corruption or be brutal for no reason?

Of course I don't, and as I said previously, any police officer that does commit police brutality ought to resign or be fired and charged. Police officers should be held to standards and by humanity I'll hold them to those standards, and myself when I become one.

As to the validity of this story, I am inclinded to belive it, not because I have a distrust of the police, or feel that every one of them is a raging monster, but you can see by the language used, by the fact that this thread has been posted, that the people there who witnessed and were a part of this, feel hard done by, truely feel that their civil liberties were walked all over.
Aye, I'm sure they do. The question is whether that actually happened or if they're just perceiving that it did because it's the sort of thing they were protesting. Suddenly because they trespassed on privately rented land they're rounded up and arrested for the minor crime and in the process they antagonize the police who take a few measures to ensure order(possibly with a few being overzealous who ought to be punished for it if it did happen). But from the point of view of the protesters it's like the police are brutalizing them. Think of it like the child who is spanked(Something that, by the way, I wholly discourage and would never do) by their parent sees the parent abusing them and horribly mangling them when they're just being mildly punished.

I'm not saying the protesters are children, mind, but the same warped perspective applies here and ought to be at least considered.

I'm afraid I"m going to have to err on the side of caution and accept the police's side of the story unless it can be substantially proven beyond the words of the protesters alone. By that, I mean witnesses to the event. I'd ask a police officer to say something except that they're probably ordered to stay quiet on the whole ordeal.

Which only makes sense considering how much the media will make out of any tiny little minimolehill.The media, at least in the OP's account, took the side of the police. (In such a way as to make anyone question their journalistic integrity, given that they only gave the side of the police in their piece.) Nonetheless, the police chief's wording - "The police didn't use tasers" is vastly different in meaning than "There was no police brutality" - is reason enough to be suspicious of the police.

The media, at least in the OP's account, took the side of the police. (In such a way as to make anyone question their journalistic integrity, given that they only gave the side of the police in their piece.) Nonetheless, the police chief's wording - "The police didn't use tasers" is vastly different in meaning than "There was no police brutality" - is reason enough to be suspicious of the police.
On that note I share the suspicion, if to a lesser extent, mainly because while the statement is suspicious it's not as if a police chief will word his statements as carefully as a politician. So, suspicion, but not as much as you might have.

What fucking lies? Just what the fuck are you talking about?
From your post #12:
According to individuals involved in the demonstration who witnessed it, one demonstrator, brandishing a sandwich while standing on top of a small bucket was allegedly bumped off of it by a police officer which resulted in the individual putting his hand on the officers shoulder to get his attention to ask why he knocked him down. At this point, several officers began violently subduing the individual, while making claims of having been assaulted by him. According to officers, the individual made a grab at an officer's throat, and thus provoked the confrontation.

Then a few pages later you say this:
Three of the reports say he was sitting on the bucket. And the cops were photographing the people involved. They had no good reason to get so close, but they had one bad reason: to make people nervous and try to provoke something.
Someone isn't telling the truth there. Someone is exaggertating or underplaying events to make it look like something very different happened. If they can't tell the truth about the event that (to some accounts) set it all off, why do you expect me to believe the rest of the accounts?


The standing on the bucket thing happened well before there was any request made for the group to disperse. In fact, by all accounts, the bucket-stander was arrested and gone before any such request was made.

The chanting, from all available accounts, appears to have started after the police began to arrest the person standing on a bucket.
Once again, do these protesters lack common sense? If we are to believe this version of events, many cops were standing extrememly close to this group without saying or doing anything. It makes no sense. Why wouldn't the protesters start forming an exit strategy? Why wouldn't the protesters ask the cops why they were standing inches from them?

Maybe bit with video taping police leading to felonies
http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews/2007/06/brian_d_kelly_didnt_think.html

That may not be a smart idea anymore
And it can keep people safe. And it doesn't stop you from anonymously dropping it off to the ACLU, a news reporting agency, ect.

It seemed "trespassing" was just an excuse to arrest some protesters. And the system is sick if an excuse is all an officer needs.
The cops were enforcing a law. It's kinda in the job description. And I don't buy for a moment that the cops were standing inches from these people and these people just happily ignored them. This would be lacking in the common sense department. "Officer, why are a whole bunch of you standing inches away from us?" They couldn't ask that question?

On that note I share the suspicion, if to a lesser extent, mainly because while the statement is suspicious it's not as if a police chief will word his statements as carefully as a politician. So, suspicion, but not as much as you might have.

I'm also curious why the ACLU hasn't gotten involved if this was really a case of police brutality. They step in when anything is even sort of over the line.

As to the validity of this story, I am inclinded to belive it, not because I have a distrust of the police, or feel that every one of them is a raging monster, but you can see by the language used, by the fact that this thread has been posted, that the people there who witnessed and were a part of this, feel hard done by, truely feel that their civil liberties were walked all over.

Personally, I'm always inclined, in situations like this, to believe that the truth lies somewhere in between. Most likely, the protesters were being more vocal and rude than they let on. Most likely, the police were much more aggressive and the protesters much less so than the police let on.

Because of the pictures and news accounts, I'm inclined to believe that the truth of the story lies closer to the protester's version than to the cops, but I don't think either is being entirely truthful.


Of course I don't, and as I said previously, any police officer that does commit police brutality ought to resign or be fired and charged. Police officers should be held to standards and by humanity I'll hold them to those standards, and myself when I become one.

Problem is, it is damn near impossible to hold police to any standard. Because of the way the law works and the rulings courts have made, a police officer pretty much has to either murder someone in front of a lot of witnesses or has to have a long record of brutality before that officer is held at all accountable for his actions. The type of accountability you are talking about is exactly what these protesters were marching for, but it simply doesn't exist from a legal standpoint.

I'm afraid I"m going to have to err on the side of caution and accept the police's side of the story unless it can be substantially proven beyond the words of the protesters alone. By that, I mean witnesses to the event. I'd ask a police officer to say something except that they're probably ordered to stay quiet on the whole ordeal.

The newspaper article posted here was closer to the protester's version than to that of the police.

Once again, do these protesters lack common sense? If we are to believe this version of events, many cops were standing extrememly close to this group without saying or doing anything. It makes no sense. Why wouldn't the protesters start forming an exit strategy? Why wouldn't the protesters ask the cops why they were standing inches from them?

According to them, they did ask that question. They also claim to have asked at least one officer for his name and badge number and were denied that information.

Do they lack common sense? Perhaps. But that doesn't mean that they did anything wrong. It really shouldn't be common sense to think, "Don't piss the cops off or they'll trample all over you with no accountability." The fact that it is common sense is exactly the problem. A citizen should not feel that they have to fear the police force when they are not doing anything wrong. And yet, that is the way of the world.

40 cops don't magically appear either. They say them coming, chose so stay.

If I'm sitting peaceably in a public park at a public celebration and having a picnic, should I need to jump up and run because some police are headed my way?

This is the problem here. Yes, we can all say, "Damn, they shouldn't have pissed off the police. Looks like they had it coming to them." Of course, that sounds pretty much exactly like, "Guess it's her own fault she was raped. She wore that revealing clothing and walked home alone."

Anyone want to bet whether or not the majority of these charges are dropped before the charges come to trial? That's the SOP these days for breaking up protests--round everyone up, rough them up a bit on the way, take them to jail and then quietly dismiss everything before the trial starts. The world moves on and no one even thinks to ask what happened.

More than just protests, though. Virtually all minor crimes are treated this way.

I can't quote. And if I'm so wrong, in fine the Spokane city ord that supports your claim.

It's the lack of a city ordinance that supports my claim. You are the one claiming it was somehow illegal to be a citizen at a celebration completely open to the public because Clear Channel might not like it. Considering that such a statement is pretty much contradictory to what "open to the public" means and that there is no indication whatsoever that Clear Channel had rented the entire park, that puts the onus on you.

I went to a Pride Festival in a park not so long ago. There was a Coca Cola stage. Coca Cola did not, however, rent the park. If I had been standing on a bucket telling people to drink Pepsi, Coca Cola could not have had me charged with trespassing.

If, on the other hand, my city has a law against using public spaces for protests without specific permits, and I were participating in a protest within that park, the city could have charged me with trespassing.

If I'm sitting peaceably in a public park at a public celebration and having a picnic, should I need to jump up and run because some police are headed my way?

This is the problem here. Yes, we can all say, "Damn, they shouldn't have pissed off the police. Looks like they had it coming to them." Of course, that sounds pretty much exactly like, "Guess it's her own fault she was raped. She wore that revealing clothing and walked home alone."

I never said fear the police. If you look at those pictures they weren't peacefully having a picnic. They were waving signs, chanting, ect. Those pictures aren't a peaceful picnic.


And they can easily get the police officer's badge numbers. It will be on the police report which is accessible via the Freedom of Information Ac.

It's the lack of a city ordinance that supports my claim. You are the one claiming it was somehow illegal to be a citizen at a celebration completely open to the public because Clear Channel might not like it. Considering that such a statement is pretty much contradictory to what "open to the public" means and that there is no indication whatsoever that Clear Channel had rented the entire park, that puts the onus on you.

I went to a Pride Festival in a park not so long ago. There was a Coca Cola stage. Coca Cola did not, however, rent the park. If I had been standing on a bucket telling people to drink Pepsi, Coca Cola could not have had me charged with trespassing.

If, on the other hand, my city has a law against using public spaces for protests without specific permits, and I were participating in a protest within that park, the city could have charged me with trespassing.

Most cities are pretty lax on their permits as far as protests go, but generally speaking, you need a permit if you are doing it in a public park. Generally these permits are free or under $20 and are more to protect the protesters than anything. Most cities also have "free speech" plazas in the heart of the city, outside federal buildings ect.

I issue activity permits for the city I live in, my office also runs the downtown security program so I'm well versed in these laws. We have a protests at least twice a month here.

The protest groups in my city like doing their homework. They take the time to read up on city ordinances, ect. I get several calls a week from protest groups, checking on certain laws ect (the city funnels them all to me:/).

A protest is an event like any other, you must responsibly organize it.

People renting a public space for public or private events do have certain rights to that space. They have the right to eject someone who's being disruptive. That's one of the reasons they get a permit.

But seriously, check it out for yourself if you want. You could call the city of spokane and ask for an activity permit or event packet and ask them what rights you have as an activity permit holder.

I never said fear the police. If you look at those pictures they weren't peacefully having a picnic. They were waving signs, chanting, ect. Those pictures aren't a peaceful picnic.

There is a picture where they are holding signs. But nothing to demonstrate waving. They could have just walked into the park and not put them down yet. The next picture shows people sitting on a blanket. After that, the police are involved.

One way or another, there is nothing to indicate that the group, as a whole, initiated violence. One guy might have, but he was arrested long before the police descended on the rest.

And they can easily get the police officer's badge numbers. It will be on the police report which is accessible via the Freedom of Information Ac.

That doesn't excuse any officer's refusal to give it when asked.

Most cities are pretty lax on their permits as far as protests go, but generally speaking, you need a permit if you are doing it in a public park. Generally these permits are free or under $20 and are more to protect the protesters than anything. Most cities also have "free speech" plazas in the heart of the city, outside federal buildings ect.

I issue activity permits for the city I live in, my office also runs the downtown security program so I'm well versed in these laws. We have a protests at least twice a month here.

The protest groups in my city like doing their homework. They take the time to read up on city ordinances, ect. I get several calls a week from protest groups, checking on certain laws ect (the city funnels them all to me:/).

A protest is an event like any other, you must responsibly organize it.

People renting a public space for public or private events do have certain rights to that space. They have the right to eject someone who's being disruptive. That's one of the reasons they get a permit.

In other words, you aren't actually arguing with me. The "trespassing" charge can stem from protesting without a permit.

Meanwhile, there is no indication whatsoever that Clear Channel had rented anything more than the area for the stage itself. It is highly unlikely that they rented the entire public park, especially with a festival-style celebration going on. There is no indication that this was a Clear Channel July 4th celebration or that Clear Channel had anything at all to do with the arrests. Instead, it appears that this was a public celebration in which Clear Channel was participating.

Taser now has a 12 gauge shotgun shell that is actually a taser device that flies to the target much further than the ordinary taser.

And if they shoot a protester with this, and you try to help them by trying to pull the wires out, it comes equipped with a special feature that routes the stun energy to you.

Continuing to strike fear into the hearts of, well, everyone, Taser has released an electrified round that works with any 12-gauge shotgun. The Wireless eXtended Range Electronic Projectile, or XREP, is a fin-stabilized, self-contained round with no wires leading back to the gun and a maximum range of 100 ft. Previous Tasers, such as the C2 civilian model I was hit with a few months ago, are only useful within around 30 ft.

The XREP punctures the target with multiple probes, and then unspools to dangle from the unfortunate belligerent's body, all the while applying Taser's infamous rapid-fire electrical pulses. As an added bonus, any helpful passerby trying to yank the XREP out of the target before the 20-second discharge cycle is finished will also get zapped, thanks to a "hand-trap wire" that's nestled in among the other hanging cables.


http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/technology_news/4219071.html

In other words, if you're a protester, and the police are provoked enough to want to stun you (which takes extremely little provocation for some), this is what you'll get.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Spokane is 280+ miles from Seattle. Unless they were transferred between the two cities between now and then, they sure as hell weren't called as auxiliaries to the WTO debacle. It's about the same distance as Detroit is from Chicago, and farther apart than DC is from NYC.

That said, however, institutional memory is certainly long in the police force. Prevailing institutional attitudes toward anyone waving a sign or chanting don't help, either.


My thinking is along the lines of what Columbus and Ohio State do come that day in mid November, the day of the Michigan game. The city imports police from all over the state, even from as far away as Toledo, to help with crowd control. Not the same distance, but I would assume that such similar responses might have been taken in Seattle when they were looking at violent protesters destroying stuff at random.

The 20 second discharge cycle for this is far longer than the one for the typical police taser (which is 5 seconds that lasts an eternity).

Remember this pic, so you know not to pick it up or help your friend.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/TaserBulb.gif

The next picture shows people sitting on a blanket.


Dear, stop being facetious. They were not sitting on a 'blanket', or at least something whose intended purpose was to be used as a blanket. They were sitting on a flag, complete with the loops to hang it with.

In other words, you aren't actually arguing with me. The "trespassing" charge can stem from protesting without a permit.

Meanwhile, there is no indication whatsoever that Clear Channel had rented anything more than the area for the stage itself. It is highly unlikely that they rented the entire public park, especially with a festival-style celebration going on. There is no indication that this was a Clear Channel July 4th celebration or that Clear Channel had anything at all to do with the arrests. Instead, it appears that this was a public celebration in which Clear Channel was participating.

I wouldn't be so certain...I know that Clear Channel rented out the entirety of Franklin Park for a concert once, so it wouldn't surprise me if they'd done it here too.

In other words, you aren't actually arguing with me. The "trespassing" charge can stem from protesting without a permit.

Meanwhile, there is no indication whatsoever that Clear Channel had rented anything more than the area for the stage itself. It is highly unlikely that they rented the entire public park, especially with a festival-style celebration going on. There is no indication that this was a Clear Channel July 4th celebration or that Clear Channel had anything at all to do with the arrests. Instead, it appears that this was a public celebration in which Clear Channel was participating.

That's not how permits work. Okay, if someone wants to use [insert name here] square, their permit for for the entire square, not just where the stage is. You can't subdivide an area like that (believe me people try all the time to save money). They can't for several reasons, one big reason is events like the Clear Channel event must carry liability insurance (in our city it's in the amount of one million dollars covering the city, my umbrella organization, and the organization I handly administration for, and they are reccomended to have a policy covering themselves).

Yes it was a public celebration, there's several public celebrations here in my city every year. Their permits grant them the right to evict someone who's a disturbance, a liability, ect.

That's not how permits work. Okay, if someone wants to use [insert name here] square, their permit for for the entire square, not just where the stage is. You can't subdivide an area like that (believe me people try all the time to save money). They can't for several reasons, one big reason is events like the Clear Channel event must carry liability insurance (in our city it's in the amount of one million dollars covering the city, my umbrella organization, and the organization I handly administration for, and they are reccomended to have a policy covering themselves).

Yes it was a public celebration, there's several public celebrations here in my city every year. Their permits grant them the right to evict someone who's a disturbance, a liability, ect.

Actually, permits DO work that way.

I was with the Gathering of Eagles, who were permitted for the entire area surrounding the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

With police assistance, we said who could go in, and who could not.

A small group of protesters against us were dismayed and told by the police that the permit excludes them from the area.

There is a picture where they are holding signs. But nothing to demonstrate waving. They could have just walked into the park and not put them down yet. The next picture shows people sitting on a blanket. After that, the police are involved.

One way or another, there is nothing to indicate that the group, as a whole, initiated violence. One guy might have, but he was arrested long before the police descended on the rest.



That doesn't excuse any officer's refusal to give it when asked.

They can still get it in a reasonable period. And who's to say what the officer was occupied with at the time. An officer's priority is their own safety, the safety of other officers, the safety of bystanders, controling the situation. Giving a badge number is way down on the list. The officer's mind is going a million miles an hour, constantly evaluating and re-evaluating the scene. Being in a crowd control scenario is one of the single most stressful scenarios they can be in. There's only so much a brain can process.

Also, what if the protesters were trying to distract the officer? What if they asked several questions? What if that's the fifth time the officer gave his badge number? I'm not saying they were trying to distract him, but he has to think along those lines.

Actually, permits DO work that way.

I was with the Gathering of Eagles, who were permitted for the entire area surrounding the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

With police assistance, we said who could go in, and who could not.

A small group of protesters against us were dismayed and told by the police that the permit excludes them from the area.

Um, why are you disagreeing with me? That's what I've been saying for pages.

Saying "no that's not how they work" and then saying the exact same thing I've been saying is not disagreeing.

Um, why are you disagreeing with me? That's what I've been saying for pages.

Saying "no that's not how they work" and then saying the exact same thing I've been saying is not disagreeing.

Because The Mall downtown is subdivided into very small packets.

Because The Mall downtown is subdivided into very small packets.

Not most cities no. Certainly not mine. We are very active with other downtown business organizations. None of them sibdivide it into extremely small packets.

Not most cities no. Certainly not mine. We are very active with other downtown business organizations. None of them sibdivide it into extremely small packets.

DC has to subdivide the Mall, unless you can definitely prove you're going to have more than a certain number of protesters.

So, Million Man March gets the whole Mall. But, most days, it's smaller groups of protesters.

And woe be unto you if you stray out of your area while continuing to protest, or protest without a permit.

The DC Police will pepper spray you until you stop breathing.

DC has to subdivide the Mall, unless you can definitely prove you're going to have more than a certain number of protesters.

So, Million Man March gets the whole Mall. But, most days, it's smaller groups of protesters.

And woe be unto you if you stray out of your area while continuing to protest, or protest without a permit.

The DC Police will pepper spray you until you stop breathing.

I was talking about Clear Channel's permit. And basically, the protesters here use the free speech plazas. And they can hang there all damn day permit and hassle free. They like them because they get to protest in front of federal buildings. But if the want the square, they a: rent the whole thing, b: have a big enough protest to need all the space.

I was talking about Clear Channel's permit. And basically, the protesters here use the free speech plazas. And they can hang there all damn day permit and hassle free. They like them because they get to protest in front of federal buildings. But if the want the square, they a: rent the whole thing, b: have a big enough protest to need all the space.

Lafayette Park is about the closest thing we have to a "free speech plaza".

But you have to be used to hanging out with drunk schizophrenics who have signs of their own, concerning their views on Federal government issues.

And if you stray one step out of the park still protesting, wham!

Lafayette Park is about the closest thing we have to a "free speech plaza".

But you have to be used to hanging out with drunk schizophrenics who have signs of their own, concerning their views on Federal government issues.

And if you stray one step out of the park still protesting, wham!

Fortunately, that's not how it works in the PNW.

Fortunately, that's not how it works in the PNW.

For a while there in the 1990s, we had a problem with people actually shooting at the White House, and crashing light planes into it.

The police around here are very sensitive to any appearance of disorder.

Dear, stop being facetious. They were not sitting on a 'blanket', or at least something whose intended purpose was to be used as a blanket. They were sitting on a flag, complete with the loops to hang it with.

Were there loops? Ok, I didn't see them.

I wouldn't be so certain...I know that Clear Channel rented out the entirety of Franklin Park for a concert once, so it wouldn't surprise me if they'd done it here too.

I'm not saying that you can't rent out an entire park. I'm saying that I doubt that's what happened here. Just as the celebration I recently went to had a Coca Cola stage, but Coca Cola wasn't renting the park or running the show.


They can still get it in a reasonable period. And who's to say what the officer was occupied with at the time. An officer's priority is their own safety, the safety of other officers, the safety of bystanders, controling the situation.

But apparently not the safety of citizens who the police decide they don't like having in the area.

But, once again, there's no indication that the other officers or bystanders were in danger or that any police officer would have reason to think that they were.

Giving a badge number is way down on the list. The officer's mind is going a million miles an hour, constantly evaluating and re-evaluating the scene. Being in a crowd control scenario is one of the single most stressful scenarios they can be in. There's only so much a brain can process.

This only became a "crowd control scenario" when the police came back, ordered the protesters to leave, and then charged them. Besides, if a police officer cannot handle that stress without jumping to violent measures when there is no indication that the offenders are dangerous, he shouldn't be a police officer. It's a stressful job, and those who take it need to be able to handle that stress.

I was talking about Clear Channel's permit. And basically, the protesters here use the free speech plazas. And they can hang there all damn day permit and hassle free. They like them because they get to protest in front of federal buildings. But if the want the square, they a: rent the whole thing, b: have a big enough protest to need all the space.

I still haven't seen any indication that this was Clear Channel's celebration - simply that they were involved in it. I've also seen no indication that any representative of Clear Channel asked that the group be removed. Where are you getting this information?

For a while there in the 1990s, we had a problem with people actually shooting at the White House, and crashing light planes into it.

The police around here are very sensitive to any appearance of disorder.

I can understand the extra security in DC, don't get me wrong. Given the history of the area and who's in DC, I think it's appropriate to be stricter about protests ect. DC is a unique area.

I can understand the extra security in DC, don't get me wrong. Given the history of the area and who's in DC, I think it's appropriate to be stricter about protests ect. DC is a unique area.

The only trend I've noticed nationally is the advent of pepper spray and Tasers.

Since then, police beatings have dropped significantly across the country.

Pepper spraying went way up. Most departments allow it on the first refusal of compliance. So, an officer tells you to get out of a car. You say, "No." The next step is getting sprayed.

Tasering is now done twice as much as pepper spraying - it's probably the most common form of subdual involving a police weapon.

Given the nature of the police you're dealing with, it's apparent that any non-compliance with the instructions of a police officer results in being subdued.

Were there loops? Ok, I didn't see them.



I'm not saying that you can't rent out an entire park. I'm saying that I doubt that's what happened here. Just as the celebration I recently went to had a Coca Cola stage, but Coca Cola wasn't renting the park or running the show.
That's generally what happens. I assume it's clear channel because that's the name on the Stage. Someone went and got a permit. Some person/organization had to. Someone is holding the liability insurance policy. And it sounds like they did rent out the entire park.



But apparently not the safety of citizens who the police decide they don't like having in the area.

But, once again, there's no indication that the other officers or bystanders were in danger or that any police officer would have reason to think that they were.
The people who were trepassing. Who refused to leave.


This only became a "crowd control scenario" when the police came back, ordered the protesters to leave, and then charged them. Besides, if a police officer cannot handle that stress without jumping to violent measures when there is no indication that the offenders are dangerous, he shouldn't be a police officer. It's a stressful job, and those who take it need to be able to handle that stress.
Of course they can handle the situation. They did it by the book.

From your post #12:


Then a few pages later you say this:

Someone isn't telling the truth there. Someone is exaggertating or underplaying events to make it look like something very different happened. If they can't tell the truth about the event that (to some accounts) set it all off, why do you expect me to believe the rest of the accounts?

Looking over the blog in which this one appeared, (The first of the myspace blogs I posted) I see that it is not a firsthand account. If you had read the bit before what you posted, you would have seen the words
According to individuals involved in the demonstration who witnessed it
The other three were all firsthand accounts, and all report the kid sitting on the bucket. So one person who gave a secondhand account was mistaken as to one small detail. however, the police report says that the kid grabbed the cop by the throat and squeezed, something none of the witnesses agree happened.

Dear, stop being facetious. They were not sitting on a 'blanket', or at least something whose intended purpose was to be used as a blanket. They were sitting on a flag, complete with the loops to hang it with.

Annnnnd? What does that mean? So they were sitting on a flag?

I still haven't seen any indication that this was Clear Channel's celebration - simply that they were involved in it. I've also seen no indication that any representative of Clear Channel asked that the group be removed. Where are you getting this information?

It was someone's. Someone had to get the permit to set the stage up and have the event. They had to. Generally the person spending the money likes their name(s) on the stage, on the fliers ect. That's why I figure it was Clear Channel.

There's no indication either way. But that's irrelevant. Do you think the security officer in a mall calls their manager every time they want to eject someone. Same scenario here. Security and police that patrol an event have the authority to make judgement calls.

That's generally what happens. I assume it's clear channel because that's the name on the Stage. Someone went and got a permit. Some person/organization had to. Someone is holding the liability insurance policy. And it sounds like they did rent out the entire park.




The people who were trepassing. Who refused to leave.

The were only told to leave a few SECONDS before being charged, while being surrounded. They had no where to go.

Of course they can handle the situation. They did it by the book.

They didn't read anyone their rights, even when being prompted to do so. That is not by the book.

Looking over the blog in which this one appeared, (The first of the myspace blogs I posted) I see that it is not a firsthand account. If you had read the bit before what you posted, you would have seen the words
The other three were all firsthand accounts, and all report the kid sitting on the bucket. So one person who gave a secondhand account was mistaken as to one small detail. however, the police report says that the kid grabbed the cop by the throat and squeezed, something none of the witnesses agree happened.

I read and quoted exactly what you posted, dear. And that's not a small detail, that's a pretty big one. Where's your link to the police report? Still haven't seen that.

The were only told to leave a few SECONDS before being charged, while being surrounded. They had no where to go.


They didn't read anyone their rights, even when being prompted to do so. That is not by the book.

Circumstances dictate when someone is read their rights. Sometimes it happens before they are handcuffed, sometimes after. Usually they get their rights read several times.

The only trend I've noticed nationally is the advent of pepper spray and Tasers.

Since then, police beatings have dropped significantly across the country.

Pepper spraying went way up. Most departments allow it on the first refusal of compliance. So, an officer tells you to get out of a car. You say, "No." The next step is getting sprayed.

Tasering is now done twice as much as pepper spraying - it's probably the most common form of subdual involving a police weapon.

Given the nature of the police you're dealing with, it's apparent that any non-compliance with the instructions of a police officer results in being subdued.

Tasering is so much better than pepper spray. Reason being, the pain is over when the discharge is over. Effects of pepperspray last for several hours. Federal cops and the cops aroudn here have very specific levels of force. First refusal (in most instances) doesn't get you tazed.

Tazing also doesn't affect bystanders.

Circumstances dictate when someone is read their rights. Sometimes it happens before they are handcuffed, sometimes after. Usually they get their rights read several times.

Not this time, apparently.

That's generally what happens. I assume it's clear channel because that's the name on the Stage. Someone went and got a permit. Some person/organization had to. Someone is holding the liability insurance policy. And it sounds like they did rent out the entire park.

It sounds like that from where? Why are you saying, "That's what generally happens," when my example is an example of someone's name being on the stage when they did not rent the park and were not running the event?

The people who were trepassing. Who refused to leave.

Even by the news account, it doesn't sound like they were given a chance to leave. The officers told them to leave. The protesters asked why. The police then rushed in and started arresting people.

Of course they can handle the situation. They did it by the book.

If this was "by the book", then we need to get the book, burn it, and have a rational person write a new one.

It was someone's. Someone had to get the permit to set the stage up and have the event. They had to. Generally the person spending the money likes their name(s) on the stage, on the fliers ect. That's why I figure it was Clear Channel.

In a large celebration, the stage would likely only be a portion of the money coming in. It could have been the city itself throwing the party. It wouldn't be all that unusual for a July 4th celebration. You assume that Clear Channel had rented out the park with no indication that this is true. In my experience, large celebrations that happen to include a [insert company here] stage are not run by that company. That company has simply contributed enough money to have their name put somewhere.

There's no indication either way. But that's irrelevant. Do you think the security officer in a mall calls their manager every time they want to eject someone. Same scenario here. Security and police that patrol an event have the authority to make judgement calls.

Unless there is a clear and established rule, they damn well better call their manager. Otherwise, you're going to get an awful lot of security guards ending up fired because of irate customers and a whole lot of police officers.....well, nothing will happen to them.

Not this time, apparently.

At some point they did.

Sounds like people should be reminding police officers that they're there to PROTECT the citizens, not hurt and bully them.

Over here, you don't get beaten and arrested for a peaceful assembly. And about the whole permit thing? Trespassing is not a violent crime, hence there is no need for the use of violence to stop it. Worst that should happen in cases like this is the culprits getting a fine. At least that's how it would have been handled here.

Honestly, whoever doesn't see this as an excessive use of force by the police doesn't value their freedom much. Law enforcement is honor bound to protect and to serve. That's not just empty words, or at least should not be.

At some point they did.

Are you certain? Do you have evidence of this? I know at least one person who was coerced into admission of a crime, arrested, processed, and then eventually let go without ever being read his rights. No charges were ever brought, likely because they knew said charges would never stick.

I know another who was arrested and held without food and water for two days for "violating" a restraining order he hadn't even been served with yet. That turned into a months-long fiasco.

I know of a police officer who claimed he saw an incidence of assault from within a convenience store and could therefore arrest the "offender". The problem with this story was that, in order to see the incident from within the store, the officer would have to be able to see through brick walls.


You seem to have this idea that the cops can do not wrong. It simply isn't true.

Sounds like people should be reminding police officers that they're there to PROTECT the citizens, not hurt and bully them.

The police who are going to understand that distinction already get it. And, unfortunately, we can't do much about the rest.

Honestly, whoever doesn't see this as an excessive use of force by the police doesn't value their freedom much. Law enforcement is honor bound to protect and to serve. That's not just empty words, or at least should not be.

It shouldn't be, but for some people "honor" doesn't mean much.

[QUOTE=Snafturi;12868732]That's generally what happens. I assume it's clear channel because that's the name on the Stage. Someone went and got a permit. Some person/organization had to. Someone is holding the liability insurance policy. And it sounds like they did rent out the entire park.

It sounds like that from where? Why are you saying, "That's what generally happens," when my example is an example of someone's name being on the stage when they did not rent the park and were not running the event?
Someone rented the park. Someone did. They had to in order to set up a stage. Someone's name was on the permit.

Even by the news account, it doesn't sound like they were given a chance to leave. The officers told them to leave. The protesters asked why. The police then rushed in and started arresting people.
They were waving signs and chanting, that's not leaving.


If this was "by the book", then we need to get the book, burn it, and have a rational person write a new one.
Read about crowd control and the theory behind it.


In a large celebration, the stage would likely only be a portion of the money coming in. It could have been the city itself throwing the party. It wouldn't be all that unusual for a July 4th celebration. You assume that Clear Channel had rented out the park with no indication that this is true. In my experience, large celebrations that happen to include a [insert company here] stage are not run by that company. That company has simply contributed enough money to have their name put somewhere.
Here's a great example. In a few weeks the City of {insertnamehere} is using the plaza for an event. They came to me, filled out the forms, and got a permitt. This is how cities do it. Cities are not in the business of throwing parties. Our city has a {insert city} celebration. The city has nothing to do with it. Hasn't ever. The fireworks, aren't put on by the city. The city may contribute funds, but they rarely are the ones throwing the parties.

The permit I just talked about is a health and welfare event. Its a DCS event sponsered by DCS to raise awareness of abuse. This is a very rare circumstance.


Unless there is a clear and established rule, they damn well better call their manager. Otherwise, you're going to get an awful lot of security guards ending up fired because of irate customers and a whole lot of police officers.....well, nothing will happen to them.
They have guidelines. Of course they do. I never said they didn't. That's asinine. People ejected from events are irate. Most of them complain. I know this because I get the angry phone calls, I read the angry rants on craigslist about my company's downtown security officers.

Are you certain? Do you have evidence of this? I know at least one person who was coerced into admission of a crime, arrested, processed, and then eventually let go without ever being read his rights. No charges were ever brought, likely because they knew said charges would never stick.

I know another who was arrested and held without food and water for two days for "violating" a restraining order he hadn't even been served with yet. That turned into a months-long fiasco.

I know of a police officer who claimed he saw an incidence of assault from within a convenience store and could therefore arrest the "offender". The problem with this story was that, in order to see the incident from within the store, the officer would have to be able to see through brick walls.


You seem to have this idea that the cops can do not wrong. It simply isn't true.

I never said cops can do no wrong. They didn't do wrong in this case. This case is the one under debate. I'm not debating global police practices here.

You and GAC seem to think protesters can do no wrong.

Ughhh. The American police system at it's best. Always said they were far too heavy handed.

If that happened here in Aus, there would be heads on pikes, open warfare, and some guy named Robespierre sitting with his feet up on the desk in the office at Kirribilli House.

And what the fuck are those zip ties? Those are for fucking cables and shit. Your police are brutal and primitive.

The police who are going to understand that distinction already get it. And, unfortunately, we can't do much about the rest.

You most certainly can. All you have to do is get enough interest and support to raise the issue during the next municipal elections. You're the city's electors, and if you work hard enough at the right places, you can ensure that at least one if not more of the candidates takes an interest in reining in overbearing police officers.

Or you can organize yourselves and all others so that, whenever such an event happens, the police department gets so swamped with official complaints of police brutality that the commanding officer can't ignore them without creating a scandal. You can find media outlets you can approach to let the real story out, unless there's no free press in your area.

Sure, you can't wage a head-on battle with the police force. But there are a few other options you can exploit.


It shouldn't be, but for some people "honor" doesn't mean much.

Those people shouldn't be wearing a police officer's uniform and badge.

Ughhh. The American police system at it's best. Always said they were far too heavy handed.

If that happened here in Aus, there would be heads on pikes, open warfare, and some guy named Robespierre sitting with his feet up on the desk in the office at Kirribilli House.

And what the fuck are those zip ties? Those are for fucking cables and shit. Your police are brutal and primitive.

Ever stop to think that maybe the police did not actually provoke things? Stop blaming cops for all the ills that goes on. It solves nothing. Also, try reading up on this issue. Tresspassing is a crime.

Sure, you can't wage a head-on battle with the police force. But there are a few other options you can exploit.

Come to the Australian Open sometime, and you'll see that you actually can.

Ever stop to think that maybe the police did not actually provoke things? Stop blaming cops for all the ills that goes on. It solves nothing. Also, try reading up on this issue. Tresspassing is a crime.

So the police bash them up and tie them up with cable ties? Yeah, very American. I'm surprised the American cop cars don't have autocannons mounted on them, to handle all those pinko-commie liberals.

So the police bash them up and tie them up with cable ties? Yeah, very American. I'm surprised the American cop cars don't have autocannons mounted on them, to handle all those pinko-commie liberals.

Are you trying to be obtuse?

Alrighty, people did make complaints that the protesters were disturbing the festivities.
More than 50 people marched through the Fourth of July festivities to protest police brutality and stopped under the clock tower for a picnic. Police moved in after receiving complaints that the group was disrupting entertainment at the park.

St. John admits he yelled at a Spokane police officer and touched the officer on his shoulder but denies allegations he grabbed the officer by the throat.
So in order for him to touch the policeman on the shoulder he'd have to be standing up making the MySpace blogs version of events false.

Source. (http://www.kxly.com/news/?sect_rank=2&section_id=560&story_id=12534)

Edit: you watch the video you can see Zack's not giving his hand to the cops.

Edit: In the video you can also see them protesting in the park, not having a picnic.

They were waving signs and chanting, that's not leaving.

They chanted when the first guy was arrested. There's no indication that there was much, if any, chanting and waving going on outside of interaction with the police. All accounts (even the news one) suggest that police rushed the group almost immediately after asking them to leave, giving them no chance whatsoever to do so.

Read about crowd control and the theory behind it.

I don't know what the theory is, but the practice quite often seems to be, "In large crowds, assume everybody is your enemy. Be very paranoid. Initiate violence quickly, with no regard given to whether or not your enemy is violent."

They have guidelines. Of course they do. I never said they didn't. That's asinine. People ejected from events are irate. Most of them complain. I know this because I get the angry phone calls, I read the angry rants on craigslist about my company's downtown security officers.

And you just assume that none of said complaints can possibly be warranted?

I never said cops can do no wrong. They didn't do wrong in this case. This case is the one under debate. I'm not debating global police practices here.

I don't see how anyone can see this as anything but the cops doing wrong. They violently apprehended people who were not threatening violence. They gave an order to disperse without explaining the reason to those receiving the order, and then gave no time for the offenders to even try and follow it. They refused to give standard information about themselves to citizens asking for it.

You and GAC seem to think protesters can do no wrong.

Now that just proves that you haven't bothered to read a single post I've written. Go back and read my posts and then try to make that idiotic claim again.

I don't know what the theory is, but the practice quite often seems to be, "In large crowds, assume everybody is your enemy. Be very paranoid. Initiate violence quickly, with no regard given to whether or not your enemy is violent."

And yet, people in the crowd have started more violent actions against police than the other way around.

Are you trying to be obtuse?

Umm, no. Are you sure you know what the word means? I don't think I lack focus.

And yet, people in the crowd have started more violent actions against police than the other way around.

Bullshit. We've had, what, one major anti-cop riot in the last decade? Wheras every month we hear another story of the cops breaking up a protest without cause. We hear of Rodney King and the people in LA this last summer. We hear of that student at UCLA. We hear of protesters intimidated in DC during major anti-war marches. The police have a problem and that problem is a culture of violence that needs to be fixed.

Umm, no. Are you sure you know what the word means? I don't think I lack focus.

Obtuse:
Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.
Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity: an obtuse remark.

Tresspassing is a crime.

So are parking offenses, cutting a tree without a city permit, and setting up an unregistered business. And and I don't think any of those crimes warrant a violent arrest.

The protesters might well have been in the wrong, but the problem here is the excessive use of force by the police. I was also under the (seemingly fasle) impression that the right to assemble peacefully was protected under the first amendment of your constitution.

In my opinion, the protesters should certainly go and make a legal case out of this, with the city as the defendant, since they're the employers of the policement who broke their picnic. Nothing like a few million's worth in lawsuit to teach the mayor and city officials that they should carefully impress upon their police force that there is a difference between a violent, dangerous mob and a handful of protesters having a picnic.

You most certainly can. All you have to do is get enough interest and support to raise the issue during the next municipal elections. You're the city's electors, and if you work hard enough at the right places, you can ensure that at least one if not more of the candidates takes an interest in reining in overbearing police officers.

Good luck with that, considering that the types of people who run for office generally aren't interested in such issues.

Or you can organize yourselves and all others so that, whenever such an event happens, the police department gets so swamped with official complaints of police brutality that the commanding officer can't ignore them without creating a scandal. You can find media outlets you can approach to let the real story out, unless there's no free press in your area.

Ok, so the officer in question gets a little bit of paid leave, and then is back on the force.

Sure, you can't wage a head-on battle with the police force. But there are a few other options you can exploit.

They've all been tried. Problem is, the law in this country has basically made it so that the police essentially are not liable for their actions. They aren't liable if they don't do their jobs. The court has actually held that a police officer can sit back and passively watch a person being raped or beaten, take no action whatsoever, and he cannot be held at all liable for it.

They aren't liable if they do their jobs wrong. The police can get an address wrong, bust in the door of a law-abiding citizen, shoot the family dog, start shooting tear gas all over the place, and burn down the house. Guess what? Not liable for any of it.

Hell, in some places, they can blatantly break the law and still stay on the force. In a nearby town, a police officer slept with a 16-year old girl in exchange for not telling her parents that she was at a party involving underage drinking. He actually, while on duty, drove her to a hotel and had sex with her. Guess what? He's still on the force.

Those people shouldn't be wearing a police officer's uniform and badge.

Oh, I agree.


And yet, people in the crowd have started more violent actions against police than the other way around.

I don't know if that's true or not. But even when it is true, it's usually a small proportion who do anything remotely violent. But the reaction is all too often that police then go in indiscriminately.

Bullshit. We've had, what, one major anti-cop riot in the last decade? Wheras every month we hear another story of the cops breaking up a protest without cause.

Everybody tells the exact same story. The cops broke it up without provocation. Give me a break. I am tired of the same exact set of lines from every protest that provoked the police department. Has the police overstepped? They do at times. I can not deny it. In the case of protests though? Who can be believed? The cops? the Protestors? The media (which reports from both sides most of the time). To lay the blame on one set of people (the police in your case) is totally asinine

We hear of Rodney King and the people in LA this last summer.

That one CAN be layed at the cops feet.

We hear of that student at UCLA. We hear of protesters intimidated in DC during major anti-war marches. The police have a problem and that problem is a culture of violence that needs to be fixed.

Or could it be that they are enforcing laws as well? Stop blaming the cops for everything. Most of the time, they are doing their jobs. So long.

So are parking offenses, cutting a tree without a city permit, and setting up an unregistered business. And and I don't think any of those crimes warrant a violent arrest.

If they do not comply and the cops are forced to do so...is it the police's fault for being forced to haul them away when they are warned that they are violating the law and to leave?

They've all been tried. Problem is, the law in this country has basically made it so that the police essentially are not liable for their actions. They aren't liable if they don't do their jobs. The court has actually held that a police officer can sit back and passively watch a person being raped or beaten, take no action whatsoever, and he cannot be held at all liable for it.

They aren't liable if they do their jobs wrong. The police can get an address wrong, bust in the door of a law-abiding citizen, shoot the family dog, start shooting tear gas all over the place, and burn down the house. Guess what? Not liable for any of it.


Sounds like you should start thinking of moving over to Canada.

If they do not comply and the cops are forced to do so...is it the police's fault for being forced to haul them away when they are warned that they are violating the law and to leave?

The story seems quite clear on the fact that the officers did not bother to give the protesters time to disperse on their own. But even if they had, no, they should not have the right to haul people away for such an insignificant offense as "trespassing" in a fucking public park, rented or not. There should have been an officer strolling around giving tickets until those protesters figured staying there was not gonna be very cost-efficient for them, not half a regiment of policemen shoving people to the ground, tying their hands behind their backs with plastic wire, humiliating, hurting and bullying them.

Obviously, you and I do not seem to attach the same importance to key concepts such as freedom of assembly, government responsibility to guarantee the safety of its citizen, and excessive use of force.

Everybody tells the exact same story. The cops broke it up without provocation. Give me a break. I am tired of the same exact set of lines from every protest that provoked the police department. Has the police overstepped? They do at times. I can not deny it. In the case of protests though? Who can be believed? The cops? the Protestors? The media (which reports from both sides most of the time). To lay the blame on one set of people (the police in your case) is totally asinine

Right, uhuh. We hear the same thing, so it must mean that it's a lie, and not that it is true. Please remove your head from the sand, it makes hearing you quite difficult.


That one CAN be layed at the cops feet.

Rodney King is not a stand alone occurance. Rodney King's happen every month, but we do not see them.

Or could it be that they are enforcing laws as well? Stop blaming the cops for everything. Most of the time, they are doing their jobs. So long.

No, it could not. It could be that they have a culture of violence that we have seen again and again.

I don't know if that's true or not. But even when it is true, it's usually a small proportion who do anything remotely violent. But the reaction is all too often that police then go in indiscriminately.

Now there I can agree with you. It is normally a minority that ruin it for all. Unfortunately, cops can not distinquish between those who are doing nothing wrong and those who are inciting them. The problem is when the cops start arresting those who are inciteful, a bigger incident ensues. The cops are pretty much damned if they do and damned if they don't.

They chanted when the first guy was arrested. There's no indication that there was much, if any, chanting and waving going on outside of interaction with the police. All accounts (even the news one) suggest that police rushed the group almost immediately after asking them to leave, giving them no chance whatsoever to do so.
The report said there were numerous complaints. The protesters didn't look completely surrounded either.



I don't know what the theory is, but the practice quite often seems to be, "In large crowds, assume everybody is your enemy. Be very paranoid. Initiate violence quickly, with no regard given to whether or not your enemy is violent."



And you just assume that none of said complaints can possibly be warranted?
Not in this case no. Especially not after watching video.

I don't see how anyone can see this as anything but the cops doing wrong. They violently apprehended people who were not threatening violence. They gave an order to disperse without explaining the reason to those receiving the order, and then gave no time for the offenders to even try and follow it. They refused to give standard information about themselves to citizens asking for it.
And you saw that in the video? Handcuffing /= violence. Anyone is welcome to that info. Call the SPD and ask for it yourself if you like

Now that just proves that you haven't bothered to read a single post I've written. Go back and read my posts and then try to make that idiotic claim again.
Take some of your own advice before making idiotic claims yourself.

Bullshit. We've had, what, one major anti-cop riot in the last decade? Wheras every month we hear another story of the cops breaking up a protest without cause. We hear of Rodney King and the people in LA this last summer. We hear of that student at UCLA. We hear of protesters intimidated in DC during major anti-war marches. The police have a problem and that problem is a culture of violence that needs to be fixed.

It's what the news agencies choose to cover. Portland has had a rash of violent protests turned riots, so has Eugene. I know about these because I live in the area. They don't get nearly the coverage in national news.

It's what the news agencies choose to cover. Portland has had a rash of violent protests turned riots, so has Eugene. I know about these because I live in the area. They don't get nearly the coverage in national news.

Eugene/Portland is kind of a standalone in that regard. Eugene's anarchist scene was the group who set off the WTO riots. They have some real problems, and those need to be handled as well.

In my opinion, the protesters should certainly go and make a legal case out of this, with the city as the defendant, since they're the employers of the policement who broke their picnic. Nothing like a few million's worth in lawsuit to teach the mayor and city officials that they should carefully impress upon their police force that there is a difference between a violent, dangerous mob and a handful of protesters having a picnic.

Unfortunately, you can't sue the government unless the government gives you permission. You can sue individuals within that government, but not the government itself. They could try suing individual police officers, but most courts would give them qualified immunity. They could then try the police captain or the mayor or something like that. If they were rich, it might do some good.

Sounds like you should start thinking of moving over to Canada.

It's crossed my mind, but I don't think they'd let me yet.

Seriously though, I don't want to leave my country. I want to fix it. I just get jaded about that sometimes.

The report said there were numerous complaints. The protesters didn't look completely surrounded either.

It looked pretty crowded to me. Even if the police themselves were not surrounding them (which would go against every single available account), there were enough people and they had enough belongings that leaving wouldn't be an instant occurrence. And all accounts agree that the police rushed in almost immediately after asking the protesters to leave.

Not in this case no. Especially not after watching video.

And you saw that in the video? Handcuffing /= violence. Anyone is welcome to that info. Call the SPD and ask for it yourself if you like

The only video that has been up shows very little. I got that from the pictures and the accounts. Handcuffing alone isn't violence. However, hitting/poking with a baton is - and one of the pictures shows that pretty clearly. Throwing people to the ground is violent. Even the use of zip ties rather than actual cuffs suggests that it was done violently. Those measures are generally used when the police rush in and use force, rather than calmly arresting someone.

Take some of your own advice before making idiotic claims yourself.

What idiotic claims? I haven't made any claims that aren't backed up by the evidence at hand.

You, on the other hand, made a claim that I "think protesters can do no wrong," despite EXPLICIT statements to the contrary I've made in this very thread. I've even EXPLICITLY stated that I don't buy the first-hand accounts completely, that I think they are probably leaving out some of their own actions.

The only trend I've noticed nationally is the advent of pepper spray and Tasers.

Since then, police beatings have dropped significantly across the country.

Pepper spraying went way up. Most departments allow it on the first refusal of compliance. So, an officer tells you to get out of a car. You say, "No." The next step is getting sprayed.

it's apparent that any non-compliance with the instructions of a police officer results in being subdued.

Note that non copliance as far as I'm aware does not require you to say 'No' your absence of following the instruction is also viewed as non compliance, even if you don't understand or aknowledge the order.

Thus another potential victimization of an otherwise innocent and non offending person.

Eugene/Portland is kind of a standalone in that regard. Eugene's anarchist scene was the group who set off the WTO riots. They have some real problems, and those need to be handled as well.

The reaction the Eugene mayor had to the anarchist riots really pissed me off. He condoned the event and thought it was a great use of free speech. Breaking large plate glass windows @ 10K a piece is not free speech nor is it responsible.

/threadjack

It looked pretty crowded to me. Even if the police themselves were not surrounding them (which would go against every single available account), there were enough people and they had enough belongings that leaving wouldn't be an instant occurrence. And all accounts agree that the police rushed in almost immediately after asking the protesters to leave.
All the MySpace accounts maybe. Look at the inital footage again. And once again, they were protesting under the clock tower. The police had recieved several complaints about the noise. You asked for proof of this, I got you proof.

The only video that has been up shows very little. I got that from the pictures and the accounts. Handcuffing alone isn't violence. However, hitting/poking with a baton is - and one of the pictures shows that pretty clearly. Throwing people to the ground is violent. Even the use of zip ties rather than actual cuffs suggests that it was done violently. Those measures are generally used when the police rush in and use force, rather than calmly arresting someone.

No, zip ties are used in all crowd control situations. There just isn't that many handcuff to go around. Zip ties also can't be used by the person as a weapon if the police lose control of the arestee. Handcuffs can. Zip ties are faster to put on. Hand cuffs take longer.

What idiotic claims? I haven't made any claims that aren't backed up by the evidence at hand.

You, on the other hand, made a claim that I "think protesters can do no wrong," despite EXPLICIT statements to the contrary I've made in this very thread. I've even EXPLICITLY stated that I don't buy the first-hand accounts completely, that I think they are probably leaving out some of their own actions.
You made the comment that I thought police could do no wrong even though I never said anything of the sort. In fact, I said I have seen real police brutality earlier in this thread.

My thinking is along the lines of what Columbus and Ohio State do come that day in mid November, the day of the Michigan game. The city imports police from all over the state, even from as far away as Toledo, to help with crowd control. Not the same distance, but I would assume that such similar responses might have been taken in Seattle when they were looking at violent protesters destroying stuff at random.

Agreed. I'm just saying that the WTO got out of hand far faster than reinforcements could have been called from 50 miles away, let alone 280. The need for anti-riot action wasn't assumed on the part of the SPD, and while they had a standard off-duty crowd-control contingency large enough to manage a standard parade, when the assholes from Eugene, OR began to act up, they were caught off guard. Police from Tacoma (30mi. S) couldn't have really been any help.

The 20 second discharge cycle for this is far longer than the one for the typical police taser (which is 5 seconds that lasts an eternity).

Remember this pic, so you know not to pick it up or help your friend.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/TaserBulb.gif

Rubber gloves? Wooden shoes or thick rubber soles?

Agreed. I'm just saying that the WTO got out of hand far faster than reinforcements could have been called from 50 miles away, let alone 280. The need for anti-riot action wasn't assumed on the part of the SPD, and while they had a standard off-duty crowd-control contingency large enough to manage a standard parade, when the assholes from Eugene, OR began to act up, they were caught off guard. Police from Tacoma (30mi. S) couldn't have really been any help.

Didn't the previous police cheif lose his job because his people weren't properly prepared, too?

Didn't the previous police cheif lose his job because his people weren't properly prepared, too?

Faster than you can say "they've got tear gas?!?"

All the MySpace accounts maybe.

No, all of them. The news stories as well. The police probably will tell you they gave plenty of time, but they'd be the only ones thus far.

Look at the inital footage again. And once again, they were protesting under the clock tower. The police had recieved several complaints about the noise. You asked for proof of this, I got you proof.

I'm not sure what "initial footage" you're talking about. The video on the news site shows people being led away, but none of the lead-up to it. The youtube video is essentially useless as far as telling what is going on.

No, zip ties are used in all crowd control situations. There just isn't that many handcuff to go around. Zip ties also can't be used by the person as a weapon if the police lose control of the arestee. Handcuffs can. Zip ties are faster to put on. Hand cuffs take longer.

This probably has a lot to do with the fact that, when police start arresting people in crowds, they almost always do it quickly and violently.

You made the comment that I thought police could do no wrong even though I never said anything of the sort. In fact, I said I have seen real police brutality earlier in this thread.

That comment was made in response to an assumption on your part. Someone said that these people were not read their rights. You answered that they were read them at some point, assuming that the police couldn't possibly have neglected that little duty.

I apologize if I missed your earlier statements - I didn't join the thread until it was fairly long. However, my statements were made during my interaction with you.

It seems to me that the truth, as is usually the case in human affairs, lies in between the two extremes of barbaric cops (I will say that zip-ties can be misapplied and lead to injury, though), and angelic protestors (who live in Spokane and yet can't figure out that picnicking on an actual US flag juuuuust might incite some people's knee-jerk patriotic reflex).

That said, though, it seems to me that the side most responsible for exercising restraint should be the side whose motto is "to serve and protect" and whose complement of accoutrements includes a variety of lethal and non-lethal weapons.

"to serve and protect"

"cash bribes only" :D

Why is it that peaceful protests end more violently than violent protests nowadays?

who live in Spokane and yet can't figure out that picnicking on an actual US flag juuuuust might incite some people's knee-jerk patriotic reflex.

This is irrelevant. Police officers are trained and paid professionals, and they're not entitled to having "knee-jerk reactions" while they're exercising their duties. They have to be impartial and concerned only about the law an the security of humans beings. Picknicking on a flag is not against the law, and thus it should not even be considered a factor at all.

If you create a precedent with this, you're legitimating a host of other stupidity, such as policemen turning a blind eye on violence made on gays or minorities because they themselves are homophobic or racist. Or zealous policement trying to enforce religious or moral principles that aren't laws on people who don't share their faith/ethics.

Policemen should not be granted the flexibility to decide themselves the limits of their powers.


That said, though, it seems to me that the side most responsible for exercising restraint should be the side whose motto is "to serve and protect" and whose complement of accoutrements includes a variety of lethal and non-lethal weapons.
Much agreement on this.

It seems to me that the truth, as is usually the case in human affairs, lies in between the two extremes of barbaric cops (I will say that zip-ties can be misapplied and lead to injury, though), and angelic protestors (who live in Spokane and yet can't figure out that picnicking on an actual US flag juuuuust might incite some people's knee-jerk patriotic reflex).

That said, though, it seems to me that the side most responsible for exercising restraint should be the side whose motto is "to serve and protect" and whose complement of accoutrements includes a variety of lethal and non-lethal weapons.

Precisely.


This is irrelevant. Police officers are trained and paid professionals, and they're not entitled to having "knee-jerk reactions" while they're exercising their duties. They have to be impartial and concerned only about the law an the security of humans beings. Picknicking on a flag is not against the law, and thus it should not even be considered a factor at all.

If you create a precedent with this, you're legitimating a host of other stupidity, such as policemen turning a blind eye on violence made on gays or minorities because they themselves are homophobic or racist. Or zealous policement trying to enforce religious or moral principles that aren't laws on people who don't share their faith/ethics.

Policemen should not be granted the flexibility to decide themselves the limits of their powers.

Indeed.


Look, there's no doubt that the protesters were looking to evoke a reaction. And personally, I have no doubt that at least some of them were probably rude and loud about it. But police officers can't give in to knee-jerk reactions. I don't care if one of the protesters looked an officer in they eye and said, "Hey, I fucked your momma last night," or something similar. Without violence from the protesters, violence on the part of the police officers was not warranted. Period.

Precisely.

Indeed.

Look, there's no doubt that the protesters were looking to evoke a reaction. And personally, I have no doubt that at least some of them were probably rude and loud about it. But police officers can't give in to knee-jerk reactions. I don't care if one of the protesters looked an officer in they eye and said, "Hey, I fucked your momma last night," or something similar. Without violence from the protesters, violence on the part of the police officers was not warranted. Period.
Except, without video proof of either the Brushing of shoulders (one account), the knocking off of a bucket (another account), the attempted strangling (third account), the tapping of the shoulders (yet another account) and all the various other versions... it comes down to who's word to take. those trained to be observers, or those not trained.

add to that the fact that NO ONE in a POLICE BRUTALITY PROTEST did NOT have a video camera present and NO ONE caught any of these accounts...

Makes it hard to back up anything against the police.

Except, without video proof of either the Brushing of shoulders (one account), the knocking off of a bucket (another account), the attempted strangling (third account), the tapping of the shoulders (yet another account) and all the various other versions... it comes down to who's word to take. those trained to be observers, or those not trained.

If the guy in question was violent, then the officers would be right to forcefully arrest him.

What most people seem to be missing, however, is that the arrests of the others did not happen immediately. They arrested this one guy, who may or may not have initiated violence. There are no claims that the 16 others initiated any violence, yet they were at least shoved with batons (as shown in the pictures) and thrown to the ground (also evident in the pictures). One of the girls in the pictures looks to be pretty obviously in pain.

add to that the fact that NO ONE in a POLICE BRUTALITY PROTEST did NOT have a video camera present and NO ONE caught any of these accounts...

Makes it hard to back up anything against the police.

Someone obviously had a camera. Of course, even if they had a video camera, it would be a bit difficult to use it while being thrown to the ground, don't you think?

It is always hard to back up anything against the police. Even with a video, the police will claim that something before the video happened warranted the violence, or that people are misinterpreting the video, or whatever else they can come up with. There was video of the police repeatedly tasing a student and yelling for him to get up while doing it, but that case doesn't seem to have ever gone anywhere.

If the guy in question was violent, then the officers would be right to forcefully arrest him.

What most people seem to be missing, however, is that the arrests of the others did not happen immediately. They arrested this one guy, who may or may not have initiated violence. There are no claims that the 16 others initiated any violence, yet they were at least shoved with batons (as shown in the pictures) and thrown to the ground (also evident in the pictures). One of the girls in the pictures looks to be pretty obviously in pain. and of those others... only two? three? ended up going to court. there's a video of them being lead away, and no one looks hurt nor does it look like the police are being overly "brutal" with them. no dragging away kicking/screaming... infact, you see one officer leading two away... both in cuffs are smiling.

however, if you read the op and other witness accounts, you see the officers 'cherry picking' people. 16 out of over 50 people. so it wasn't unnecissary force, but controlled force.

Someone obviously had a camera. Of course, even if they had a video camera, it would be a bit difficult to use it while being thrown to the ground, don't you think?that would be proof of such violence.

It is always hard to back up anything against the police. Even with a video, the police will claim that something before the video happened warranted the violence, or that people are misinterpreting the video, or whatever else they can come up with. There was video of the police repeatedly tasing a student and yelling for him to get up while doing it, but that case doesn't seem to have ever gone anywhere.you mean the video that only shows the kid screaming and yellling while the officer is telling the student to stand up?

yep... it shows alot of restraint on the part of those offices while a mob is threatening to form around them (there is one shot of several students screaming at the cop, mere inches from his face.)

but I am curious as to what happened with that investigation...

and of those others... only two? three? ended up going to court. there's a video of them being lead away, and no one looks hurt nor does it look like the police are being overly "brutal" with them. no dragging away kicking/screaming... infact, you see one officer leading two away... both in cuffs are smiling.

Yes, they are being led quietly. They aren't struggling. This is even more evidence that throwing them on the ground and use of batons was unnecessary.

(and nobody is in cuffs - zip ties are quite different).

however, if you read the op and other witness accounts, you see the officers 'cherry picking' people. 16 out of over 50 people. so it wasn't unnecissary force, but controlled force.

And yet no explanation of those people being picked in the first place. And the fact that they didn't arrest everyone doesn't make the force they used unnecessary.

you mean the video that only shows the kid screaming and yellling while the officer is telling the student to stand up?

And the kid screaming in pain? Yeah, that one. Actually, you can mostly only hear him, but even the police didn't deny that they had tazed him.

yep... it shows alot of restraint on the part of those offices while a mob is threatening to form around them (there is one shot of several students screaming at the cop, mere inches from his face.)

Restraint? You mean the cop who threatens a student who has the audacity to ask him for his name and badge number?

Yes, they are being led quietly. They aren't struggling. This is even more evidence that throwing them on the ground and use of batons was unnecessary. which by your post was only evident in the pics. but not shown that they did such things.

And yet no explanation of those people being picked in the first place. And the fact that they didn't arrest everyone doesn't make the force they used unnecessary. the only thing is that several complaints were filed that the group was disrupting the park entertainment. one witness did say "It seemed like they wanted to be arrested." to a news reporter. so the arresting (or more like detaining/removing) of those people could be due to that and the refusal to disperse order.

And the kid screaming in pain? Yeah, that one. Actually, you can mostly only hear him, but even the police didn't deny that they had tazed him. of course they didn't deny tasering him. the student didn't leave when asked. even after the officer left and came back.

Restraint? You mean the cop who threatens a student who has the audacity to ask him for his name and badge number?yep, the one student asking for his name and badge number while being 'backed up' by his two or three friends.

Did you see the cop taser him or tell him to back away or he will be tasered?

or would you preferre the cops not give any warning before taking action?

Miscommunication always gets ugly when one side is significantly more powerful. As such, the powerful side should learn conflict resolution skills, which would include what the protestors (according to their blogs) were looking for - to listen to the questions, answer them, and explain what the problem was.

Also, the protestors aren't trespassing if they are on public land and not actually in the venue (the concert) that was in private use. However, since they were apparently disturbing the concert, they could be charged for disturbing the peace instead....

which by your post was only evident in the pics. but not shown that they did such things.

Do you think the pictures are faked?

the only thing is that several complaints were filed that the group was disrupting the park entertainment. one witness did say "It seemed like they wanted to be arrested." to a news reporter. so the arresting (or more like detaining/removing) of those people could be due to that and the refusal to disperse order.

Once again, if they wanted to be arrested - if they would go along quietly (and it seems that they would) - there was no need to rush them and start putting people on the ground.

of course they didn't deny tasering him. the student didn't leave when asked. even after the officer left and came back.

There is no call whatsoever for police to use weapons on someone unless that person is being violent. And it is completely asinine to tase someone and then immediately start yelling, "GET UP!"

yep, the one student asking for his name and badge number while being 'backed up' by his two or three friends.

Did you see the cop taser him or tell him to back away or he will be tasered?

The cop waved the taser in his direction and told him to back off, ignoring the perfectly lawful question he had just been asked. The cop's life was not in any danger and the police outnumbered the one offender they were there to remove. Nobody but the cops had been at all violent. The student asking the question neither made threats of violence nor seemed inclined to initiate violence. There is absolutely no reason that the officer should not have given his name and badge number when asked. The fact that he didn't would seem to be evidence that he knew he was overdoing things.

or would you preferre the cops not give any warning before taking action?

Actually, I wish they were required to give warning. I wish they would actually be held liable when they overdo it. I wish some cops actually thought they were there to serve and protect, rather than bully and scare. We'd all be better off that way (including the cops who do actually wish to serve and protect).

No, all of them. The news stories as well. The police probably will tell you they gave plenty of time, but they'd be the only ones thus far.
Well of course the protesters are saying that along with any sympathizers.


I'm not sure what "initial footage" you're talking about. The video on the news site shows people being led away, but none of the lead-up to it. The youtube video is essentially useless as far as telling what is going on.

The first few seconds of the clip I linked to. Yes, the youtube video is worthless.

This probably has a lot to do with the fact that, when police start arresting people in crowds, they almost always do it quickly and violently.
Quickly, not violently. They arrest the people they need to arrest and get out of there. It lessens the chance suspects will run away, it lessens the time the cops are exposed to dangers, it's not pleasant and it's not fun. To say it's violent is wrong. You hancuff someone against a wall, an object, or the ground. The ground is usually the best, if the person is resisting (like you could see zack doing) the ground is the best place. The cops keep positive control over the person they are arresting, it's not voilent. It's how arrests happen. It's how they've been happening and will continue to happen.


That comment was made in response to an assumption on your part. Someone said that these people were not read their rights. You answered that they were read them at some point, assuming that the police couldn't possibly have neglected that little duty.
If they weren't, we'd have found out during zack's hearing today.

I apologize if I missed your earlier statements - I didn't join the thread until it was fairly long. However, my statements were made during my interaction with you.
It's a bad generalization of my stance.

Disgusting... I personally don't doubt it very much at all.
Police HATE Anarchists.

But boy there is going to be hell to pay in the courts.

Well of course the protesters are saying that along with any sympathizers.

And the news accounts.

The first few seconds of the clip I linked to. Yes, the youtube video is worthless.

I'm having trouble finding any clip that you linked to. Was it really early in the thread?

Quickly, not violently.

The use of batons and throwing people to the ground is violent. There's no way around that.

If they weren't, we'd have found out during zack's hearing today.

First of all, he was a single arrest made well before the others. His case may be quite different.

Second of all, you will never know whether or not he (or any of the others) was read his rights unless they taped themselves reading said rights to him. None of us will ever know because we weren't there.

Third of all, something like that may or may not be brought up in a hearing. It's a bit silly to assume it would be.

It's a bad generalization of my stance.

It was a reaction to a specific set of remarks. I apologize, but that is the impression those remarks were giving.

Do you think the pictures are faked? truth be told, it wouldn't be the first time. but seriously... A picture only shows part of the story.

Once again, if they wanted to be arrested - if they would go along quietly (and it seems that they would) - there was no need to rush them and start putting people on the ground. yet they refused to disperse when told to do so. if Their accounts are true, so would others.

There is no call whatsoever for police to use weapons on someone unless that person is being violent. And it is completely asinine to tase someone and then immediately start yelling, "GET UP!" about as asinine as 1) refusing to show ID to an officer when requested while 2) in an area that is prohibited to anyone not part of that facility at certain times and 3) refusing to leave when requested.


The cop waved the taser in his direction and told him to back off, ignoring the perfectly lawful question he had just been asked. The cop's life was not in any danger and the police outnumbered the one offender they were there to remove. Nobody but the cops had been at all violent. The student asking the question neither made threats of violence nor seemed inclined to initiate violence. There is absolutely no reason that the officer should not have given his name and badge number when asked. The fact that he didn't would seem to be evidence that he knew he was overdoing things.wrong. the cop didn't wave anything to that student. Wrong again, because the officers were outnumbered with a group that was showing signs of getting out of control. Wrong for a third time because the students were visibly agitated thus 'Yelling at the cop for information' is not Not being threatening. and the reason why the officer didn't give his name and badge number is because of the fact that he was keeping track of multiple people. if the student was honestly trying to get the name and badge number, a quick call at that time to dispatch/police Station and querying them saying you want to verify the officers present would yeld results. Yelling won't.


Actually, I wish they were required to give warning. I wish they would actually be held liable when they overdo it. I wish some cops actually thought they were there to serve and protect, rather than bully and scare. We'd all be better off that way (including the cops who do actually wish to serve and protect).They are held liable. which is why those officers as well as those at the protest are going to be investigated by their IA services.

but that is that incident, this is another. let's leave that in the past.

Well of course the protesters are saying that along with any sympathizers.



The first few seconds of the clip I linked to. Yes, the youtube video is worthless.


Quickly, not violently. They arrest the people they need to arrest and get out of there. It lessens the chance suspects will run away, it lessens the time the cops are exposed to dangers, it's not pleasant and it's not fun. To say it's violent is wrong. You hancuff someone against a wall, an object, or the ground. The ground is usually the best, if the person is resisting (like you could see zack doing) the ground is the best place. The cops keep positive control over the person they are arresting, it's not voilent. It's how arrests happen. It's how they've been happening and will continue to happen.



If they weren't, we'd have found out during zack's hearing today.


It's a bad generalization of my stance.



A violent take down IS NOT the same as taking someone into custody.

Please step forward turn around place your hands behinds your back I am going to be putting hand restraints on you. I am going to read you your rights (list rights read miranda or otherwise.)"Do you understand -0--- yes or no."(+ reason for arrest or detainment enter charges or act that enables them to do the preventative arrest) search conducted - question potential do you have any drugs or alchohol on you have you been drinking etc.. do you have any weapons etc.. any medical conditions which may wait till after lockdown depending on the expediency and condition of the person in custody





If the arrest instead goes--------

ORDER GIVEN
order not complied to
force increased
repeat as needed..

---

The difference of these two is one is seen as 'violent and resisting the other is compliant.

(From the perspective of the person falling under the police action.. the interpretation may be various.. often because people havn't dealt with police before - or disagree with their methods)

THE PROBLEM IS PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT VIOLENT OR RESISTING but instead left without the information they need to resolve the sitaution peaceably without injustice being done... often doesn't happen.

Often because police rush into situations profiling people as dangerous assualtive or violent -- potentially just because how they look.

IMO...

In a situation where people arnt actually at risk.. but the officer figures they are that is where the issues evolve.

There are a number of rules.. including don't assualt police verbally or physically even if it is the smallest inclination even if with someone else someone you know it wouldn't get the same response.. because police are paranoid overzealous fks. Cause if it comes down to you or them, they choose them.

That is what I think 9 times out of 10, are the causes unreasonable use of force.... in some cases because you offend the officer and at other times because the officer misinterprits the situation...

is the side getting abused valid, sure.. cause they are the ones who get hurt by it...

but on the other end what are the police suppose to do be ineffective and powerless to maintain order?

where is the line.

Seeing it from both sides after is easy.. but during the situation police as far as I beleive use force to control -- because they wont have actual knowledge of what the other sides true intent is.. they are trying to cover all the blocks... based on what they know.


but sure when they don't comply with their departmental guidelines or don't give information then that in itself is a failure of communication and neglect of duty.

but they are out there protecting their own azes as well as anyone who potentially isn't trying to get or fry theirs.

(PS the yelling remark is a little faux -- you see the police often yell orders too and expect a response so why is a police yell valid and a civi yell not?

p.s. giving the suspects the chance to run away in this isntance would have been effective policing since it was 'trespassing or a local noise disturbance --- or visual disturbance on the 4th of july that seemed to be the public root of this instance. thus them 'fleeing' running away would have resolved the issue.. I'm guessing some police cruisers lighting and speaking gently with one of them would have been effective if they were actually in breach of the law, which I still fail to see.. where they were in breach.. if they moved to a 'designated area' they were following the direct orders of a police officer. rather then being resistant.. alll the facts arn't there but I'm doubting they will be anyway.

ICCD-Intracircumcordei;12869470']A violent take down IS NOT the same as taking someone into custody.

Please step forward turn around place your hands behinds your back I am going to be putting hand restraints on you. I am going to read you your rights (list rights read miranda or otherwise.)"Do you understand -0--- yes or no."(+ reason for arrest or detainment enter charges or act that enables them to do the preventative arrest) search conducted - question potential do you have any drugs or alchohol on you have you been drinking etc.. do you have any weapons etc.. any medical conditions which may wait till after lockdown depending on the expediency and condition of the person in custody





If the arrest instead goes--------

ORDER GIVEN
order not complied to
force increased
repeat as needed..

---

The difference of these two is one is seen as 'violent and resisting the other is compliant.

(From the perspective of the person falling under the police action.. the interpretation may be various.. often because people havn't dealt with police before - or disagree with their methods)

THE PROBLEM IS PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT VIOLENT OR RESISTING but instead left without the information they need to resolve the sitaution peaceably without injustice being done... often doesn't happen.

Often because police rush into situations profiling people as dangerous assualtive or violent -- potentially just because how they look.

IMO...

In a situation where people arnt actually at risk.. but the officer figures they are that is where the issues evolve.

There are a number of rules.. including don't assualt police verbally or physically even if it is the smallest inclination even if with someone else someone you know it wouldn't get the same response.. because police are paranoid overzealous fks. Cause if it comes down to you or them, they choose them.

That is what I think 9 times out of 10, are the causes unreasonable use of force.... in some cases because you offend the officer and at other times because the officer misinterprits the situation...

is the side getting abused valid, sure.. cause they are the ones who get hurt by it...

but on the other end what are the police suppose to do be ineffective and powerless to maintain order?

where is the line.

Seeing it from both sides after is easy.. but during the situation police as far as I beleive use force to control -- because they wont have actual knowledge of what the other sides true intent is.. they are trying to cover all the blocks... based on what they know.


but sure when they don't comply with their departmental guidelines or don't give information then that in itself is a failure of communication and neglect of duty.

but they are out there protecting their own azes as well as anyone who potentially isn't trying to get or fry theirs.

(PS the yelling remark is a little faux -- you see the police often yell orders too and expect a response so why is a police yell valid and a civi yell not?

p.s. giving the suspects the chance to run away in this isntance would have been effective policing since it was 'trespassing or a local noise disturbance --- or visual disturbance on the 4th of july that seemed to be the public root of this instance. thus them 'fleeing' running away would have resolved the issue.. I'm guessing some police cruisers lighting and speaking gently with one of them would have been effective if they were actually in breach of the law, which I still fail to see.. where they were in breach.. if they moved to a 'designated area' they were following the direct orders of a police officer. rather then being resistant.. alll the facts arn't there but I'm doubting they will be anyway.

1. Against an object or against the ground. That's always true.
2. In the video you can see zack resisting. Resistant folks always go to the ground.

And the news accounts.
The one I linked to didn't. None of the ones I looked up on my own did either.

I'm having trouble finding any clip that you linked to. Was it really early in the thread?
It's only a few pages back. With the news story.


The use of batons and throwing people to the ground is violent. There's no way around that.
I watched the video several times, I saw no one hit with batons lying on the ground.


First of all, he was a single arrest made well before the others. His case may be quite different.

Second of all, you will never know whether or not he (or any of the others) was read his rights unless they taped themselves reading said rights to him. None of us will ever know because we weren't there.
We'll see when it goes to court. If they weren't read their rights, the case gets thrown out.

Third of all, something like that may or may not be brought up in a hearing. It's a bit silly to assume it would be.
It will be because it's an automatic victory for the defense.


It was a reaction to a specific set of remarks. I apologize, but that is the impression those remarks were giving.
np

yet they refused to disperse when told to do so. if Their accounts are true, so would others.

That isn't clear at all. There doesn't seem to have been a refusal. More a request for clarification immediately followed by arrests.

about as asinine as 1) refusing to show ID to an officer when requested while 2) in an area that is prohibited to anyone not part of that facility at certain times and 3) refusing to leave when requested.

As already stated in this thread, I think an officer of the law has a greater responsibility to be reasonable in these cases. Sure, the student was being an ass. He was not, however, being violent. As such, there was no call for violence on the part of the officers.

wrong. the cop didn't wave anything to that student.

That's what I saw in the video.

Wrong again, because the officers were outnumbered with a group that was showing signs of getting out of control.

What signs? Nobody was being violent. They were asking gathering (not unusual when something odd is going on) and asking questions. There was no indication whatsoever that the crowd was "getting out of control" or that they needed to be controlled in the first place.

Wrong for a third time because the students were visibly agitated thus 'Yelling at the cop for information' is not Not being threatening.

I see. So if you seem at all upset about something (which you would likely be, if you feel the need to get the officer's name and badge number), that automagically means you are violent. :rolleyes:

and the reason why the officer didn't give his name and badge number is because of the fact that he was keeping track of multiple people.

None of those people were acting at all threatening. There was no reason for him to threaten the student rather than giving it.

if the student was honestly trying to get the name and badge number, a quick call at that time to dispatch/police Station and querying them saying you want to verify the officers present would yeld results. Yelling won't.

Doesn't change the fact that the officer could have and should have given it himself.

They are held liable. which is why those officers as well as those at the protest are going to be investigated by their IA services.

That was a general statement. The courts are making it increasingly clear that there is no accountability for police officers to the civilians they are supposedly serving and protecting. When an officer does something wrong, the citizen harmed by that action has no legal recourse whatsoever. It's disgusting.

1. Against an object or against the ground. That's always true.
2. In the video you can see zack resisting. Resistant folks always go to the ground.

Why do you keep focusing on Zack? Is it because you can't justify the actions that the police took well after arresting him and leading him away?

The one I linked to didn't. None of the ones I looked up on my own did either.

I didn't see anything you linked to.

It's only a few pages back. With the news story.

???

I watched the video several times, I saw no one hit with batons lying on the ground.

The baton use is evident in the photos, as are the protesters on the ground.

We'll see when it goes to court. If they weren't read their rights, the case gets thrown out.

It will be because it's an automatic victory for the defense.

Not necessarily. If they weren't read their rights and were then questioned, anything said cannot be used in court. But failure to read someone his rights does not automatically void a case.

Why do you keep focusing on Zack? Is it because you can't justify the actions that the police took well after arresting him and leading him away?

I'm focusing on Zack because we have a very clear video of him being arrested. I haven't seen any other video besides the youtube video which is crap. You can't see anything really happening.

Honestly, I've looked at the pictures a dozen times now, and they're hardly clear on anything regarding the periods of arrest. There seems to be a period of calm interaction between the police and the protesters, and then what would seem to be a bit of a tussle, (the photos provide absolutely no evidence of who started it), and then sixteen people in Zip ties who are busily looking as angry as emo kids can look.

I didn't see anything you linked to.



???
The news story I quoted. You were posting and responded to that post. I had the quotes from the story then linked to the source. It was at the beginning of the day.
Here it is again. (http://www.kxly.com/news/?sect_rank=2&section_id=560&story_id=12534)


The baton use is evident in the photos, as are the protesters on the ground.
Were they being struck with it? It didn't appear that they were. Batons can be used to keep postive control on a subject. It's not violent or painful.


Not necessarily. If they weren't read their rights and were then questioned, anything said cannot be used in court. But failure to read someone his rights does not automatically void a case.
Actually, I just learned something new. The police don't have to advise you.
A (http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/miranda_rights.html)
B (http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/juvenile_law/miranda_rights_arrest.htm)
So the police didn't act inappropriately even if they didn't.

And doing a quick search of google it's up to the department whether or not the police must give you their badge number. If they are the officer arresting you, you have a right to that info, but otherwise you don't neccesarily have that right. I also don't see anything requireing them to give it at the moment you ask, so they could be well within their rights to give it to you later. And it will be on the police report, which you do have a right to as an arestee.

Anyway, call SPD and ask them what their policy is on police officers providing names and badge numbers (509) 625-4050.

This is irrelevant. Police officers are trained and paid professionals, and they're not entitled to having "knee-jerk reactions" while they're exercising their duties. They have to be impartial and concerned only about the law an the security of humans beings. Picknicking on a flag is not against the law, and thus it should not even be considered a factor at all.

If you create a precedent with this, you're legitimating a host of other stupidity, such as policemen turning a blind eye on violence made on gays or minorities because they themselves are homophobic or racist. Or zealous policement trying to enforce religious or moral principles that aren't laws on people who don't share their faith/ethics.

Policemen should not be granted the flexibility to decide themselves the limits of their powers.


Agreed completely.

However, I was talking about the crowd being agitated by picnicking on the flag, not the officers. The anti-protestor crowd seems to have had something to do with the general mood surrounding this incident. You can't live in Spokane and be that openly desecrative of the flag. SOMEone will take just the right amount of offense to stir things up. That, in turn, set the police into "angry mob control" mode, and any semblance of restraint is lost.

Rubber gloves? Wooden shoes or thick rubber soles?

It's not conducting to the ground. It's conducting back down the other wire, so no insulating shoes would work.

The rubber gloves would have to be pretty thick.

Ordinary rubber dishwashing gloves are no protection against Taser voltage.

It's not conducting to the ground. It's conducting back down the other wire, so no insulating shoes would work.

The rubber gloves would have to be pretty thick.

Ordinary rubber dishwashing gloves are no protection against Taser voltage.

Wait a tic -- didn't the link say that there was no wire? I must have missed that. Okay then -- how about a non-conducting blade or shears to cut the wire?

Wait a tic -- didn't the link say that there was no wire? I must have missed that. Okay then -- how about a non-conducting blade or shears to cut the wire?

Tell you what.

I've ridden the lightning in training for 5 seconds - the normal cycle time of the current Taser pistol

That was nearly unendurable. It was worse than the pain of having my leg broken.

The duty cycle on this shell (which trails wires all the way back to the firer, and has additional hand trap wires behind it, is 20 seconds.

Four times as long.

You go first.

Tell you what.

I've ridden the lightning in training for 5 seconds - the normal cycle time of the current Taser pistol

That was nearly unendurable. It was worse than the pain of having my leg broken.

The duty cycle on this shell (which trails wires all the way back to the firer, and has additional hand trap wires behind it, is 20 seconds.

Four times as long.

You go first.

No, thanks. I concede the point -- I was just looking for an out for the poor bastard who's being lit up for 20 seconds. I've had the capsaicin French kiss, but have thankfully never been Tasered.

That isn't clear at all. There doesn't seem to have been a refusal. More a request for clarification immediately followed by arrests. what's not clear. the officers asking people to disperse or people not dispersing?

As already stated in this thread, I think an officer of the law has a greater responsibility to be reasonable in these cases. Sure, the student was being an ass. He was not, however, being violent. As such, there was no call for violence on the part of the officers. err... while the officers has a GREATER responsiblity to be reasonable, it does NOT absolve the public of any responsiblity to be reasonable. yes, the student was an ass, but by refusing to show proof of his student status, the officer was within rights to ask the student to leave. by refusing to leave when asked, the student committed trespassing. by still being there when the officer returned, he again committed trespassing and by sitting down/refusing to move before the first taser shot, he was resisting the officer.

That's what I saw in the video.go dig it up and watch it again. please show how the officer took his taser out to threaten the student(s).

make sure now, that this officer was NOT the one tasering the other student thus had his taser out and in had before the threat...


What signs? Nobody was being violent. They were asking gathering (not unusual when something odd is going on) and asking questions. There was no indication whatsoever that the crowd was "getting out of control" or that they needed to be controlled in the first place. no indication? so shouting inches from a person face is not signs of belligerance? an angry crowd surrounding you and focused on you is not threatening? the fact that several officers had to be called showed that they percieved a threat. the shouting only added to that perception as well as the growing crowd. but no. I guess as long as no PUNCHES were thrown you will insist that everyone there was all nice and friendly with the officers. :rolleyes:

I see. So if you seem at all upset about something (which you would likely be, if you feel the need to get the officer's name and badge number), that automatically means you are violent. :rolleyes: gee... I guess if you're upset, you automatically and consistantly YELL inches from the persons face. I don't. when I'm pissed or upset, yelling is NOT what I do. I appear to get calmer and void of any emotion and I know alot of people who do this. they get quiet angry.

None of those people were acting at all threatening. There was no reason for him to threaten the student rather than giving it. well, that's your perception. unfortunatly, your and mine opinion and perception won't matter. it's the perception and opinion of those on the review board.

Doesn't change the fact that the officer could have and should have given it himself.please show where the Officer HAS to give that information out during crowd control.

as for those pictures you keep mentioning. Myspace is blocked here. think you can post those pics?

Sounds like a bunch of skater punks overreacted when the police asked them to disperse, and got what was coming to them. That is of course if you believe this story, which sounds a bit fishy to me.

You can't live in Spokane and be that openly desecrative of the flag.

I fail to see how having a picnic on your flag is "desecrative".

A flag is not sacred. It is not a religious item.

Even the most stupidly obtuse nationalist ought to realize this is no worse than wearing a shit or hat with your flag on it.

I fail to see how having a picnic on your flag is "desecrative".

A flag is not sacred. It is not a religious item.

Even the most stupidly obtuse nationalist ought to realize this is no worse than wearing a shit or hat with your flag on it.

Wearing a shit with a flag on it?! :confused: That may be a sight to see. ;)

I fail to see how having a picnic on your flag is "desecrative".

A flag is not sacred. It is not a religious item.

Even the most stupidly obtuse nationalist ought to realize this is no worse than wearing a shit or hat with your flag on it.

You make my point. Stupidly obtuse nationalists are the very people I'm talking about, and eastern Washington is crawling with them. Those who were having the picnic should have known that using the flag as a blanket was inflammatory. In fact, I'd wager that they were counting on it and using that fact to generate "discussion" among passersby.

This is why the truth about this mess is in the middle, and both extremes are too buried in their collective rhetoric and traditions to ever come to terms with restraint and compromise.

EDIT: I noticed that you said "your flag". If you're not a US resident, you've no idea how religious a US flag is to some people. To me, and I'm sure, to you, it's merely a symbol. Many in the US have deeply-held, patriotic, religious respect for Old Glory and would just as soon you eat lunch sitting on your own mother than see you sit on a flag -- especially when it's a real flag as opposed to a flag-festooned blanket or towel, which less people get upset about (though some still do).

I'm not saying that it's right or wrong, but rather that patriots, veterans, and others who are zealous in their respect for the flag have every right to be. So in a part of the country where those people are the majority, it's not too far a stretch to say that having a meal on top of a flag is a provocation -- a desecration to them. Bad (and disingenuous) choice if you were truly looking to have a peaceful protest or were "just having a picnic".

Fucking Orewllian Thought Police squashing free speech.

Fucking Orewllian Thought Police squashing free speech.

I see someone did not read the thread for if he had, you would see ample evidence that your comments are made of fail.

I see someone did not read the thread for if he had, you would see ample evidence that your comments are made of fail.

I read the thread. The police acted in a brutal manner. Again.

Here it is again. (http://www.kxly.com/news/?sect_rank=2&section_id=560&story_id=12534)

It doesn't show anything to warrant even St. John being taken to the ground. If his story is correct, I'd be resisting too. I'd want to know why the hell I was suddenly on the ground being arrested.

Were they being struck with it? It didn't appear that they were.

That's what it looked like to me.

Batons can be used to keep postive control on a subject. It's not violent or painful.

Even a poke with a baton can be painful. I read a case recently where a police officer claimed he "tapped" a woman with a baton. Her arm was broken in several places. We're talking about a weapon that is classified as a deadly one.

Actually, I just learned something new. The police don't have to advise you.
A (http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/miranda_rights.html)
B (http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/juvenile_law/miranda_rights_arrest.htm)
So the police didn't act inappropriately even if they didn't.

Your second link says they don't have to advise you "as long as you are free to go." Do you think these people were free to go?

Meanwhile, I disagree with the idea that the police don't have to advise you. If they are investigating you, they should make sure that you fully understand your rights in the situation. It is bullshit to allow them not to.

And doing a quick search of google it's up to the department whether or not the police must give you their badge number. If they are the officer arresting you, you have a right to that info, but otherwise you don't neccesarily have that right. I also don't see anything requireing them to give it at the moment you ask, so they could be well within their rights to give it to you later. And it will be on the police report, which you do have a right to as an arestee.

Legally, that may be true. However, that is one of the places where I would disagree with the law. Something like that just adds to the lack of accountability police officers have to the rest of us. What is it they always try to tell us? "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide"??

If citizens feel that a police officer is acting inappropriately, those citizens should have the right to get his information and report him to the proper authorities. Not having that right is dangerous to all of us.


what's not clear. the officers asking people to disperse or people not dispersing?

There being a refusal to move. From most accounts, it would appear that the officers said to disperse, the protesters asked why, and then the police immediately began arrests. That doesn't really even give them time to refuse (or time to start packing up and moving out).

err... while the officers has a GREATER responsiblity to be reasonable, it does NOT absolve the public of any responsiblity to be reasonable. yes, the student was an ass, but by refusing to show proof of his student status, the officer was within rights to ask the student to leave. by refusing to leave when asked, the student committed trespassing. by still being there when the officer returned, he again committed trespassing and by sitting down/refusing to move before the first taser shot, he was resisting the officer.

He still did nothing violent. Thus, there was no call for the use of violence.

no indication? so shouting inches from a person face is not signs of belligerance?

Belligerence is not violence. Besides, the student only had to get "inches from his face" (which is a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think? The officer never let him get that close) and yell because the officer was ignoring all questions. The students' questions got louder and more insistent as the incident went on. If the officer had answered at the beginning, they likely wouldn't have been yelling.

an angry crowd surrounding you and focused on you is not threatening?

The anger was the fault of officers who obviously thought that they were under no responsibility to explain themselves to the people they work for (not to mention the use of violent force where it was wholly unnecessary).

the fact that several officers had to be called showed that they percieved a threat. the shouting only added to that perception as well as the growing crowd. but no. I guess as long as no PUNCHES were thrown you will insist that everyone there was all nice and friendly with the officers.

As long as no violence was initiated, I will insist that there was no violence. And I don't think that officers should initiate violence. Unfriendly is not equivalent to violent. Officers are unfriendly all the damn time.

I suppose the officer who jumped out of a car and threatened to arrest me because I was smart enough as a 17-year old girl not to walk up to an unmarked car with 4 guys I couldn't see well in it just because he said he was police was being violent? No, by the way, he wasn't. Just damn belligerent.

gee... I guess if you're upset, you automatically and consistantly YELL inches from the persons face. I don't. when I'm pissed or upset, yelling is NOT what I do. I appear to get calmer and void of any emotion and I know alot of people who do this. they get quiet angry.

If my questions aren't being answered then yes, I am likely to start yelling.

well, that's your perception. unfortunatly, your and mine opinion and perception won't matter. it's the perception and opinion of those on the review board.

And that is precisely the problem. There is no accountability to the people. We're the ones who they are supposed to "serve and protect" and yet there is no accountability to us. We have little to no power to control the police department (or any law enforcement agency, for that matter).

please show where the Officer HAS to give that information out during crowd control.

If police are to be held accountable to the people, that is part of what must be done. Unless the officer's life is in immediate and direct danger, he has no business refusing that information to a concerned citizen.

as for those pictures you keep mentioning. Myspace is blocked here. think you can post those pics?

Ugh, there's a lot of them. I'll see.

It doesn't show anything to warrant even St. John being taken to the ground. If his story is correct, I'd be resisting too. I'd want to know why the hell I was suddenly on the ground being arrested.
That's not the appropriate time. If you are being taken in to custody you must comply.


That's what it looked like to me.



Even a poke with a baton can be painful. I read a case recently where a police officer claimed he "tapped" a woman with a baton. Her arm was broken in several places. We're talking about a weapon that is classified as a deadly one.
Who knows what happened in that case. We aren't debating police theory here.

No, the baton is not classified as deadly. Not by any law enformcement agency in the world. There are very specific times you can and can't use it and what you can use it for.


Your second link says they don't have to advise you "as long as you are free to go." Do you think these people were free to go?

Meanwhile, I disagree with the idea that the police don't have to advise you. If they are investigating you, they should make sure that you fully understand your rights in the situation. It is bullshit to allow them not to.
From the first one:
. After arrest, the police may have no interest in further questioning, and thus may not ever read the suspect his "Miranda Rights."
From the second:
The police do not always have to advise you of your Miranda rights just because you have been arrested.
And here's a third (http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/reading_your_rights.asp):
What Happens in the Police Didn't Read Me My Rights?
First, that depends on whether or not law enforcement officers were required to read you your rights. Miranda warnings aren't required for every conversation between police and a suspect. Generally, Miranda warnings are required when you are interrogated in custody. Not all conversation with law enforcement is considered interrogation, and of course not all questioning takes place in custody.


Legally, that may be true. However, that is one of the places where I would disagree with the law. Something like that just adds to the lack of accountability police officers have to the rest of us. What is it they always try to tell us? "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide"??

If citizens feel that a police officer is acting inappropriately, those citizens should have the right to get his information and report him to the proper authorities. Not having that right is dangerous to all of us.
They do have that right via the Freedom of Information Act.

Anyway, the debate at hand is how the police behaved in this case, not police training around the world. We are debating whether or not the police acted in appropriately in this case. Appropriate being acting within the police procedures set forth by the Federal, State, and Local government.

It doesn't show anything to warrant even St. John being taken to the ground. If his story is correct, I'd be resisting too. I'd want to know why the hell I was suddenly on the ground being arrested.

And you'd be guilty of a crime. You are permitted to ask those questions. However, resisting arrest is not one of your rights. Placing your hands on an officer is not one of your rights. Failing to comply with the lawful orders of a police officer is not one of your rights. You may find this surprising but the officers are trusted with keeping the peace. Not you.

You don't get to decide whether they're doing their job correctly by interrupting them in the course of their duties. It's not your right.

This man clearly broke the law, according to the article and his own words. He put his hands on the officer. He is not permitted to do so. Even if he felt the officer was wrong.

And you'd be guilty of a crime. You are permitted to ask those questions. However, resisting arrest is not one of your rights. Placing your hands on an officer is not one of your rights. Failing to comply with the lawful orders of a police officer is not one of your rights. You may find this surprising but the officers are trusted with keeping the peace. Not you.

You don't get to decide whether they're doing their job correctly by interrupting them in the course of their duties. It's not your right.

This man clearly broke the law, according to the article and his own words. He put his hands on the officer. He is not permitted to do so. Even if he felt the officer was wrong.

Assault and battery = unlawful touching.

Failure to comply with the direct order of a police officer in the course of his duties = tasered, pepper sprayed, handcuffed, taken to jail.

If you want to argue whether or not the policeman was behaving, you have to take that up with the magistrate.

Never when the policeman is giving you orders.

Like I posted before, a lot of police departments now have standing orders to use pepper spray or taser on the FIRST sign that you're not going to comply with orders.

All it takes is you saying, "No..." and you're going to get it.

That's not the appropriate time. If you are being taken in to custody you must comply.

That's all nice in theory, but resisting when someone is taking you to the ground and arresting you for what you believe is absolutely no reason is pretty much a natural reaction.

Who knows what happened in that case. We aren't debating police theory here.

Maybe we should be.

No, the baton is not classified as deadly. Not by any law enformcement agency in the world. There are very specific times you can and can't use it and what you can use it for.

That's funny, considering that it is considered a deadly weapon by law if anyone other than a police officer has one.


Anyway, the debate at hand is how the police behaved in this case, not police training around the world. We are debating whether or not the police acted in appropriately in this case. Appropriate being acting within the police procedures set forth by the Federal, State, and Local government.

That's a really dumb definition of "appropriate." By that definition, if the law said that they could use deadly force on a little old lady who littered, then shooting her in the head would be "appropriate."

The fact that something is legal does not mean that it should be, or that it is appropriate.

That's all nice in theory, but resisting when someone is taking you to the ground and arresting you for what you believe is absolutely no reason is pretty much a natural reaction.
People get arrested every day, most of them do not physically resist arrest


Maybe we should be.
Then start a new thread. That's not the topic under discussion.


That's funny, considering that it is considered a deadly weapon by law if anyone other than a police officer has one.

That's just not true. I carry an asp. I don't need a permit or a license for it. I don't have to be 21 to buy it. For my gun, it has to be licensed, I have to have a permit, and I had to be 21.

That's a really dumb definition of "appropriate." By that definition, if the law said that they could use deadly force on a little old lady who littered, then shooting her in the head would be "appropriate."

The fact that something is legal does not mean that it should be, or that it is appropriate.

I never ever said that. I said that the police department has policies on how officers conduct themselves and when and how they can use force. No police department in America allows that. They never have, they never will.

And you'd be guilty of a crime. You are permitted to ask those questions. However, resisting arrest is not one of your rights.

No, it isn't. But expecting someone to just passively take it when someone initiates violence against them is idiotic. I don't know if that's what happened here or not, but if I reached out to get someone's attention and they immediately took me to the ground , I'd struggle. It wouldn't matter who that person was. And it would be ridiculous to hold me responsible for their overreaction.

Placing your hands on an officer is not one of your rights. Failing to comply with the lawful orders of a police officer is not one of your rights. You may find this surprising but the officers are trusted with keeping the peace. Not you.

And because they have no accountability to me, I can't trust them to do so. That is precisely the problem. How do I know that their orders are lawful when they won't tell me why they are giving them?

And, in some cases, how do I know they are even an officer in the first place? I've had an officer threaten to arrest me for not following orders when I had absolutely no way to know he truly was an officer.

You don't get to decide whether they're doing their job correctly by interrupting them in the course of their duties. It's not your right.

Then I can't trust them. If I, as a citizen, have no say in how they carry out their duties, then I have no reason to trust them to do so properly. If they, as police officers, have no legal liability to me if they do not carry out their duties properly, then I, as a citizen, have no reason to trust them.

This man clearly broke the law, according to the article and his own words. He put his hands on the officer. He is not permitted to do so. Even if he felt the officer was wrong.

And, from my point of view, the officer pretty clearly overreacted and made worse. Yes, even the act of tapping someone on the shoulder can be labeled as assault. It's idiotic, but it's true. But then the officer could have said, "That's assault. You're under arrest," and pulled out his cuffs. At that point, if St. John had become violent, violent force in return would have been called for.

That's all nice in theory, but resisting when someone is taking you to the ground and arresting you for what you believe is absolutely no reason is pretty much a natural reaction.

No. It isn't. And it's illegal. My father was once tackled and handcuffed while going to the store to pick up food for my mother's cravings when she was pregnant with me. He was believed to be armed and dangerous because he fit the description of an armed robber, including make of vehicle. They had every reason to subdue him first and ask questions later and had he resisted he'd likely have been killed. It's not the best outcome, but the police are not always operating on information you have. They can't always explain it to you. And waiting to do so puts them and you in danger. Because of this the law requires you to NOT act like an idiot no matter how much YOU think you should be allowed to.


That's funny, considering that it is considered a deadly weapon by law if anyone other than a police officer has one.

Link?

Here's the funny things about weapons. In my hands almost any weapon is considered deadly because of my specific training. I can't even punch a person unless I'm certain I can demonstrate it was defensive.

In the case of deadly force, if you're pretending that any use of a baton is included then you're being deliberately obtuse.



That's a really dumb definition of "appropriate." By that definition, if the law said that they could use deadly force on a little old lady who littered, then shooting her in the head would be "appropriate."

The fact that something is legal does not mean that it should be, or that it is appropriate.

Police don't make the law. They enforce it. You're problem here isn't with the police actions, but with the law, which is a seperate point. It doesn't defend the actions in this case. It doesn't even address it.

But, hey, I'd be changing the subject if I were you as well. You're getting handing your lovely behind.

People get arrested every day, most of them do not physically resist arrest

Most of them know what they are being arrested for and are told that they are being arrested before they are taken to the ground and the handcuffs are going on.

That's just not true. I carry an asp. I don't need a permit or a license for it. I don't have to be 21 to buy it. For my gun, it has to be licensed, I have to have a permit, and I had to be 21.

http://pweb.netcom.com/~brlevine/ky.txt

In at least one state, it is classified as a deadly weapon. I believe it is in GA as well. Some batons, from what I can tell with a quick google search, are nearly always classified as deadly weapons.

You may not need a permit for it, but then again you don't need a permit for a rottweiller either. Even a car can be considered a deadly weapon, but you don't need a weapons permit to buy it.

I never ever said that. I said that the police department has policies on how officers conduct themselves and when and how they can use force.

Indeed, and you automatically labeled those policies as "appropriate."

Police don't make the law. They enforce it. You're problem here isn't with the police actions, but with the law, which is a seperate point. It doesn't defend the actions in this case. It doesn't even address it.

But, hey, I'd be changing the subject if I were you as well. You're getting handing your lovely behind.

It isn't a "change of subject." My complaint throughout this thread has been the lack of accountability of police officers and the use of violence and force where it is not warranted. Yes, they enforce the law (well, if they feel like it - they're under no legal obligation to actually do it), but they have little to no accountability to the citizens as to how they do it. The law and various court cases have upheld that fact. Officers have to scew up astronomically to be held at all legally accountable, and that is ridiculous.

No, it isn't. But expecting someone to just passively take it when someone initiates violence against them is idiotic. I don't know if that's what happened here or not, but if I reached out to get someone's attention and they immediately took me to the ground , I'd struggle. It wouldn't matter who that person was. And it would be ridiculous to hold me responsible for their overreaction.

No, it isn't. It's the safest action. You are REQUIRED to comply. REQUIRED. This is for your safety as much as theirs.

And, no, it wouldn't be ridiculous to expect you to follow the law. They are operating within the bounds of the law and you are REQUIRED to comply. It is not reasonable for you to not comply. It is not reasonable for you to resist arrest. Your safety and theirs relies on your compliance. Your way of doing things would cause a lot more danger. That fact is clear.



And because they have no accountability to me, I can't trust them to do so. That is precisely the problem. How do I know that their orders are lawful when they won't tell me why they are giving them?

And, in some cases, how do I know they are even an officer in the first place? I've had an officer threaten to arrest me for not following orders when I had absolutely no way to know he truly was an officer.

Impersonating an officer is against the law. Unless you have reason to believe they are impersonating an officer, you are required by law to comply. If they've identified themselves as officers, resisting AT ALL is illegal. Like it or not, you don't get to play street lawyer with officers. They aren't required to explain anything to you other than what you are supposed to do in order to follow orders.

How do you know if they're lawful? Don't be obtuse. How did I know if my officers' orders were lawful? Do you think I found out by questioning them? Or do you think perhaps the only time I was allowed to question was when the orders were clearly unlawful? In the case of officers, you wouldn't resisting by refusing to remove your clothes for example. You are required to know the laws of the place you're in and follow them. Unless they are breaking the law, they are lawful orders.




Then I can't trust them. If I, as a citizen, have no say in how they carry out their duties, then I have no reason to trust them to do so properly. If they, as police officers, have no legal liability to me if they do not carry out their duties properly, then I, as a citizen, have no reason to trust them.

You do have a say. You vote. You don't as the subject of their actions get to decide how they carry out those actions. Suggesting that you should be able to do so is plainly idiotic. They do have a legal liability to you. But they don't answer to you. They're liability is enforced by the jurisdiction. Not by you. *gasp* To suggest otherwise is just absurd. How could that even work?

"Get on the ground"
"No"
"Sir, would you please get on the ground. We're concerned you have a weapon."
"What kind of weapon?"
"We don't know."
"Well, why would you think I have a weapon when you don't know what kind."
"Um...."

You might be surprised by this, since you're intentionally being obtuse in an effort to win an argument, but officers don't answer to you personally or just any random person who challenges them. If they did, they'd never get anything done.





And, from my point of view, the officer pretty clearly overreacted and made worse. Yes, even the act of tapping someone on the shoulder can be labeled as assault. It's idiotic, but it's true. But then the officer could have said, "That's assault. You're under arrest," and pulled out his cuffs. At that point, if St. John had become violent, violent force in return would have been called for.

It's not idiotic. It's called respect. You are required to repect my rights. One of them is that you not assualt me. You don't get to choose whether to respect that right or how to respect that right. You can't grab my arm. You can't poke my chest. You can't punch me in the face. It's assualt. Period. You don't get to touch me if I don't want you to. In the case of an officer enforcing the law, only an idiot would actually put their hands on him. This man was an idiot.

The officer doesn't wait for it to become violent. I know you're pretending to not understand, but it endangers EVERYONE in the area. They HAVE to control the situation or people get hurt much worse. Controlling someone resisting arrest is for the safety of everyone.

It isn't a "change of subject." My complaint throughout this thread has been the lack of accountability of police officers and the use of violence and force where it is not warranted. Yes, they enforce the law (well, if they feel like it - they're under no legal obligation to actually do it), but they have little to no accountability to the citizens as to how they do it. The law and various court cases have upheld that fact. Officers have to scew up astronomically to be held at all legally accountable, and that is ridiculous.

There's no "lack of accountability". There is only when and where you can ask for that accountability.

Getting in the officer's face is not one of the permitted ways. Fighting back against the police is not one of the permitted ways.

Speaking at a hearing with a magistrate is one of the ways.

Filing a complaint with the Internal Affairs department of the police department is one of the ways.

Paying attention to who selects the Police Chief is one of the ways.

Asking the DA to investigate the police department is one of the ways.

But fighting back, no matter how right you think you are, is a one-way ticket to a perfectly legal ass-kicking.

It isn't a "change of subject." My complaint throughout this thread has been the lack of accountability of police officers and the use of violence and force where it is not warranted. Yes, they enforce the law (well, if they feel like it - they're under no legal obligation to actually do it), but they have little to no accountability to the citizens as to how they do it. The law and various court cases have upheld that fact. Officers have to scew up astronomically to be held at all legally accountable, and that is ridiculous.

Bullshit. They are held accountable. Just not while they are in the act. Your way of doing things would cost lives and cause harm. Unsurprisingly, they avoid that result. Claiming their is no accounability because they don't have to answer your questions on the scene is just dumb. You know better.

There are hundreds of legal ways to hold them accountable. Civil courts. Criminal court. The FBI. IA. The chief. The local government. The county government. The state government. THe federal government. And so on. What they are not accountable to, is your uneducated decision to resist arrest.

The brutality and associated lack of accountability in police relations with protestors is something I am used to in police states. It bothers me that we can make such a comparison with a democratic nation on the one day that people should be celebrating the freedoms they gained that day so many years ago.

Who watches the watchmen? We do. And they need watching.

The brutality and associated lack of accountability in police relations with protestors is something I am used to in police states. It bothers me that we can make such a comparison with a democratic nation on the one day that people should be celebrating the freedoms they gained that day so many years ago.

Who watches the watchmen? We do. And they need watching.

Certainly. However, we have avenues with which to watch them. They work. If one doesn't employ them, that's their problem. In this case, the gentleman in question admits to putting his hands on the officer. That's illegal and he paid the price.

The brutality and associated lack of accountability in police relations with protestors is something I am used to in police states. It bothers me that we can make such a comparison with a democratic nation on the one day that people should be celebrating the freedoms they gained that day so many years ago.

Who watches the watchmen? We do. And they need watching.

They already have many mechanisms in place to watch them.

What the OP doesn't understand is that you NEVER have the right to resist arrest. Nor do you have the right to refuse to obey the lawful order of a police officer. Nor do you have the right to argue it on the spot.

There are hundreds of legal ways to hold them accountable. Civil courts. Criminal court. The FBI. IA. The chief. The local government. The county government. The state government. THe federal government. And so on. What they are not accountable to, is your uneducated decision to resist arrest.

In court, it is the protestor's words against the cop's. Unless physical evidence is produced, the cop's testimony will be believed, regardless of veracity.

If you can not identify the police officer who beat you, because he never produced any badge or identification, how are you supposed to take them to court?

The FBI are a federal police unit. They do not have jurisdiction over cases of local police brutality.

Nor have I ever heard of an IA investigation into police brutality.

The only governments that may listen to you are local ones. Even if they did, how could they help you? They use the police for their investigations. I don't think it would be too helpful to have them investigate themselves.

The only accountability that you get at a protest is what you can capture on film and release to the media. Reality has proven this time and again.

Your theories on government accountability are not grounded in experience.

In court, it is the protestor's words against the cop's. Unless physical evidence is produced, the cop's testimony will be believed, regardless of veracity.

You mean unless there is evidence the cop isn't held accountable. *gasp* Say it ain't so. Out of curiousity, what crimes can you be found guilty of without evidence?


If you can not identify the police officer who beat you, because he never produced any badge or identification, how are you supposed to take them to court?

Because who arrested you is on the form. But then, you knew that, since you wouldn't be arguing this ignorantly.



The FBI are a federal police unit. They do not have jurisdiction over cases of local police brutality.

Depending on the case and how widespread it is. There are a number of avenues. I was pointing out that there is accountability for corruption. If there is no corruption, then the local channels should be enough.




Nor have I ever heard of an IA investigation into police brutality.

Are you kidding? You're going to argue from ignorance? What do you think IA does?


The only governments that may listen to you are local ones. Even if they did, how could they help you? They use the police for their investigations. I don't think it would be too helpful to have them investigate themselves.

They use IA. Unless IA is involved in which case they may ask for help from other jurisdictions. That's what IA does. But then, since you've never heard of that, well, it must not happen.



The only accountability that you get at a protest is what you can capture on film and release to the media. Reality has proven this time and again.

Your theories on government accountability are not grounded in experience.

Amusing. This from the guy whose argument is "I've never heard of". These are the facts. Cops are tried for corruption frequently. Cops are charged with brutality frequently. The only lack of experience here is yours. Do you think the crime didn't ever get charged before video cameras were common? Perhaps you should, you know, read a little and stop guessing at how things work.

Nor have I ever heard of an IA investigation into police brutality.

What planet are you on?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_affairs_(law_enforcement)

The internal affairs (United States terminology) division of a law enforcement agency investigates incidents and plausible suspicions of lawbreaking and professional misconduct attributed to officers on the force. In different systems, internal affairs can go by another name such as "professional standards," "inspectorate general", Office of Professional Responsibility or similar.

Several police departments in the USA have been compelled to institute civilian review or investigation of police misconduct complaints in response to community perception that internal affairs investigations are biased in favor of police officers. For example, San Francisco, California, has its Office of Citizen Complaints, created by voter initiative in 1983, in which civilians who have never been members of the San Francisco Police Department investigate complaints of police misconduct filed against members of the San Francisco Police Department. Washington, DC, has a similar office, created in 1999, known as the Office of Police Complaints [1].

Due to the sensitive nature of this responsibility, in many departments officers working internal affairs are not in a detective command, but report directly to the agency's chief, or to a board of civilian police commissioners.

Internal Affairs investigators are bound by stringent rules when conducting their investigations. In California, the Peace Officers Bill of Rights (POBR) is a mandated set of rules found in the Government Code.

What planet are you on?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_affairs_(law_enforcement)

He already admitted his argument is founded on "I've never heard of".

Most of them know what they are being arrested for and are told that they are being arrested before they are taken to the ground and the handcuffs are going on.
The video doesn't show what happened before. You are assuming he wasn't told.


http://pweb.netcom.com/~brlevine/ky.txt

In at least one state, it is classified as a deadly weapon. I believe it is in GA as well. Some batons, from what I can tell with a quick google search, are nearly always classified as deadly weapons.

You may not need a permit for it, but then again you don't need a permit for a rottweiller either. Even a car can be considered a deadly weapon, but you don't need a weapons permit to buy it.

Police aren't allowed to carry any baton they choose. And by your definition a spoon can be a deadly weapon depending on how you use it. There are certain weapons that are classifed as deadly weapons regardless.

Indeed, and you automatically labeled those policies as "appropriate."
Given that the policies and guidelines the SPD follow are the same as my city, and I agree with the way my city runs my police force yes. But once again, we are not discussing police theory. We are discussing a specific event.

There being a refusal to move. From most accounts, it would appear that the officers said to disperse, the protesters asked why, and then the police immediately began arrests. That doesn't really even give them time to refuse (or time to start packing up and moving out). and because there is nothing to show what really happened, you have multiple people saying yes, the cops didn't give enough time for a response, and No, the cops did ask several times to disperse but no one moved, infact they linked arms. they have people saying they were peaceful and others saying they appeared that they wanted to be arrested.

He still did nothing violent. Thus, there was no call for the use of violence.sorry, but making unwanted contact with another person can be called 'assault and battery'. people have been ejected from sports for accidentally coming in contact with a referee. Zack's mistake was tapping the officer on the shoulder and because we only have Their word as to what happened, it again falls back to he said/she said. which again, goes back to the review board as well as the trial/hearing.

Belligerence is not violence. name me a fight between civilians that does NOT start with one person showing Belligerance.
Besides, the student only had to get "inches from his face" (which is a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think? The officer never let him get that close) and yell because the officer was ignoring all questions.Gee... and why did the officer 'ignore' the question. Could it be that at the time, there was a crowd that the officer had to keep track of? Could it be that at the time, the student that was calling the crowd to action? Could it be that at the time, the officers were outnumbered alot to very little? or could it be that all that was going on at the same time?

I tell you what, when you have 3, very important things that require your attention going on at the SAME TIME and you have someone yelling for information that is not important at the time (dunno about other cities, but our cops have their names on their uniform in legiable letters and their badge number visible on their badges.) and see what you would do.
The students' questions got louder and more insistent as the incident went on. If the officer had answered at the beginning, they likely wouldn't have been yelling.the officer had more imporant things to keep track of than giving information that could be obtained other ways. and yes, I'm glad you agreed that the student was yelling and getting into the cops face (being insistant) while the officer was busy doing other things. too bad the student started off Loud and Insistant and only got more so.

The anger was the fault of officers who obviously thought that they were under no responsibility to explain themselves to the people they work for (not to mention the use of violent force where it was wholly unnecessary). please show me the rules and regulations where oficers HAVE TO explain their actions to every passerby and NON-INVOLVED citizens on the scene. I await the source.

As long as no violence was initiated, I will insist that there was no violence. And I don't think that officers should [i]initiate violence. Unfriendly is not equivalent to violent. Officers are unfriendly all the damn time. and where did the officer initiate the violence. the student initiated his resistance to the officers by going limp and refusing to move. ever hear of "passive resistance"? he was resisting the officers. thus the escalation.

If my questions aren't being answered then yes, I am likely to start yelling.without taking anything else into account? you realize that most times you would be guilty of provoking a response.

And that is precisely the problem. There is no accountability to the people. We're the ones who they are supposed to "serve and protect" and yet there is no accountability to us. We have little to no power to control the police department (or any law enforcement agency, for that matter).there is accountability. You just don't like it that YOU are not personally involved. and the fact that YOU and several others are quick to lay blame when all the facts are NOT known makes me glad that YOU are not personally part of the accountablility process.

Innocent till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. that includes cops as well you know.

If police are to be held accountable to the people, that is part of what must be done. Unless the officer's life is in immediate and direct danger, he has no business refusing that information to a concerned citizen.and 9 times out of 10 they won't refuse that information UNLESS the situation is such were the officer cannot or should not be distracted.

Ugh, there's a lot of them. I'll see. Appreciate it.

You mean unless there is evidence the cop isn't held accountable. *gasp* Say it ain't so. Out of curiousity, what crimes can you be found guilty of without evidence?

Unfortunately, when the same protestor is chrged with assaulting the same officer, the protestor is usually found guilty solely on the officer's testimony. So, I guess I could be found guilty of assaulting a police officer without evidence.

Because who arrested you is on the form. But then, you knew that, since you wouldn't be arguing this ignorantly.

Because they always arrest you after they beat you? News to me.

Depending on the case and how widespread it is. There are a number of avenues. I was pointing out that there is accountability for corruption. If there is no corruption, then the local channels should be enough.

Yeah, I guess if a cop pushed me over a state line, they might get involved. Not a very useful system of accountability is it?

Are you kidding? You're going to argue from ignorance? What do you think IA does?

Sorry. I meant to say 'successful investigation'. RO's link below shows that such departments are so bad at policing the policement that independent watchdog commitees had to be set up. This is assuming that the police being investigated will cooperate. And it's also assuming that you can identify the cop. If he didn't give you a badge number or a name, how is IA supposed to investigate?

They use IA. Unless IA is involved in which case they may ask for help from other jurisdictions. That's what IA does. But then, since you've never heard of that, well, it must not happen.

Oh they do, do they? You seem to have so much knowledge at your fingertips. Please educate me, great wise one. Please explain how your average protestor is going to ifluence local politicos enough to launch such an investigation. I am quivering with anticipation for the moment when you will reveal the full majesty of your intellect.

Amusing. This from the guy whose argument is "I've never heard of". These are the facts. Cops are tried for corruption frequently. Cops are charged with brutality frequently. The only lack of experience here is yours. Do you think the crime didn't ever get charged before video cameras were common? Perhaps you should, you know, read a little and stop guessing at how things work.

Frequently is a pretty vague term, and don't assume I'm a guy. How often are they charged? How does this compare to the amount of allegations? How many are actually found guilty? Your argument seems to be lacking a lot of information. And I really doubt a single cop ever got charged without at least videotape evidence. But since you seem to think it is so widespread, you should be able to dig up a souce or two, no?

What planet are you on?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_affairs_(law_enforcement)

Funny how you need civilians to enforce accountability. I guess I was right when I said that cops don't police cops very well. Thanks for proving my point.

He already admitted his argument is founded on "I've never heard of".

Are you going to do that thing where you get into master debator mode and start discussing how arguments are constructed, instead of talking about the subject?

Cause you get real annoying when you do that.

Funny how you need civilians to enforce accountability. I guess I was right when I said that cops don't police cops very well. Thanks for proving my point.

It actually disproves your point.

You said that no IA had ever investigated police brutality.

I proved that you were so wrong, it's not even funny.

Unfortunately, when the same protestor is chrged with assaulting the same officer, the protestor is usually found guilty solely on the officer's testimony. So, I guess I could be found guilty of assaulting a police officer without evidence.

Actually, it's not solely the officer. Usually there is other evidence. In this case the student admits it.


Because they always arrest you after they beat you? News to me.

Oh, so we're talking about officers randomly beating up people and disappearing. Uh-huh. Yes, that happens all the time. I'm sure you have some evidence.



Yeah, I guess if a cop pushed me over a state line, they might get involved. Not a very useful system of accountability is it?

Um, no. They might get involved if the case of corruption is so widespread it cannot be handled locally. Only in the movies are entire police departments not accountable to the counties and states they exist in.





Sorry. I meant to say 'successful investigation'. RO's link below shows that such departments are so bad at policing the policement that independent watchdog commitees had to be set up. This is assuming that the police being investigated will cooperate. And it's also assuming that you can identify the cop. If he didn't give you a badge number or a name, how is IA supposed to investigate?

Ha. Talk about obtuse. He links to a public perception. Nothing about that shows there was an actual problem. It shows that people like you use their ignorance as an excuse to make accusations. It also shows that there are options if IA is not doing it's job. It bodes badly for you in every scenario. But hey, keep on arguing. It's funny.

It's not assuming anything. The cops are required by law to cooperate. They answer to a chief who is elected. They answer to a government that is also elected. They answer to a DA who is elected. Your nonsense is just that.



Oh they do, do they? You seem to have so much knowledge at your fingertips. Please educate me, great wise one. Please explain how your average protestor is going to ifluence local politicos enough to launch such an investigation. I am quivering with anticipation for the moment when you will reveal the full majesty of your intellect.

Are you kidding? Why do you think they have protests? YOu've already referenced a case where the "average protestor" changed the law.


Frequently is a pretty vague term, and don't assume I'm a guy. How often are they charged? How does this compare to the amount of allegations? How many are actually found guilty? Your argument seems to be lacking a lot of information. And I really doubt a single cop ever got charged without at least videotape evidence. But since you seem to think it is so widespread, you should be able to dig up a souce or two, no?

I'll tell you what. I won't assume you're a guy and you don't assume that cops are corrupt. You provide proof. Then neither one of us will be making invalid assumptions.

According to you they are never successful. You're the one claiming corruption here. Provide evidence. You are assuming it's true because I've not proven it false.



Funny how you need civilians to enforce accountability. I guess I was right when I said that cops don't police cops very well. Thanks for proving my point.

You mean, they had the perception that it was needed. There is no proof that cops don't police cops very well. Meanwhile, two cases is hardly evidence that in the 1000's of jurisdictions the IA is not doing their job.



Are you going to do that thing where you get into master debator mode and start discussing how arguments are constructed, instead of talking about the subject?

Cause you get real annoying when you do that.

I don't care if I annoy you. Argument from ignorance is a fallacy. You admit you don't know what the hell you're talking about and use it as an argument. That's idiotic.

If you don't want me to criticise your argument, how about you make a good argument? Or do you not know how to do that? I'll wait.

No, it isn't. It's the safest action. You are REQUIRED to comply. REQUIRED. This is for your safety as much as theirs.

Yes, it's safe for me to allow someone else to be violent with me when I have no idea what's going on.

Impersonating an officer is against the law.

Yes, and when something is illegal, that makes people physically incapable of doing it. :rolleyes:

I suppose I should have gone right over to an unmarked car full of men when I couldn't see them. And if those guys had then been criminals and had beaten/mugged/raped/kidnapped me, I could have just said, "Reality doesn't permit this. It is illegal to impersonate a police officer," and been perfectly alright.

Unless you have reason to believe they are impersonating an officer, you are required by law to comply.

Anyone could be someone impersonating an officer. Unless he shows me definitive evidence that he is a police officer, I have every reason to believe he is someone else impersonating one.

If they've identified themselves as officers, resisting AT ALL is illegal.

Well, that's very convenient for people who don't mind breaking the law, isn't it?

How do you know if they're lawful? Don't be obtuse.

I'm not. There are things the police aren't allowed to do without reasonable cause. If they don't tell me what that cause is, how do I know their orders are lawful? I don't.

You do have a say. You vote.

Yes. Of course, when the only options on the ballot don't address my concerns, I'm pretty screwed, no?

You don't as the subject of their actions get to decide how they carry out those actions. Suggesting that you should be able to do so is plainly idiotic.

Any citizen could be the subject of their actions. If I, as a concerned citizen, see something that I think is inappropriate action on the part of an officer, I should be able to determine immediately who that officer is and thus be able to report said actions. If I am being ordered to do something that seem unreasonable to me, I should have the right to ask why I am being ordered to do it. Anything less is giving the government way too much power over individual liberty.

They do have a legal liability to you.

No, they don't. The courts have repeatedly held that they don't. Officers could bust into my house, shoot my dogs, start a fire that would burn my house down, and then laugh in my face when I mourn the death of my dogs. They could do all of this when my house was not the one they were supposed to be at in the first place. And I wouldn't have a legal right to anything at all from the officers themselves, the department, or the city/state/whatever they were under.

A police officer could sit back and watch some rape and beat me. He could sit there and laugh at it. I would have no legal recourse to hold him accountable for dereliction of duty. None.

But they don't answer to you. They're liability is enforced by the jurisdiction. Not by you. *gasp* To suggest otherwise is just absurd. How could that even work?

I am a citizen. If an officer harms me either by incorrectly enforcing the law or by failing to do so, I should have some sort of legal recourse. I should be, at the very least, compensated for that harm. I do not have said recourse.

"Get on the ground"
"No"
"Sir, would you please get on the ground. We're concerned you have a weapon."
"What kind of weapon?"
"We don't know."
"Well, why would you think I have a weapon when you don't know what kind."
"Um...."

At the "We're concerned you might have a weapon," the person should get down on the ground. He can, of course, protest that he doesn't have one, but no violence has ensued and they will search him.

Of course, that isn't anything at all like the situation we're talking about. It's more like:

Police: "Get down on the ground."
Innocent person: "Why? I've done nothing wrong."
*police rush in and initiate violence*

Concerned citizen: "Why did you do that? He didn't do anything wrong! I want your name and badge number!"
Police officer: "Get back or I'll do the same to you!"


It's not idiotic. It's called respect. You are required to repect my rights. One of them is that you not assualt me. You don't get to choose whether to respect that right or how to respect that right. You can't grab my arm. You can't poke my chest. You can't punch me in the face. It's assualt.

Yes. So when a lady leaves her purse on the bench and I tap her to get her attention and hand it back to her, I'm being an awful, disrespectful person.

These situations are always context-specific. Yes, all of those things can be done with the intent to harm. They can also be done with no such intent. The idiocy is that, as long as you intentionally touched the person, it can be classified as assault. It doesn't matter what your reason was.

The officer doesn't wait for it to become violent. I know you're pretending to not understand, but it endangers EVERYONE in the area. They HAVE to control the situation or people get hurt much worse. Controlling someone resisting arrest is for the safety of everyone.

I see, so initiating violence is only a bad thing if you don't have a badge. It's amazing how things get twisted if you happen to have one.

You are assuming that something will become violent. If there is no indication that anyone is reacting violently, there is no reason to make that assumption.

There are hundreds of legal ways to hold them accountable. Civil courts. Criminal court. The FBI. IA. The chief. The local government. The county government. The state government. THe federal government. And so on. What they are not accountable to, is your uneducated decision to resist arrest.

A citizen cannot get redress in either a civil or criminal court. The courts have consistently held this to be true. Unless the city/state allows it (fat chance), the chances of being able to bring a lawsuit against an officer is pretty much nil. And the chances of IA or the police chief doing anything more than giving them a bit of paid leave is also pretty much nil. Until an officer racks up a pretty clear record of problems, nothing is going to be done about it. Even when it is, those he has harmed aren't going to get compensation for that harm.

The video doesn't show what happened before. You are assuming he wasn't told.

No, I'm simply not focusing purely on St. John. I'm much more worried about the others.

Police aren't allowed to carry any baton they choose. And by your definition a spoon can be a deadly weapon depending on how you use it. There are certain weapons that are classifed as deadly weapons regardless.

And, from what I can tell, weapon-style batons are one of them. Police are allowed to carry deadly weapons, and I have no problem with that. I do not, however, think they should be quick to use them.

Some of the pictures:

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/PoliceBrutality080.jpg
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/P1010322.jpg
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_14.jpg
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_01-1.jpg
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_02-1.jpg
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_11-1.jpg
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_07-1.jpg

While there are some things in the story in the OP that I doubt, I'm guessing that the story about a girl with stitches on her hand was probably fairly accurate. I'm guessing that's either the redhead or the blonde here, since they both look to be in pain.

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_08-1.jpg
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_12.jpg


That's not all of the pics up on the myspace page, but it is most of the ones taken during the arrests.

Yes, it's safe for me to allow someone else to be violent with me when I have no idea what's going on.

If he appears to be an officer, yes? That's why it's illegal to impersonate a police officer. Because illegal events happen, does not allow you to assume that legal activities are illegal. If that were so I could barge into other people's homes to check and see if the neighbor is abusing his wife. I can't start with the assumption a crime is being committed without evidence. Nor can you in regards to an identified officer. If you could, the world would be more dangerous for civilians and officers alike.


Yes, and when something is illegal, that makes people physically incapable of doing it. :rolleyes:

I suppose I should have gone right over to an unmarked car full of men when I couldn't see them. And if those guys had then been criminals and had beaten/mugged/raped/kidnapped me, I could have just said, "Reality doesn't permit this. It is illegal to impersonate a police officer," and been perfectly alright.

You as a civilian are not allowed to assume that the law is being broken. You must have evidence. You're asking to make the assumption.

If they identify themselves as officers, you are required to comply with lawful orders. That's a fact. The alternative would be every criminal using the excuse you're making. Well, he didn't stop to show me his identification and that's why I ran. I thought it was a fake police car. I thought it was a fake officer. There is no end. I know you often argue things because you don't want to admit you're wrong, but please stop being silly.



Anyone could be someone impersonating an officer. Unless he shows me definitive evidence that he is a police officer, I have every reason to believe he is someone else impersonating one.

They aren't required to prove they aren't committing a crime despite your ridiculous assertion they must.



Well, that's very convenient for people who don't mind breaking the law, isn't it?

That's how it works. The law requires you to comply with the law. It can't allow you to break the law just in case someone else is.



I'm not. There are things the police aren't allowed to do without reasonable cause. If they don't tell me what that cause is, how do I know their orders are lawful? I don't.
What they are allowed to do is control you first and then explain the reasoning to you. That is the law. It never changes.




Yes. Of course, when the only options on the ballot don't address my concerns, I'm pretty screwed, no?

How do things get on the ballot? You put them there. Of course, you have to get support, but why is this a surprise?


Any citizen could be the subject of their actions. If I, as a concerned citizen, see something that I think is inappropriate action on the part of an officer, I should be able to determine immediately who that officer is and thus be able to report said actions. If I am being ordered to do something that seem unreasonable to me, I should have the right to ask why I am being ordered to do it. Anything less is giving the government way too much power over individual liberty.

You cannot interfere with the detainment. You can get the officer's information afterward if need be, but you cannot interfere first. The alternative would be chaos. Again, even officers have the assumption of innocence. You want to be legally allowed to treat them as if they are guilty. You can't possibly believe that's workable.



No, they don't. The courts have repeatedly held that they don't. Officers could bust into my house, shoot my dogs, start a fire that would burn my house down, and then laugh in my face when I mourn the death of my dogs. They could do all of this when my house was not the one they were supposed to be at in the first place. And I wouldn't have a legal right to anything at all from the officers themselves, the department, or the city/state/whatever they were under.

Bullshit. You're full of it and everyone here knows it. Show me the courts repeatedly finding this. You are talking about courts protecting officers and fire departments from frivolous suits, not all suits. There are numerous suits that have been allowed. But you know this don't you.


A police officer could sit back and watch some rape and beat me. He could sit there and laugh at it. I would have no legal recourse to hold him accountable for dereliction of duty. None.

Again, please provide evidence. I smell shit. Maybe it's because you're talking out of your ass.



I am a citizen. If an officer harms me either by incorrectly enforcing the law or by failing to do so, I should have some sort of legal recourse. I should be, at the very least, compensated for that harm. I do not have said recourse.

You've not shown you don't though you say the court has supported this claim. Show me.



At the "We're concerned you might have a weapon," the person should get down on the ground. He can, of course, protest that he doesn't have one, but no violence has ensued and they will search him.

Again, bull. The citizen is a threat and that is the reason for the order. They cannot refuse. To do so escalates the situation. This has been explained to you repeatedly but you, as is common, are being deliberately obtuse.


Of course, that isn't anything at all like the situation we're talking about. It's more like:

Police: "Get down on the ground."
Innocent person: "Why? I've done nothing wrong."
*police rush in and initiate violence*

Concerned citizen: "Why did you do that? He didn't do anything wrong! I want your name and badge number!"
Police officer: "Get back or I'll do the same to you!"

Uh-huh. You've not shown that occurred. What we have is a citizen who admits to assualting the officer after refusing to comply with orders. They are under no obligation to explain themselves to you in the middle of a chaotic scene. Claim otherwise if you like, but it's ridiculous.



Yes. So when a lady leaves her purse on the bench and I tap her to get her attention and hand it back to her, I'm being an awful, disrespectful person.

Depends on the situation, frankly. In this situation, the person is claiming that the officer had given him lawful orders, that he hadn't complied, that the officer had initiated action that YOU called violence and that the citizen laid his hands on the officer. Not quite the same. The question is whether or not a reasonable person could have known their actions were unwanted. In this case, the answer is blatantly obvious.


These situations are always context-specific. Yes, all of those things can be done with the intent to harm. They can also be done with no such intent. The idiocy is that, as long as you intentionally touched the person, it can be classified as assault. It doesn't matter what your reason was.

It's not about intent. It's about whether or not the person you are touching wants the contact. It doesn't matter if I'm trying to help you. If I reasonably know that the contact is unwanted, it's assault.



I see, so initiating violence is only a bad thing if you don't have a badge. It's amazing how things get twisted if you happen to have one.

There are lots of things that are legal with a badge. I also can't lock you in my car. Funny how that works. I wonder what the alternative would be? Hmmm... "please, please, please, go to court. I can't make you go. I can only do the same things as your average citizen.' Seriously, Dem, this is a bad argument, and you can't pretend you don't know it.




You are assuming that something will become violent. If there is no indication that anyone is reacting violently, there is no reason to make that assumption.

Cops must act in the interest of their safety and the safety of the public at large. In doing so, they must mitigate the risk of violence and chaos as much as possible. Sometimes that means acting on an assumption. Waiting till they are certain at all times is ludicrous and dangerous. Violence is very often predicated by a number of actions. One of them is laying your hands on another person when it is inappropriate like the protester admits to doing.

The only thing anyone is assuming that someone MIGHT become violent. That they MIGHT is plenty when an officer is attempting to keep the peace.


A citizen cannot get redress in either a civil or criminal court. The courts have consistently held this to be true. Unless the city/state allows it (fat chance), the chances of being able to bring a lawsuit against an officer is pretty much nil. And the chances of IA or the police chief doing anything more than giving them a bit of paid leave is also pretty much nil. Until an officer racks up a pretty clear record of problems, nothing is going to be done about it. Even when it is, those he has harmed aren't going to get compensation for that harm.

Ha. Again, links.

I know what you're talking about, but you're completely misusing these cases.

http://www.hrw.org/reports98/police/uspo63.htm

72 Million. That's just one city. So much for your ludicrous claims. The city is run by the people. Stop making silly conspiracy arguments.

Some of the pictures:

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/PoliceBrutality080.jpg
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/P1010322.jpg
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_14.jpg
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_01-1.jpg
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_02-1.jpg
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_11-1.jpg
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_07-1.jpg

While there are some things in the story in the OP that I doubt, I'm guessing that the story about a girl with stitches on her hand was probably fairly accurate. I'm guessing that's either the redhead or the blonde here, since they both look to be in pain.

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_08-1.jpg
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_12.jpg


That's not all of the pics up on the myspace page, but it is most of the ones taken during the arrests.

What do you know. Even the pictures show him resisting arresting. They also show the crowd pressing forward and creating a threat. Hmmmm... a thousand words there.

What I don't see is an angry officer. Every one of those officers appears to be calmly carrying out their duty. Hand selected photos and still don't support your case. Sure sucks to be shown to be wrong over and over and over, huh, dem?

EDIT: So much for your picnic theory, Dem. Unless people usually bring massive protest signs to picnics.

Also, why the jump in time? There were no pictures when the cops first arrived? I bet I can guess. Don't want to show the protesters yelling at the cops. That would evidence they were failing to comply and it would evidence a crime.

Actually, it's not solely the officer. Usually there is other evidence. In this case the student admits it.

The other evidence usually includes the testimony of other officers. Again, we see a lack of accountability.

Oh, so we're talking about officers randomly beating up people and disappearing. Uh-huh. Yes, that happens all the time. I'm sure you have some evidence.

You said the name of the officer is on the arrest form. I have been to protests where I was physically assaulted by a police officer who then went on to do the same to someone else. I was never arrested. Now, how am I supposed to get that cop's name? Again, where is the accountability?

Um, no. They might get involved if the case of corruption is so widespread it cannot be handled locally. Only in the movies are entire police departments not accountable to the counties and states they exist in.

When we are speaking of police brutality against protestors, your scenario is pretty farfetched. It is not really designed as a means of accountability for that, and would not work well in that regard.

Ha. Talk about obtuse. He links to a public perception. Nothing about that shows there was an actual problem. It shows that people like you use their ignorance as an excuse to make accusations. It also shows that there are options if IA is not doing it's job. It bodes badly for you in every scenario. But hey, keep on arguing. It's funny.

What accusation am I making? My allegation is that there is little or no accountability for police brutality during protests. You have not shown any succesful IA investigations concerning such brutality. You can talk about my argument all you want, or that I can't find a proven causative link between public perception in this regard with actual problems, but that doesn't change one thing: you haven't shown one good method of holding cops accountable for brutality against protestors.

It's not assuming anything. The cops are required by law to cooperate. They answer to a chief who is elected. They answer to a government that is also elected. They answer to a DA who is elected. Your nonsense is just that.

And of course, they wil always follow the law, right? If they always followed the law, we wouldn't need IA at all, would we? Nice circular logic. Again, we see how the IA is not a good method of holding cops accountable for this sort of behaviour.

Are you kidding? Why do you think they have protests? YOu've already referenced a case where the "average protestor" changed the law.

I did? Are you talking about RO's link? Are you suggesting protests are a good way to hold police officers accountable for violence during protests, or as a way of pressuring the local politico?

I'll tell you what. I won't assume you're a guy and you don't assume that cops are corrupt. You provide proof. Then neither one of us will be making invalid assumptions.

Tell you what, don't assume I made such an assumption, and I won't assume you can't read.

According to you they are never successful. You're the one claiming corruption here. Provide evidence. You are assuming it's true because I've not proven it false.

So... no source, then? That's what I thought.

You mean, they had the perception that it was needed. There is no proof that cops don't police cops very well. Meanwhile, two cases is hardly evidence that in the 1000's of jurisdictions the IA is not doing their job.

A lot of people have the same perception: for proper accountability, you need enough of a separation of powers that no one polices themselves. Thisis not the case when it comes to police brutality at protests.

I don't care if I annoy you. Argument from ignorance is a fallacy. You admit you don't know what the hell you're talking about and use it as an argument. That's idiotic.

If you don't want me to criticise your argument, how about you make a good argument? Or do you not know how to do that? I'll wait.

Well, fuck me for forgetting to type the word 'successful' as I already mentioned. But since it's such a crappy argument, you should be able to defeat it easily by sourcing one successful IA investigation into allegations of police brutality. But you haven't. You just complained about how shitty an argument it was. That's annoying.

Some of the pictures:Thanks.

now the problem with Pics.

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/PoliceBrutality080.jpg
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/P1010322.jpg
another argument, but that does NOT look like a blanket. that white stripe along the edge does look like the reinforcing strip that they attach to flags. but without being there to actually see it... there is still the possiblility that it's a blanket.

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_14.jpg
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_01-1.jpgthese two photoes. I have no idea what happened before or in what order or what's missing. is the protester throwing a punch in the bottom pic? it might be, it might not. is the officer hitting the kid with his night stick in the top pic? or is the kid grabbing the stick and trying to get it away from the officer?

On one hand, you can see the officers are 'abusing' the protesters, or you can see the protester fighting the officer.

either way would match each version of the story.


http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_02-1.jpgassuming you are looking at the contusions on the face. that would be recieved in the action of cuffing the protester. Considering he is on the asphalt, those marks on his face would be gotten no matter how gentle the officer was.

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_11-1.jpgnice angry pic. :p No evidence of abuse.

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_07-1.jpgWhile there are some things in the story in the OP that I doubt, I'm guessing that the story about a girl with stitches on her hand was probably fairly accurate. I'm guessing that's either the redhead or the blonde here, since they both look to be in pain. pain or just screaming. not saying she's NOT in pain, but there is a possibility that she's just screaming in outrage/fear.

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_08-1.jpgOh.. an action pic. he's trying to jumping up and away while they're trying to holding him down.
or they could be lifting him by the arms. Each is possible.

and this is abuse how? if he's refusing to walk, they will have to carry him out of the way.

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_12.jpganother pic not showing anyone being abused by the police. so where is it 'Evident' that the police was abusing and using unnecessary force?

The problem with pics is that it doesn't show what happened before or after the moment the photo was taken.

So much for your picnic theory, Dem. Unless people usually bring massive protest signs to picnics.To be fair Jocabia. They did say they protested (held signs) at another location and marched to the park. so the sign waving could be done at the picnic. what it does not show is "Quietly having a picnic."

Also, why the jump in time? There were no pictures when the cops first arrived? I bet I can guess. Don't want to show the protesters yelling at the cops. That would evidence they were failing to comply and it would evidence a crime.

a problem with pics. ;)

To be fair Jocabia. They did say they protested (held signs) at another location and marched to the park. so the sign waving could be done at the picnic. what it does not show is "Quietly having a picnic."

a problem with pics. ;)

Can't be fair about it because we weren't there.

If they had a case for brutality, I'm sure the ACLU would have picked it up. Or a local citizens organization concerning legal rights, etc.

Apparently, they're in the wind. Draw your own conclusions.

Can't be fair about it because we weren't there.

If they had a case for brutality, I'm sure the ACLU would have picked it up. Or a local citizens organization concerning legal rights, etc.

Apparently, they're in the wind. Draw your own conclusions.can be fair. We (on NSG) can look at both sides of the argument. For instance, They said they marched from one location where they waved signs to the park for a "quiet picnic". so yes, they had a picnic. and yes, they had signs. that is not contested. but what that top pic shows is NOT a 'Quiet' picnic that they claimed they had.

and yes, I do say that we were not there. so we cannot say yea or nay either way on abuse or necessary or unnecessary force.

To be fair Jocabia. They did say they protested (held signs) at another location and marched to the park. so the sign waving could be done at the picnic. what it does not show is "Quietly having a picnic."

The video I linked to shows them protesting at the park.

To be fair Jocabia. They did say they protested (held signs) at another location and marched to the park. so the sign waving could be done at the picnic. what it does not show is "Quietly having a picnic."



a problem with pics. ;)

That's the same location. The same "blanket" on the ground. They don't appear to be marching anywhere unless they're dragging a flag.

The problem with the pics is that themselves are evidence the protesters have something to hide. They are suggestive, but not of brutality.

If he appears to be an officer, yes?

And I'm talking about a situation in which I couldn't tell. To this day, I can't be completely certain that he was a police officer. When he actually got out of the car, I could see that he had a bright orange "POLICE" vest on, but you can buy those at a costume shop. He wasn't in uniform and he never produced a badge.

But his orders were given when I couldn't even see him. All I could see was an unmarked car with at least 4 male-sized figures in it.

Technically (assuming he truly was a police officer), I was legally required to walk over to the car when he told me to. In reality, that would have been royally stupid of me.

They aren't required to prove they aren't committing a crime despite your ridiculous assertion they must.

I didn't say they have to prove it. I said that, unless they give me some indication of why they are doing something, I cannot know that their orders are lawful. It isn't unreasonable to expect a little explanation when there is a distinct possibility that somebody might be trampling over your civil rights.

That's how it works. The law requires you to comply with the law. It can't allow you to break the law just in case someone else is.

The law can be written in such a way that it doesn't put people in danger. According to you, if someone says, "I'm a police officer," I have to comply with all orders or be violently arrested. That puts me in a great deal of danger, because anyone and everyone wishing to take advantage of me can just say, "I'm a police officer," and be able to do so.

What they are allowed to do is control you first and then explain the reasoning to you. That is the law. It never changes.

Then the law puts me in constant danger of having my civil rights trampled. As such, it should be changed.

You cannot interfere with the detainment. You can get the officer's information afterward if need be, but you cannot interfere first. The alternative would be chaos. Again, even officers have the assumption of innocence. You want to be legally allowed to treat them as if they are guilty. You can't possibly believe that's workable.

I didn't say anything about interfering.

Bullshit. You're full of it and everyone here knows it. Show me the courts repeatedly finding this. You are talking about courts protecting officers and fire departments from frivolous suits, not all suits. There are numerous suits that have been allowed. But you know this don't you.

The way that the courts protect them from frivolous suits is basically by protecting them from all suits. What is described in the quote there is something that actually happened quite recently. It was discussed in depth here on NSG. The family received no compensation whatsoever because, if it had been the right house, everything the officers did would have been legal. And they can't be held responsible for their mistakes.

Again, please provide evidence. I smell shit. Maybe it's because you're talking out of your ass.

Actually, that comes directly from a Supreme Court case. The one I'm most familiar with is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. It's the earliest case I'm aware of in which the courts held that members of the executive branch are not liable for failure to do their jobs.

From that transcript for that case:
Kennedy: And under your theory, I take it, if two policemen see a rape and watch it just for their own amusement, no violation of the Constitution?
Mingo: We would concede that there is no constitutional violation in that particular case.
Kennedy: You're arguing it as well as conceding it.
Mingo: THat's correct.

The court held with them on that case, including this from the decision:

"But nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors....

Consistent with these principles, our cases have recognized that the Due Process Clauses generally confer no affirmative right to government aid, even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual...If the Due Process Clause does not require the State to provide its citizens with particular protective services, it follows that the State canto be held liable under the Clause for injuries that could have been averted if it had chose to provide them. As a general matter, then, we conclude that a State's failure to protect an individual against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause."

Further cases, including the recent one related to the enforcement of restraining orders (in which two young children were murdered as a direct result of a police department's refusal to enforce one) and one in which a woman was beaten and severely injured while an officer looked on, have upheld that idea. An officer cannot be held legally liable for not doing his job. He can sit back and watch a person being harmed and has broken no laws.

Again, bull. The citizen is a threat and that is the reason for the order. They cannot refuse. To do so escalates the situation. This has been explained to you repeatedly but you, as is common, are being deliberately obtuse.

Darling, reading comprehension. Seriously, try it.

I didn't say they can refuse. I didn't say anything about refusal.

Uh-huh. You've not shown that occurred. What we have is a citizen who admits to assualting the officer after refusing to comply with orders. They are under no obligation to explain themselves to you in the middle of a chaotic scene. Claim otherwise if you like, but it's ridiculous.

No, what we have are 16 citizens who, by most accounts, were told to disperse. When they asked why, they were immediately rushed and arrests began.

I've already made it exceedingly clear that I am not focused on the case of St. John. I'm more worried about the 16 others who were arrested later.

There are lots of things that are legal with a badge.

Indeed. But being legal doesn't make them good in a given situation.

Initiation of violence is not a good thing. An officer shouldn't do it unless it is damn clear that violence will occur either way.

And I'm talking about a situation in which I couldn't tell. To this day, I can't be completely certain that he was a police officer. When he actually got out of the car, I could see that he had a bright orange "POLICE" vest on, but you can buy those at a costume shop. He wasn't in uniform and he never produced a badge.

But his orders were given when I couldn't even see him. All I could see was an unmarked car with at least 4 male-sized figures in it.

Technically (assuming he truly was a police officer), I was legally required to walk over to the car when he told me to. In reality, that would have been royally stupid of me.



I didn't say they have to prove it. I said that, unless they give me some indication of why they are doing something, I cannot know that their orders are lawful. It isn't unreasonable to expect a little explanation when there is a distinct possibility that somebody might be trampling over your civil rights.



The law can be written in such a way that it doesn't put people in danger. According to you, if someone says, "I'm a police officer," I have to comply with all orders or be violently arrested. That puts me in a great deal of danger, because anyone and everyone wishing to take advantage of me can just say, "I'm a police officer," and be able to do so.



Then the law puts me in constant danger of having my civil rights trampled. As such, it should be changed.



I didn't say anything about interfering.



The way that the courts protect them from frivolous suits is basically by protecting them from all suits. What is described in the quote there is something that actually happened quite recently. It was discussed in depth here on NSG. The family received no compensation whatsoever because, if it had been the right house, everything the officers did would have been legal. And they can't be held responsible for their mistakes.



Actually, that comes directly from a Supreme Court case. The one I'm most familiar with is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. It's the earliest case I'm aware of in which the courts held that members of the executive branch are not liable for failure to do their jobs.

From that transcript for that case:
Kennedy: And under your theory, I take it, if two policemen see a rape and watch it just for their own amusement, no violation of the Constitution?
Mingo: We would concede that there is no constitutional violation in that particular case.
Kennedy: You're arguing it as well as conceding it.
Mingo: THat's correct.

The court held with them on that case, including this from the decision:

"But nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors....

Consistent with these principles, our cases have recognized that the Due Process Clauses generally confer no affirmative right to government aid, even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual...If the Due Process Clause does not require the State to provide its citizens with particular protective services, it follows that the State canto be held liable under the Clause for injuries that could have been averted if it had chose to provide them. As a general matter, then, we conclude that a State's failure to protect an individual against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause."

Further cases, including the recent one related to the enforcement of restraining orders (in which two young children were murdered as a direct result of a police department's refusal to enforce one) and one in which a woman was beaten and severely injured while an officer looked on, have upheld that idea. An officer cannot be held legally liable for not doing his job. He can sit back and watch a person being harmed and has broken no laws.



Darling, reading comprehension. Seriously, try it.

I didn't say they can refuse. I didn't say anything about refusal.



No, what we have are 16 citizens who, by most accounts, were told to disperse. When they asked why, they were immediately rushed and arrests began.

I've already made it exceedingly clear that I am not focused on the case of St. John. I'm more worried about the 16 others who were arrested later.



Indeed. But being legal doesn't make them good in a given situation.

Initiation of violence is not a good thing. An officer shouldn't do it unless it is damn clear that violence will occur either way.

Dear God. I'm out anyway. Good thing there is almost nothing I can say that can make your argument more silly than quoting it. As usual, not a link in it, but tons of assertions. As usual, your argument changes with the wind. "I didn't say the could refuse." What you said is that they could refuse to follow the order until it is explained to them. You said this repeatedly. Lying does not help your case.

That's the same location. The same "blanket" on the ground. They don't appear to be marching anywhere unless they're dragging a flag.

from the OP's Friends Blog section.
The march went wonderfully. Police cruisers kept in constant eyesight, making sure nothing illegal was done. Lots of cars honked, waved, and shouted their support. We ended in Riverfront Park, near the clock tower, where our group proceeded to sit down to enjoy a picnic.

so they started out "under the bridge in peaceful valley" and marched to the park. ;)

I agree that the pic does NOT support the image of a group sitting down to enjoy a picnic.

The video I linked to shows them protesting at the park.

yep... but there's also alot of cries of "the picture shows..."

so I wanted to look at these pics. :)