NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

None of those pictures are of St. John. Maybe you should read up on the case a bit? You seem to be thinking that there was a single person involved.

The incident with St. John occurred well before the arrests of the others.

I don't see the crown pushing forward in these pictures. In fact, it appears that they are rather close to each other, with the officers advancing on them.

And I don't see anyone actively resisting in the pictures. I see someone who looks like they are getting jabbed with a baton. I see people lying on their bellies on the ground. I see a girl who looks to be in pain being arrested on her knees. I see someone being lifted off the ground. I don't see anyone at all being violent except for the police officers.

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?

The officer hitting someone with a baton looks pretty angry, as do the officers lifting someone off of the ground by his arms.

EDIT: So much for your picnic theory, Dem. Unless people usually bring massive protest signs to picnics.

They held a protest that ended at the picnic. Seriously, have you neglected to read ANY of the accounts of what happened? Even the police don't deny that the protesters were picnicking there. In fact, some of the pictures show them sitting around on their flag/blanket and they have food out.

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.

I didn't show all of the pictures that were there. There are a couple of police just standing around and taking pictures. Here's one of them:

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/P1010323.jpg

There aren't any pictures of what happened when St. John was arrested.

There is one of someone yelling, but it is during the arrests:

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_10.jpg

Actually, seriously. Why don't you look them up for yourself? They're linked to on the very first page of the thread.

I didn't show all of the pictures that were there. There are a couple of police just standing around and taking pictures. Here's one of them:

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/P1010323.jpg and that is wrong of the police how? Taking pictures of the sign for say... their record of what's happening in the park?

when our SWAT volunteers for security at our 50th State Fair, yes, they do take pictures while they're there.

So it's proof that those that called in complaints had a valid reason to.


http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_10.jpgand this shows the crowd responding negatively to the order to disperse... and funny, I don't see anyone else being cuffed (or binded) so how do you know it's DURING the arrest and not BEFORE the arrests started? because a person protesting what happened said so?

If the police can lie, so can those the police arrested.

Ever wonder why you don't see anyone saying "here's the F**cked up things we did that we were arrested for. yeah, we deserved it and our trial is next week."

Actually, seriously. Why don't you look them up for yourself? They're linked to on the very first page of the thread.for which I thank you for posting the pics. (Since work blocks Myspace and other bloggy sites.) :)

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.

I didn't have a link, but I did quote both a transcript of and the decision from a Supreme Court case. I guess that doesn't count though, since you're too lazy to look up the case yourself?

Meanwhile, how can I link to my own personal experience (the first part of my post), or to my own opinions of how police should act (most of the rest of the post).

Next you'll be asking me for a link explaining why I think purple is my favorite color. :rolleyes:

As usual, your argument changes with the wind.

My argument hasn't changed in the least.

"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.

I haven't lied. I never said anyone can refuse. I did say that they should be able to ask for some sort of explanation before complying. I didn't say they were legally entitled to it. What I said is that they should be and that not having that right puts us all in danger from both our own police forces and from anyone who might choose to impersonate them.

None of those pictures are of St. John. Maybe you should read up on the case a bit? You seem to be thinking that there was a single person involved.

The incident with St. John occurred well before the arrests of the others.

I don't see the crown pushing forward in these pictures. In fact, it appears that they are rather close to each other, with the officers advancing on them.

And I don't see anyone actively resisting in the pictures. I see someone who looks like they are getting jabbed with a baton. I see people lying on their bellies on the ground. I see a girl who looks to be in pain being arrested on her knees. I see someone being lifted off the ground. I don't see anyone at all being violent except for the police officers.

Hmmm... we have a hand on the nightstick. That's resisting. We also have someone appearing to have their hand up and pushed forward, something you would ONLY expect to see if they were actually, you know, pushing forward.

Meanwhile, I didn't mention St. John. Are just arguing with whatever you can think of since sticking to what I say is making your argument look silly?

The officer hitting someone with a baton looks pretty angry, as do the officers lifting someone off of the ground by his arms.

There faces are placid. Methinks you're inserting something not there. Also, you cannot be sure he's been lifted up. They don't appear to be exerting themselves at all. He very well may have jumped. His shirt is up and away from his body as if he did. Of course, they could also be grabbing his shirt and that's why it looks like that. The only one making assumptions here is you.



They held a protest that ended at the picnic. Seriously, have you neglected to read ANY of the accounts of what happened? Even the police don't deny that the protesters were picnicking there. In fact, some of the pictures show them sitting around on their flag/blanket and they have food out.

They are also protesting there.



I didn't show all of the pictures that were there. There are a couple of police just standing around and taking pictures. Here's one of them:

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/P1010323.jpg

There aren't any pictures of what happened when St. John was arrested.

There is one of someone yelling, but it is during the arrests:

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_10.jpg

Actually, seriously. Why don't you look them up for yourself? They're linked to on the very first page of the thread.

I know what they are. They are pictures being provided by one side with a clear gap in them. I looked at them. They don't evidence what you claim.

All the evidence I need is the admission by St. John that he broke the law.

and that is wrong of the police how? Taking pictures of the sign for say... their record of what's happening in the park?

Nothing, necessarily. I was just pointing out that I didn't post all the pictures. Jocabia complained that there were no pictures after the arrival of the police but before the arrests, so I found one.

and this shows the crowd responding negatively to the order to disperse... and funny, I don't see anyone else being cuffed (or binded) so how do you know it's DURING the arrest and not BEFORE the arrests started? because a person protesting what happened said so?

If the police can lie, so can those the police arrested.

You're right. I don't know for certain.

Ever wonder why you don't see anyone saying "here's the F**cked up things we did that we were arrested for. yeah, we deserved it and our trial is next week."

Oh, believe me, I don't take their account at face value. I've said repeatedly in this thread that I think the truth lies somewhere in between. I've just seen no indication that the 16 later arrested initiated any violence (and only very shaky evidence that St. John was actually violent). It's possible, but I've seen no indication of it. I have no doubt whatsoever that they were being more rude than they let on, but I don't think rudeness

for which I thank you for posting the pics. (Since work blocks Myspace and other bloggy sites.) :)

=( Mean work. Was it you who originally asked for them? I remember wondering if it was someone in the military, since they block MySpace now.

I've just seen no indication that the 16 later arrested initiated any violence (and only very shaky evidence that St. John was actually violent). It's possible, but I've seen no indication of it. I have no doubt whatsoever that they were being more rude than they let on, but I don't think rudeness

I repeat: You do not need to initiate violence for the police to subdue and arrest you.

All it takes is a verbal act of noncompliance with the lawful order of a police officer.

Policeman: Please disperse.

Protester: No way!

*protester subdued forcefully and cuffed, stacked on ground*

Hmmm... we have a hand on the nightstick. That's resisting.

Even if he's being shoved with it? That hurts, you know.

There faces are placid. Methinks you're inserting something not there.

Not in those particular pictures.

The only one making assumptions here is you.

Hardly. I'm putting forth what I think is most likely based on the evidence I have seen.

They are also protesting there.

At least some of them, yes.

I know what they are. They are pictures being provided by one side with a clear gap in them. I looked at them. They don't evidence what you claim.

...in your opinion.

All the evidence I need is the admission by St. John that he broke the law.

Is St. John 17 people? If not, that only works for him.

Even if he's being shoved with it? That hurts, you know.

Yes, it hurts. That's why when the police tell you to disperse, you comply immediately.

Unless you like pain.

I repeat: You do not need to initiate violence for the police to subdue and arrest you.

All it takes is a verbal act of noncompliance with the lawful order of a police officer.

Policeman: Please disperse.

Protester: No way!

*protester subdued forcefully and cuffed, stacked on ground*

And I repeat that I think that's bullshit. The police shouldn't start using violence unless it is clearly necessary. This is especially true if it isn't "No way!" and instead, "Why?"

And I repeat that I think that's bullshit. The police shouldn't start using violence unless it is clearly necessary. This is especially true if it isn't "No way!" and instead, "Why?"

It's not bullshit, it's the law.

It is the law.

Any answer but "Yes" and any act other than immediate compliance can be grounds for being pushed back with a nightstick, stunned with a taser, or peppersprayed.

It is also, legally, grounds for arrest.

It's not bullshit, it's the law.

Being the law doesn't exempt something from being bullshit. There are some things that are legal that I think shouldn't be. There are many things I think are illegal that I think shouldn't be.

Being the law doesn't make something correct or appropriate. It just makes it the law.

It's not bullshit, it's the law.

It is the law.

Any answer but "Yes" and any act other than immediate compliance can be grounds for being pushed back with a nightstick, stunned with a taser, or peppersprayed.

It is also, legally, grounds for arrest.

So, if you were driving down to the gun range, minding your own business, and some cop pulled you over and told you to put all your weapons in the police car, would you do it?

If you hesitate or ask why, does he get to beat you up with the nightstick?

Being the law doesn't exempt something from being bullshit. There are some things that are legal that I think shouldn't be. There are many things I think are illegal that I think shouldn't be.

Being the law doesn't make something correct or appropriate. It just makes it the law.

If you don't want to spend a lot of time behind bars, I suggest you get used to it.

Things have gotten better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_Act

In the old days, the police would have read the Riot Act, and then killed you.

The Riot Act was introduced during a time of civil disturbance in Great Britain. The preamble makes reference to many rebellious riots and tumults [that] have been [taking place of late] in divers parts of this kingdom, adding that those involved presum[e] so to do, for that the punishments provided by the laws now in being are not adequate to such heinous offences.

Main provisions

Proclamation of riotous assembly

The act created a mechanism for certain local officials to make a proclamation ordering the dispersal of any group of more than twelve people who were "unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled together". If the group failed to disperse within twenty minutes, then anyone remaining gathered was guilty of a felony without benefit of clergy, punishable by death.


The proclamation could be made in an incorporated town or city by the Mayor, Bailiffs or "other head officer", or a Justice of the Peace. Elsewhere it could be made by a Justice of the Peace or the Sheriff or Under-Sheriff. It had to be read out to the gathering concerned, and had to follow precise wording detailed in the act; several convictions were overturned because parts of the proclamation had been omitted, in particular "God save the King."[citation needed]

The wording that had to be read out to the assembled gathering was as follows:

Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year of King George, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King.

Consequences of reading the proclamation

If a group of people failed to disperse within twenty minutes of the proclamation, the act provided that the authorities could use force to disperse them. Anyone assisting with the dispersal was specifically indemnified against any legal consequences in the event of any of the crowd being injured or killed.

Because of the free-ranging powers that the act granted, it was used both for the maintenance of civil order and for political means. A particularly notorious use of the act was the Peterloo Massacre of 1818.

If you don't want to spend a lot of time behind bars, I suggest you get used to it.

I haven't been involved in anything like that. But, if I thought it would spur discussion on civil rights, I'd be willing to go to jail. I've thought about setting up my own demonstrations about things once or twice, but it never seems to get off the ground.

Things have gotten better.

And hopefully will continue to do so.

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.

Jocabia, you have my respect as a debater and presenter of arguments. However, the reason you have the reputation as being a forum bully is that bolded statement right there, and its like. If you feel you've made your case -- and you HAVE, quite excellently -- why not leave it at that instead of antagonizing your opponent? Dempublicents is arguing from an emotional standpoint and Gift-of-God is just plain out of his depth.

You've won. If they can't admit it, don't give away your respectability with needless taunts.

Jocabia, you have my respect as a debater and presenter of arguments. However, the reason you have the reputation as being a forum bully is that bolded statement right there, and its like. If you feel you've made your case -- and you HAVE, quite excellently -- why not leave it at that instead of antagonizing your opponent? Dempublicents is arguing from an emotional standpoint and Gift-of-God is just plain out of his depth.

You've won. If they can't admit it, don't give away your respectability with needless taunts.

Don't feed his ego like that. He is a sophist who has no experience in the world beyond his debating classes. He may 'argue better', but he's still wrong.

My assertion was that there is no good way to make cops accountable for violence against protestors. All Jocabia needed to do to prove that wrong was provide one source that showed one successful investigation against cops. He didn't do it.

Yeah, he's really an awesome debater.:rolleyes:

In the old days, the police would have read the Riot Act, and then killed you.

In England.

The closest thing the US has is the Militia Act of 1792.

Don't feed his ego like that. He is a sophist who has no experience in the world beyond his debating classes. He may 'argue better', but he's still wrong.

My assertion was that there is no good way to make cops accountable for violence against protestors. All Jocabia needed to do to prove that wrong was provide one source that showed one successful investigation against cops. He didn't do it.

Yeah, he's really an awesome debater.:rolleyes:

Man, I've read the thread. Sorry, but you were soundly defeated. Perhaps there are some online examples here: http://www.policeone.com/officer-misconduct-internal-affairs/articles/1271139/

Man, I've read the thread. Sorry, but you were soundly defeated. Perhaps there are some online examples here: http://www.policeone.com/officer-misconduct-internal-affairs/articles/1271139/

If you want to consider me defeated, do so, I don't mind. At least you're not a prick about it.

Former Police Chief William Beining III and borough officials have said the lawsuits and excessive force complaints were unfounded. They note that no borough officer has been charged with violating the law or been disciplined for any infraction related to the litigation.

So, no police officer has been charged with brutality despite a widespread investigation. I don't see how this proves that my allegation is wrong. Unless I'm stoopid, this kinda proves my point.

If you want to consider me defeated, do so, I don't mind. At least you're not a prick about it.



So, no police officer has been charged with brutality despite a widespread investigation. I don't see how this proves that my allegation is wrong. Unless I'm stoopid, this kinda proves my point.

Read all of the links on that page, did you?

If you don't want to spend a lot of time behind bars, I suggest you get used to it.

Things have gotten better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_Act

In the old days, the police would have read the Riot Act, and then killed you.

If things have gotten better, they are automatically perfect! :eek:

Unlike what most people believe, mostly based on what they see on TV, or have read on the internets... Police DO NOT have to read you your Miranda rights at the point in time you are taken into custody. They simply need to advise you of them prior to asking you any questions. Additionally, if the police DO NOT ask you any questions, but you decide to open your mouth and make any comments prior to being advised... those are known as spontaneous utterances and ARE admissible in court.

That stated, officers involved in Confrontation Management are dealing with one of the most dangerous parts of police duties. Cuffing and searching subjects also ranks up among the most dangerous parts.

The protesters in this situation, though proclaiming innocence, depicted themselves otherwise. Anarchist symbology, masked faces, anti-authority signs, etc... They displayed intent to disobey Law Enforcement, and therefore interfere with Law enforcement's ability to maintain peace and order. Their unified stance, chanting together and disobedience all racheted up the tension of the situation. You see, cops are briefed in on local threats and shown videos of responses in their local area. That particular area has a history of having protests escalate into violent confrontations where officers get hurt and/or killed.

Here's a lil secret it seems many of the kiddos here on the webs seem to not know or ignore.

Cops are people too. They have families. Wives and lil kids at home waiting for them. They want to simply go to work, get a drunk driver off the road, stop a purse snatcher, help a lil lost kid get home safe, and then return home safe themselves. They want to help society as a whole. They are even willing to risk their lives to protect every citizen of their community, no matter how much certain ones may hate them.

Don't like your community's policies and/or laws? Take it to your courts or take it to your polling booths.

Don't take it to the streets with violent intent, or you will get dealt with.

Cops are people too. They have families. Wives and lil kids at home waiting for them. They want to simply go to work, get a drunk driver off the road, stop a purse snatcher, help a lil lost kid get home safe, and then return home safe themselves. They want to help society as a whole. They are even willing to risk their lives to protect every citizen of their community, no matter how much certain ones may hate them.

That's a good point. People do forget that.
But so far I haven't really seen any "police hatred" in any of the accounts here. Foolish bravado, yes. But hatred, no.

Jocabia, you have my respect as a debater and presenter of arguments. However, the reason you have the reputation as being a forum bully is that bolded statement right there, and its like. If you feel you've made your case -- and you HAVE, quite excellently -- why not leave it at that instead of antagonizing your opponent? Dempublicents is arguing from an emotional standpoint and Gift-of-God is just plain out of his depth.

You've won. If they can't admit it, don't give away your respectability with needless taunts.

Yeah, I know. I get caught up and think it's funny. I probably shouldn't do it and I appreciate your advice.

Just for the record, I was simultaneously hitting on her on another forum. It's not as personal as it seems. However, your point stands.

Don't feed his ego like that. He is a sophist who has no experience in the world beyond his debating classes. He may 'argue better', but he's still wrong.

My assertion was that there is no good way to make cops accountable for violence against protestors. All Jocabia needed to do to prove that wrong was provide one source that showed one successful investigation against cops. He didn't do it.

Yeah, he's really an awesome debater.:rolleyes:

Amusing. I have no experience in the world. On what do you base this? Random assertions. Amusingly, that's exactly what's wrong with the rest of your arguments.

First, you claim IA doesn't investigate claims of brutality. Then you admit they do, but that they don't do it enough. Then they have no checks. Then you admit they can have checks if the citizens vote for them. Then you claim that protesters cannot get those checks put in place. Then you admit they have put those checks in place in some cities.

Golly, I sure hope one day I can make that "realistic" of an argument.

Jocabia, you have my respect as a debater and presenter of arguments. However, the reason you have the reputation as being a forum bully is that bolded statement right there, and its like. If you feel you've made your case -- and you HAVE, quite excellently -- why not leave it at that instead of antagonizing your opponent? Dempublicents is arguing from an emotional standpoint and Gift-of-God is just plain out of his depth.

I'll admit that I get emotional about things, but that doesn't change the Supreme Court case I directly quoted that says exactly what Jocabia was calling ridiculous. And not only did he not bring anything to refute it, he ignored it completely.

The protesters in this situation, though proclaiming innocence, depicted themselves otherwise. Anarchist symbology, masked faces, anti-authority signs, etc...

These things are illegal now?

They displayed intent to disobey Law Enforcement, and therefore interfere with Law enforcement's ability to maintain peace and order.

Did they? Are you still talking about the protest?

Cops are people too. They have families. Wives and lil kids at home waiting for them.

Indeed. Hence the reason that my husband and I give to charities which help out the families of wounded or killed police officers.

They want to simply go to work, get a drunk driver off the road, stop a purse snatcher, help a lil lost kid get home safe, and then return home safe themselves. They want to help society as a whole. They are even willing to risk their lives to protect every citizen of their community, no matter how much certain ones may hate them.

For most cops, this is true. For some, not so much. Trying to make the entire force out to be angelic is just as counterproductive as demonizing them.

Don't like your community's policies and/or laws? Take it to your courts or take it to your polling booths.

Don't take it to the streets with violent intent, or you will get dealt with.

Is a protest automatically violent intent now? Or is it just that you didn't like the particular people in the protest?

I'll admit that I get emotional about things, but that doesn't change the Supreme Court case I directly quoted that says exactly what Jocabia was calling ridiculous. And not only did he not bring anything to refute it, he ignored it completely.

It doesn't make the claim you say it makes. I showed you a city that paid out 72 million in brutality claims. It's a city no one's heard of called Detroit. So much for there being no recourse.

Of course, there must be millions of cases rejected based on your claims. Please list a few for me? Some juicy ones that aren't frivolous. There must be plenty given your claims. I'll wait.

It doesn't make the claim you say it makes. I showed you a city that paid out 72 million in brutality claims. It's a city no one's heard of called Detroit. So much for there being no recourse.

We weren't talking about brutality cases there, now were we? Go back and read that portion of our conversation. It was about the ability of an officer to sit back and watch a crime being committed on someone while doing nothing and the inability of that person to hold him legally accountable.

Nothing, necessarily. I was just pointing out that I didn't post all the pictures. Jocabia complained that there were no pictures after the arrival of the police but before the arrests, so I found one. oh, ok. silly me. :p

You're right. I don't know for certain.and yet there are others here who say they're certain.... I wonder what they are using to draw their evidence of guilt.

Oh, believe me, I don't take their account at face value. I've said repeatedly in this thread that I think the truth lies somewhere in between. I've just seen no indication that the 16 later arrested initiated any violence (and only very shaky evidence that St. John was actually violent). It's possible, but I've seen no indication of it. I have no doubt whatsoever that they were being more rude than they let on, but I don't think rudeness Rudness no. but like the other incident at the library... we don't have all the facts. maybe those 17 were the only violent ones. maybe only the 3 who ended up at trial. we don't know. and unless we see all the evidence... we can only guess.

=( Mean work. Was it you who originally asked for them? I remember wondering if it was someone in the military, since they block MySpace now.Yep. which is why I posted alot of thank you's. :p

btw... I work for a hospital. ;)

These things are illegal now?

Illegal? No. Displaying innocent intent? Also No.

Did they? Are you still talking about the protest?

Yes. Failure to disperse (wether they they believed the cops were right or not), when ordered by Law Enforcement, resisting arrest (few allowed themselves to be cuffed gently), chanting statements of resistance... All wrong in this situation.

Indeed. Hence the reason that my husband and I give to charities which help out the families of wounded or killed police officers.

My thanks goes out to you for this, for myself and my brothers in blue.

For most cops, this is true. For some, not so much. Trying to make the entire force out to be angelic is just as counterproductive as demonizing them.

Quite true. I should have prefaced that comment with the words "The Vast Majority of Police"

Is a protest automatically violent intent now? Or is it just that you didn't like the particular people in the protest?

Note I said " Don't take it to the streets with violent intent". I did not say "Don't take it to the streets". Personally, I feel that protests like this do VERY little to forward any type of cause. Usually all it does is generate a little media coverage {news vultures hoping to capture violence on film}, often portraying the "cause" in a negative light.

Now, to explain my personal position on this, I can say that I am a team leader for Confrontation Management team in the military. My team varies from 20-100 depending on the situation, usually protestors marching on our base in opposition of National policy. Each time the local protestors do things right. They apply for and receive permission from the local city to march in protest to the base. Once near the base, they congregate, sing songs, wave signs, chant slogans and rev themselves up. They then march to the demarkation line. We read them a standard proclaimation that the city's permission does not extend to base property. Usually they chant a few slogans, then a few first timers cross over our property line and sit down. We send in a small team who gently cuff and remove them and then everyone disperses. Those apprehended are cited and bared from base for 2 years. Repeat offenders (we have a few) end up being jailed for 6 months. The group's leaders get the media attention they want.

Before the event though, my team is fully checked and briefed. They know all about how the group is EXPECTED to act. But, for our safety and national security, we prep for a full out assault. We never know when outside groups may decide to join in and escalate things. (Ofton the MO of Anarchist groups).

Standard Law Enforcement policy nationwide is a gradual increase of force to meet and defeat the use of force displayed by subjects. We DO NOT need to be attacked first. We DO NOT need to stay at the same level displayed by subjects. Our Job is to defeat them, not contain them.

The event in question seems to have been fairly "peaceful", but had many agrivating portions. Not sure of local policy in WA but sitting on a Flag was probobly wrong. Moving when asked to relocate was good. Taking pictures of the cops, bad (leads them to worry about future targeting of them or their families for violence). The catalyst seems to have been when the boy got bumped off the bucket (inset photo of walrus "my Bucket" ). His reaction of grabing the cop's shoulder set this off in my view. All my guys are taught that any protestor grabbing them has commited "A Very Bad Thing". Cops grabbed in protests get dragged into the protest groups and get beaten, stabbed or worse. It is NEVER legal to touch an officer unless he allows it. Period. After that it was simply a matter of both groups escalating, with the outcome already decided. Smart teams NEVER put themselves in positions they cannot win.

Hopefully the kiddos involved learned that this form of reaction during their "counter-culture" protests won't be tolerated.

Happily it sounds like no one was seriously hurt.

We weren't talking about brutality cases there, now were we? Go back and read that portion of our conversation. It was about the ability of an officer to sit back and watch a crime being committed on someone while doing nothing and the inability of that person to hold him legally accountable.

So wait, your "victory" is that I dropped the argument that's not in any way related to this case or what we're talking about? What an unusual definition of a good argument you're exhibiting.

Yeah, I know. I get caught up and think it's funny. I probably shouldn't do it and I appreciate your advice.

Just for the record, I was simultaneously hitting on her on another forum. It's not as personal as it seems. However, your point stands.

HA! All that AND a mack daddy as well.

*bows with respect*

Right on.

I'll admit that I get emotional about things, but that doesn't change the Supreme Court case I directly quoted that says exactly what Jocabia was calling ridiculous. And not only did he not bring anything to refute it, he ignored it completely.

Fair enough -- I did read your SCOTUS posting. Partial retraction and apology.

Illegal? No. Displaying innocent intent? Also No.
*snip*


"Displaying innocent intent"? What does that even mean? If you're trying to tell us that because they were in black and had a couple of circled As on their t-shirts or masks on their faces, that they're going to be assumed to be "troublemakers", then just say that.

Let me rephrase: you contend that the way they were dressed was akin to waving a red cape at an angry bull, right?

"Displaying innocent intent"? What does that even mean? If you're trying to tell us that because they were in black and had a couple of circled As on their t-shirts or masks on their faces, that they're going to be assumed to be "troublemakers", then just say that.

Let me rephrase: you contend that the way they were dressed was akin to waving a red cape at an angry bull, right?

Wearing black is bad? Nope... over half the time I wear mostly black as well.. it looks good.

Wearing Anarchist symbols and wearing masks during a protest? Bad. One needs but review film of past "protests" involving people meeting those two factors to see why Law Enforcement would view them as having less than innocent intent.

As to what Innocent Intent means... our use of force model as set forth by US Statute and Supreme Court rulings states that our use of force (officer actions) must be based on two factors... the subjects displayed actions, and the officer's perception of threat/risk. The SCOTUS also put forth the standard of objective reasonableness... that ruling agencies (courts / IA) must view the situations through the eyes of the officer on scene (as percieved by a reasonable officer) and not view the situation through 20-20 hindsight.

Kiddos playing these games to be "cool" with their friends don't realize all the less than pleasent associations they are drawing to themselves.


Here are a few links to how Law Enforcement views "proclaimed" Anarchists and their actions:

Anarchism is a political philosophy or group of doctrines and attitudes centered on rejection of any form of compulsory government, and supporting its elimination.
Wikipedia definition of Anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism)


Video of Anarchists in action:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3754522503180118001&q=anarchist&total=1401&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0


Needless to say, this appearance draws the persons motives and possible activities into question... not like your example of wearing red around a bull... but more like wearing a Nixon mask over your face while entering a bank.

Wearing black is bad? Nope... over half the time I wear mostly black as well.. it looks good.

Wearing Anarchist symbols and wearing masks during a protest? Bad. One needs but review film of past "protests" involving people meeting those two factors to see why Law Enforcement would view them as having less than innocent intent.

As to what Innocent Intent means... our use of force model as set forth by US Statute and Supreme Court rulings states that our use of force (officer actions) must be based on two factors... the subjects displayed actions, and the officer's perception of threat/risk. The SCOTUS also put forth the standard of objective reasonableness... that ruling agencies (courts / IA) must view the situations through the eyes of the officer on scene (as percieved by a reasonable officer) and not view the situation through 20-20 hindsight.

Kiddos playing these games to be "cool" with their friends don't realize all the less than pleasent associations they are drawing to themselves.


Here are a few links to how Law Enforcement views "proclaimed" Anarchists and their actions:

Anarchism is a political philosophy or group of doctrines and attitudes centered on rejection of any form of compulsory government, and supporting its elimination.
Wikipedia definition of Anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism)


Video of Anarchists in action:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3754522503180118001&q=anarchist&total=1401&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0


Needless to say, this appearance draws the persons motives and possible activities into question... not like your example of wearing red around a bull... but more like wearing a Nixon mask over your face while entering a bank.

Sonny, defining anarchy to someone who lived through punk the FIRST time is...ah, skip it. I laughed, I'll admit it. Shit, I'm old.

I read the thread. The police acted in a brutal manner. Again.

I have read the thread myself and I am see conflicting reports so to say that the police acted in a brutal manner when we do not have the full facts outside of what is reported does the police a disservice.

Personally, I feel that protests like this do VERY little to forward any type of cause.

/snip

Now, to explain my personal position on this, I can say that I am a team leader for Confrontation Management team in the military. My team varies from 20-100 depending on the situation, usually protestors marching on our base in opposition of National policy. Each time the local protestors do things right. They apply for and receive permission from the local city to march in protest to the base. Once near the base, they congregate, sing songs, wave signs, chant slogans and rev themselves up. They then march to the demarkation line. We read them a standard proclaimation that the city's permission does not extend to base property. Usually they chant a few slogans, then a few first timers cross over our property line and sit down. We send in a small team who gently cuff and remove them and then everyone disperses. Those apprehended are cited and bared from base for 2 years. Repeat offenders (we have a few) end up being jailed for 6 months. The group's leaders get the media attention they want.Could this be the reason why the protests aren't effective?

Could this be the reason why the protests aren't effective?

Could be... :D Of course that is my job. Depends on your definition of effective. If the protestors simply want to gain media attention for their cause, we are perfectly happy with it and things proceed peacefully.

One part of my briefings before any situations involves me talking to my troops, and explaining that the protestors are doing NOTHING WRONG in marching and chanting. In fact every one of us swore an oath to uphold and defend their right to protest and chant, includingthe possible need to defend the protestors with OUR lives. {I've had to set up protest control/defense for when the "reverand" Phelps came to do his bit at a military funeral near our base.}

Our job is to stand by until the protestors decide that getting attention isn't enough, and they feel they must break the law/rules, often in a destructive manner [see video I attached or any of the other number of vids on it's page]. Then we quell the situation.

We try to use a graduated set of steps to disperse the rioters, continually using the minimum force nessasary. During our training my guys practice as the cops and the protestors, so they have all felt the impact of the batons and shields we use. They know it isn't pleasent. We reiterate prior to contact these rioters are PEOPLE not a faceless entity. I have team leaders below me to keep close control of each section of the unit, calling our guys by name for commands, so they remember they are recognized for whatever actions they do.

Riots are VERY TENSE events. Emotions flow rapidly. My guys are paid to do their jobs well, swiftly and calmly, often among large groups that are not calm, reasonable polite or non-violent. We know darn well that SOP for the "protest" groups today is to photo/video everything and edit it before giving it to the press, along with the press themselves filming. As several others in this thread noted, the police in question appear stoic.

The videos of the protesters tell the story through their eyes. But when viewed through the eyes of the "average" citizen, they see children (yes most adults view anyone under 22 as children) who are simply being gleefully destructive for the sake of violence only. They seem to be using the cause celeb {political appearence, G8 meeting, local event aftermath} as a situational excuse to gather and wreak havoc. Sure, many of those present are "old guard", simply trying to get their views/message heard [hat tip to Intangelon]. But the actions of the common footsoldiers of their organizations bring fear to the eyes of the average citizen.

My job is to stop that fear.

Could be... :D Of course that is my job. Depends on your definition of effective. If the protestors simply want to gain media attention for their cause, we are perfectly happy with it and things proceed peacefully.But you've stated that protests are seldomly covered by the media, and usually when they are it's negative coverage. Why should that be sufficient?

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

::: sides with police :::


LOL!!!

Protesting often gets out of hand and police have to step in. There was a protest in NYC where people were whining about cops arresting them. If only they saw the videos of them not listening to the cops, blocking traffic, getting rowdy, and throwing things at the cops. Hell when that starts to happen, I say all gloves are off.

I see someone did not read the thread for if he had, you would see ample evidence that your comments are made of fail.


Do you support police brutality?

Could be... :D Of course that is my job. Depends on your definition of effective. If the protestors simply want to gain media attention for their cause, we are perfectly happy with it and things proceed peacefully.

One part of my briefings before any situations involves me talking to my troops, and explaining that the protestors are doing NOTHING WRONG in marching and chanting. In fact every one of us swore an oath to uphold and defend their right to protest and chant, includingthe possible need to defend the protestors with OUR lives. {I've had to set up protest control/defense for when the "reverand" Phelps came to do his bit at a military funeral near our base.}

Our job is to stand by until the protestors decide that getting attention isn't enough, and they feel they must break the law/rules, often in a destructive manner [see video I attached or any of the other number of vids on it's page]. Then we quell the situation.

We try to use a graduated set of steps to disperse the rioters, continually using the minimum force nessasary. During our training my guys practice as the cops and the protestors, so they have all felt the impact of the batons and shields we use. They know it isn't pleasent. We reiterate prior to contact these rioters are PEOPLE not a faceless entity. I have team leaders below me to keep close control of each section of the unit, calling our guys by name for commands, so they remember they are recognized for whatever actions they do.

Riots are VERY TENSE events. Emotions flow rapidly. My guys are paid to do their jobs well, swiftly and calmly, often among large groups that are not calm, reasonable polite or non-violent. We know darn well that SOP for the "protest" groups today is to photo/video everything and edit it before giving it to the press, along with the press themselves filming. As several others in this thread noted, the police in question appear stoic.

The videos of the protesters tell the story through their eyes. But when viewed through the eyes of the "average" citizen, they see children (yes most adults view anyone under 22 as children) who are simply being gleefully destructive for the sake of violence only. They seem to be using the cause celeb {political appearence, G8 meeting, local event aftermath} as a situational excuse to gather and wreak havoc. Sure, many of those present are "old guard", simply trying to get their views/message heard [hat tip to Intangelon]. But the actions of the common footsoldiers of their organizations bring fear to the eyes of the average citizen.

My job is to stop that fear.

Outstanding. Perhaps you could teach both protesters and police this extremely valuable method. Would that all with such powerful authority were similarly resonable.

Do you support police brutality?

Come on, now -- that's like asking "when did you stop beating your wife?"

Nobody supports it. Too many are FAR too quick to claim it, though.

Do you support police brutality?

No but when police tell you to leave an area because you are tresspassing, you need to do it. These people did not disperse and so they were removed. Were they removed by brutal means? That is where the conflict in this thread is at.