NationStates Jolt Archive

this is an update on a story posted here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=532616) a few weeks ago about police brutality at a protest against police brutality in spokane, wa. the cops' story is that one guy for no apparent reason viciously attacked a cop, screaming profanities and choking him. but the pig fuckers had to turn over their tapes of the event to the city attorney.

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20070716220430119
A police video of the July 4 arrests in Rivefront Park shows no evidence of criminal behavior by protesters before arrests began, a city attorney’s review of the incident says.

In a report delivered Monday to Mayor Dennis Hession, City Attorney Jim Craven said his review of video shot by a police officer does not depict events described in police reports written after 17 people were arrested in the park.

“It does not show an assault on an officer,” Craven wrote. “It does not show any obviously criminal behavior on the part of anyone, other than resisting arrest once the trouble started.”

Craven said the incident would be appropriate for review by an ombudman or someone else with the responsibility for police oversight...
it's funny that the video doesn't show anything, or even the sound of anything, other than the cops freaking out for no good reason. i mean, that never happens, right?

my prediction - once again, the police will wind up helpfully funding the anarchist movement when they either settle or lose the coming lawsuit.

In other news: When people do something that, in retrospect, they feel is questionable, they try to cover their asses!

It's not something that only the police do, rather everyone seems to do it, a lot.

I agree with the guy above. Besides, Anarchist molotovs aren't really effective against the riot police and maybe the occasional Modified Bradley.

It's the cop's job to lie and harass people. And it's not just confined to anarchist protesters. They pretty much are in everyone's shit except for other cops and senior government dudes.

Thats how most cops incriminate the perpitrator, by lying and or using other means.

Thats how most cops incriminate the perpitrator, by lying and or using other means.

It's the linchpin of modern criminal detection.

And by other means, its usualy beyond certain legal obligations.

this is an update on a story posted here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=532616) a few weeks ago about police brutality at a protest against police brutality in spokane, wa. the cops' story is that one guy for no apparent reason viciously attacked a cop, screaming profanities and choking him. but the pig fuckers had to turn over their tapes of the event to the city attorney. to bad the idiots shoving the signs in the camera prevented the camera from catching what really happened.

it's funny that the video doesn't show anything, or even the sound of anything, other than the cops freaking out for no good reason. i mean, that never happens, right?doesn't show that, yes, but it doesn't show the brutality either. infact the video doesn't show a whole hell of a lot.

also, notice that the cops did tell them to disperse. some did leave, others didn't. yet some of the protesters said the cops didn't tell them to disperse.

and the Video also disproves one person's claim that the officers were so close together that she brushed one of them and they arrested her.

now lets look at the article.

Craven said the video shows no "obviously criminal behavior" before the arrests, at which time there was some resisting of arrest.
agreed. unfortunatly, the first arrest was due to a reported attack on a police officer. thanks to the idiot with the sign, it was not captured.

Resisting arrest was one of the charges. and Craven admits that there was some resisting of arrest.

now this is funny.
Officer Jay Kernkamp and St. John gave very different accounts. Kernkamp said he was approached aggressively, had profanities yelled at him and was choked twice, the second time until "I feared I would lose consciousness." St. John said he was knocked from his seat, got up and asked the officer why he did that and "bam, I was on the ground."
twice? I find that doubtful. once ok, that can be believable but twice... and choked long enough to fear loosing consciousness? with other officers there?

don't think so...

looking fisher and fisher...

I think it's also funny I found this...
Police Guild has no confidence in Spokane mayor (http://www.kxly.com/news/?sect_rank=1&section_id=559&story_id=11561) Gee... I wonder how that would affect the investigation... :p

None of the police videos actually show any arrests at all. The only one that even comes close is focused on the officer's crotch.

But this looks pretty much like what I figured it was. The protesters were more assholeish and loud than they let on, but weren't doing anything even remotely violent. Even the people who got upset about it didn't do anything more than raise their voices.

now this is funny.

twice? I find that doubtful. once ok, that can be believable but twice... and choked long enough to fear loosing consciousness? with other officers there?

Not to mention that there simply wasn't enough time for that. A sign comes up in front of the camera and then almost immediately drops, showing cops already over a guy on the ground.

That's generally what protest is...loud voices, and a loud presence. And invariably...we get the beat down.

But hey, that's just us lying. Cops don't do that sort of thing.

That's generally what protest is...loud voices, and a loud presence. And invariably...we get the beat down.

But hey, that's just us lying. Cops don't do that sort of thing.

The problem is that the protesters were claiming that their protest was completely over and they were just sitting down for a picnic - being perfectly police except for taking pictures of officers. I suspected that wasn't really the case, and that's what the video shows as well.

There's always at least three sides to a story. One side, the other side, and the truth.

Not to mention that there simply wasn't enough time for that. A sign comes up in front of the camera and then almost immediately drops, showing cops already over a guy on the ground.
Actually, the sign was up long enough for someone to put a choke hold on someone else. but again, I point out the "Twice" and the "Fear of loosing conciousness" that was also mentioned that makes me suspect of the officers version.

because asshole with sign was covering the camera, we don't even see what's his name sitting on the bucket.

Um, what video were you watching? Because I saw people walking around, or sitting...and doing normal things. Like they said. The violence started very quickly, after a few of the people there put signs up in front of the police camera. Should they just totally ignore the cops walking around FILMING them? No. Huh, so you'd sit there, and just smile into the camera, not say a thing? They were not being nearly as obnoxious as you are suggesting, Dem.

Actually, the sign was up long enough for someone to put a choke hold on someone else. but again, I point out the "Twice" and the "Fear of loosing conciousness" that was also mentioned that makes me suspect of the officers version.

because asshole with sign was covering the camera, we don't even see what's his name sitting on the bucket.

Yes. The protestor, trying to block police cameras from filming protestors (a typical tactic, used to spot you later at other protests) should have know there was going to be police brutality. He therefore should have remained seated so that the shot would be perfectly clear.

Do you really think this was orchestrated? Like...hey, they've got someone down, I'm going to cover the camera and then pretend it was worse than it was! Hoorah for me!

There's always at least three sides to a story. One side, the other side, and the truth.
I'm going to get a bit more metaphysical on you here and say that none of the sides can be considered "the truth." In these kinds of cases, it's generally a matter of perspective--the problem is that the perspective of the cops is generally given a fuckload more weight than anyone else's, which is where cameras can come in handy.

But we have to be careful not to rely on them too much, because while cameras and the like can be useful tools, they can be tools for propaganda as much as any other. After all, someone's pointing that camera and making a conscious decision to film one thing and not another.

I'm not surprised. I hope there's a nice lawsuit over this, especially for the girl with the stitched hand.

were these the "protestors" that had their meeting in a part of the park that was reserved for someone else that day, and refused to move when the cops asked them?

to bad the idiots shoving the signs in the camera prevented the camera from catching what really happened.

doesn't show that, yes, but it doesn't show the brutality either. infact the video doesn't show a whole hell of a lot.

blah blah blah

We already know your pro-police attitude from the other thread, so are there any more less biased observational conclusions about this video?

We already know your pro-police attitude from the other thread, so are there any more less biased observational conclusions about this video?

You seem to give the anti-police people a free pass on posting completely unsubstantiated bullshit.

You seem to give the anti-police people a free pass on posting completely unsubstantiated bullshit.

And we definitely know your position on the police: less understanding, more fascism.

And we definitely know your position on the police: less understanding, more fascism.

No, nice lie there.

I think the system, by and large, works in the US.

There are civilian police commissions and Internal Affairs that write policy for police departments, and who watch over police activity.

Police are also turning to weapons that radically lower the risk of injury or death.

For example, a Taser, while still posing some risk, is hundreds of times less risky than using a baton on someone.

Police are also being trained to deal with people in ways that don't involve the use of force, and their continuum of force training is always being re-evaluated.

I don't see any clear evidence that this video proves police brutality - for the simple reason that you can't prove that the protesters were doing nothing to provoke being arrested.

For instance, it's legal to film protesters. If you don't like that, you can take that up with your politicians, not the police.

Interfering with the duties of a police officer who is acting lawfully (filming protesters) is a crime.

IMHO, that is what happened here. It was then legal to arrest some of the protesters.

You're in the position of having to prove a negative - that the protesters did nothing. The video is sketchy, incomplete, and obviously edited together. So that's out.

I would like to see the police video in its entirety.

No, nice lie there.
You get giddy whenever you mention an officer tasering or pepper spraying or beating a "suspect" for no particularly good reason. Then you suggest people should be tasered for "littering" - ie, spitting on the ground. God forbid some one sneezes near the DK cop. He will probably get arrested for littering and spreading a biological agent... after getting pepper sprayed in the eyes, tasered, and punched repeatedly.

were these the "protestors" that had their meeting in a part of the park that was reserved for someone else that day, and refused to move when the cops asked them?

Yes.

were these the "protestors" that had their meeting in a part of the park that was reserved for someone else that day, and refused to move when the cops asked them?

no, they weren't doing anything anymore until they got surrounded by cops, at which point they got back up and told the cops to fuck off. or to quote the spokesman review article from july 6 (http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=10578),

Local Democrats in a booth above the meadow said they noticed the protesters as they walked past their booth. "They were making noise, but everybody else was, too, for that matter," said state Rep. Don Barlow, D-Spokane.

Liberty Lake City Councilman Brian Sayrs said he looked down and thought the demonstrators seemed "entirely peaceful" and weren’t trying to provoke anyone. He looked down a few minutes later when they began chanting "We are not afraid," which he feared was a sign that something was about to happen.

"Suddenly there were 60 people surrounded and rushed and I didn’t know what precipitated it," Sayrs said.

O S A R

http://www.krem.com/news/local/stories/krem2_070907_policeprotest.5ce42019.html

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

I can only imagine the number of other people "trespassing" as well that got away with their horrible violation of the law.

And who paid for it? I don't see anyone saying that either

were using a large American flag as a picnic blanket;
Not a crime. thanks for the irrelevant inflaming note "unbiased"/"liberal" media.

O S A R

http://www.krem.com/news/local/stories/krem2_070907_policeprotest.5ce42019.html

1) krem2 news is almost as bad as fox milwaukee

2) the attack happened in a park where they had setup a american flag as a picnic blanket. i dont know about you, but typically the protest is over when the picnic blankets come out where i'm from. and, in fact, the actual protest had been a march that ended at the park.

3) this park was being used, yes, but for this:
http://www.bycitylight.com/cities/us-wa-spokane-events.php
"The 4th of July Neighbor Day celebration in Riverfront Park is an annual community event that celebrates Independence Day with great family activities, food, music, arts and crafts, culminating in a spectacular fireworks extravaganza."

the police line is transparently bullshit.

The sympathetic news outlet is the only one thats trustable? So the protest ends when everybody sits down? And a picnic makes it not tresspassing?

Well I'm glad you straightened me out there.

So the protest ends when everybody sits down?
Yeah, protests usually end when no one is protesting. Are you suggesting a group of like minded people are not allowed to go have lunch somewhere? School, church, and business groups weep.

And a picnic makes it not tresspassing?
I wonder how many thousands of other people were "trespassing" at this public community event as well and got away with such a heinous crime.

The sympathetic news outlet is the only one thats trustable? So the protest ends when everybody sits down? And a picnic makes it not tresspassing?

Well I'm glad you straightened me out there.

haha, the spokesman review sympathetic to anarchists?! hilarious. i was merely remarking on what i know of krem2 news, having lived out that way.

So the protest ends when everybody sits down?

not necessarily, but when the march is over and people are hanging out in a park, usually. unless there are speakers scheduled or something, which there weren't in this case. protest activity had stopped until the cops showed up and started harassing people.

And a picnic makes it not tresspassing?

a picnic held in a public park that is being used for a free, public, community 4th of july picnic and festival makes it not even marginally plausible to call it trespassing.

I wonder how many thousands of other people were "trespassing" at this public community event as well and got away with such a heinous crime.all but the 17 arrested and even less that were charged it seems.

no, they weren't doing anything anymore until they got surrounded by cops, at which point they got back up and told the cops to fuck off. or to quote the spokesman review article from july 6 (http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=10578),funny, your quote.
Liberty Lake City Councilman Brian Sayrs said he looked down and thought the demonstrators seemed "entirely peaceful" and weren’t trying to provoke anyone. He looked down a few minutes later when they began chanting "We are not afraid," which he feared was a sign that something was about to happen.

"Suddenly there were 60 people surrounded and rushed and I didn’t know what precipitated it," Sayrs said. so they didn't see anything and can neither confrim nor deny any of the two accounts between St. John and officer Kemkamp.

Yes. The protestor, trying to block police cameras from filming protestors (a typical tactic, used to spot you later at other protests) should have know there was going to be police brutality. He therefore should have remained seated so that the shot would be perfectly clear.

Do you really think this was orchestrated? Like...hey, they've got someone down, I'm going to cover the camera and then pretend it was worse than it was! Hoorah for me! never said it was Orchestrated. just said the videos cannot prove what really happened. Could St John have been knocked off his bucket? yes. Could St John have attacked the officer? yes.

was that the only idiot with the sign that could've blocked the camera? No.

my point is this. that person holding the black sign was also moving around the area. you can hear the officer repeatedly say "excuse me" and "Please back up" (and other such comments including one threatening arrest) you can hear some protesters say "back up" and "give em some room" (and other such comments that were more polite,) all indicates a crowded area. You see the man with the black sign hopping around trying to keep his sign infront of the camera. so what are the chances that it was HIM that knocked St. John off of his bucket and St John thought it was the cop? (the arrest took place in an area that the camera and sign passed by moments before.)

and as I said the choking claim is already fishy, the time does not allow two attempts nor does it give enough time for an officer (who we can assume is physically fit) to "Fear loosing conciousness"

We already know your pro-police attitude from the other thread, so are there any more less biased observational conclusions about this video?and we know your Anti-Police Bias, so should we ignore your viewpoints, opinions and other posts as well?

and I like how you selectively snip the other part of my post that disproves YOUR claim.

...

now this is funny.

twice? I find that doubtful. once ok, that can be believable but twice... and choked long enough to fear loosing consciousness? with other officers there?

don't think so...

looking fisher and fisher...



so My claiming that the Officer's account is fishy is Pro-Police Bias?

Please show me any signs of Police Brutality that the PROTESTERS (who are obviously more biased than I) are claiming? Wrongful arrest is NOT brutality.

Guess it's true that when you cannot back up or logically refute an observation, you attack the poster as a last desperate resort.

all but the 17 arrested and even less that were charged it seems.
So people outside the "protesting" group were arrested?
"Even less were charged" does not make the actions any better. That just supports "police were being fascist asshole" claim.

Please show me any signs of Police Brutality that the PROTESTERS (who are obviously more biased than I) are claiming? Wrongful arrest is NOT brutality.

Which doesn't make it any better. Police abusing their power is police abusing their power

so they didn't see anything and can neither confrim nor deny any of the two accounts between St. John and officer Kemkamp.

you yourself have said that the cop's account is ludicrous - he somehow managed to get rushed, screamed at, choked twice, and thought he might black out in the space of the 10 seconds when the sign is blocking the camera's view. nobody saw or heard anything like what supposedly brought on the cop attack. there comes a point where we have to just discount someone's story for lack of evidence. if this were a normal person rather than a guy with a badge, it wouldn't pass the smell test.

So people outside the "protesting" group were arrested?
"Even less were charged" does not make the actions any better. That just supports "police were being fascist asshole" claim.never denied that possiblity. just not assuming it on the 'facts' given thus far.

Which doesn't make it any better. Police abusing their power is police abusing their powernot really, but wrongful arrest can be aruged and proven with those videos and the published accounts, not police brutality. if the protesters argue the wrong thing...

you yourself have said that the cop's account is ludicrous - he somehow managed to get rushed, screamed at, choked twice, and thought he might black out in the space of the 10 seconds when the sign is blocking the camera's view. nobody saw or heard anything like what supposedly brought on the cop attack. there comes a point where we have to just discount someone's story for lack of evidence. if this were a normal person rather than a guy with a badge, it wouldn't pass the smell test.yep. but that doesn't automatically mean that St. John's claim is also true. Both can be discounted for lack of evidence.

also I said it wasn't enough for two choking holds. it's fishy because if one officer is attacked, that person would be taken down. since only ONE person was charged, then it was one person attacking... twice? again fishy.

10 seconds is long enough for one choking attempt. and I question the 'fear of losing conciousness'... maybe possible within ten seconds if the person was using his arm or both hands... but I doubt one hand... unless St John is alot stronger than he looks.

several officers did say they saw the attack, just as several protesters verify St John's claim of not choking the officer. both viewpoints can be considered bias, and no one outside the protesters and officers, so far, can verify either account.

unless they are keeping quiet until the trial. (not unheard of.)

all but the 17 arrested and even less that were charged it seems.

That's pretty much SOP. When the first thread on this came up, I noted that chances were that few would be charged, and that even fewer, if any, would actually have their cases go to trial. They'll likely be quietly dismissed--it's the most effective way of stopping a protest. It's bullshit, but it's effective.

That's pretty much SOP. When the first thread on this came up, I noted that chances were that few would be charged, and that even fewer, if any, would actually have their cases go to trial. They'll likely be quietly dismissed--it's the most effective way of stopping a protest. It's bullshit, but it's effective.

yep. and almost nobody cares. which scares the crap out of me, honestly. i've been in protests where 600 people got arrested and nobody got charged with a crime. something is wrong here.

and while the million dollar lawsuits that result are nice, we need to start personally hitting the people that are in charge and the ones doing the arresting for this shit. 'cause right now they just use tax money to cover for their crimes. fuck that.

yep. and almost nobody cares. which scares the crap out of me, honestly. i've been in protests where 600 people got arrested and nobody got charged with a crime. something is wrong here.

and while the million dollar lawsuits that result are nice, we need to start personally hitting the people that are in charge and the ones doing the arresting for this shit. 'cause right now they just use tax money to cover for their crimes. fuck that.

The problem is that if you ask average, non-protesting citizens if they mind if the cops knock a few dirty fucking hippies in the head for disrupting the peace, they're probably going to say no, which is why the cops do it and the people in charge approve. There's no real downside for them.

That's pretty much SOP. When the first thread on this came up, I noted that chances were that few would be charged, and that even fewer, if any, would actually have their cases go to trial. They'll likely be quietly dismissed--it's the most effective way of stopping a protest. It's bullshit, but it's effective.

yep. however, and this is dependant on the city's laws. holding an event of a certain size at a public place (like a park) requires a permit. as soon as they started holding up their signs they no longer were having a quiet picnic but were protesting. so the idea of tresspassing (or protesting w/o a permit) can be seen... depending on their state/city laws.

now if those protesters were holding their signs with the back facing the camera (to block the picture taking) then it can be argued by those arrested, that they were not protesting but just avoiding the camera. Symantics, but arguable.

and yes, for Hawaii, one has to get a permit to use park facilities for any kind of Large Organized event. like that protest would've been.

Um, what video were you watching? Because I saw people walking around, or sitting...and doing normal things. Like they said. The violence started very quickly, after a few of the people there put signs up in front of the police camera. Should they just totally ignore the cops walking around FILMING them? No. Huh, so you'd sit there, and just smile into the camera, not say a thing? They were not being nearly as obnoxious as you are suggesting, Dem.


LOL. In the first thread, I was blasted for not thinking the cops were perfectly wonderful. Now it's the protesters I'm not being fair to?

Maybe I need to pick an absolute side to make people happy, but I'm not going to.

The protesters were shoving signs in front of the camera, yelling out things about cops, and someone was yelling, "Take pictures of them, take pictures of them!" Even before the officers walked up, some people were already holding up and waving signs. *Most* of them were sitting down or just milling around, but some were still holding the signs up. When the police did walk up and start filming, several of the protesters were deliberately approaching them and interfering with them. These things are inconsistent with the protester's stories. As far as I'm concerned, nothing I saw there warranted police action, but the protesters weren't being little angels.

You get giddy whenever you mention an officer tasering or pepper spraying or beating a "suspect" for no particularly good reason. Then you suggest people should be tasered for "littering" - ie, spitting on the ground. God forbid some one sneezes near the DK cop. He will probably get arrested for littering and spreading a biological agent... after getting pepper sprayed in the eyes, tasered, and punched repeatedly.

Singapore? :p

Singapore? :p... Isn't that the place where you can be arrested for spitting gum on the sidewalk?

You get giddy whenever you mention an officer tasering or pepper spraying or beating a "suspect" for no particularly good reason. Then you suggest people should be tasered for "littering" - ie, spitting on the ground. God forbid some one sneezes near the DK cop. He will probably get arrested for littering and spreading a biological agent... after getting pepper sprayed in the eyes, tasered, and punched repeatedly.Be nice TPH... everyone has their fetish... :p

LOL. In the first thread, I was blasted for not thinking the cops were perfectly wonderful. Now it's the protesters I'm not being fair to?

Maybe I need to pick an absolute side to make people happy, but I'm not going to.

The protesters were shoving signs in front of the camera, yelling out things about cops, and someone was yelling, "Take pictures of them, take pictures of them!" Even before the officers walked up, some people were already holding up and waving signs. *Most* of them were sitting down or just milling around, but some were still holding the signs up. When the police did walk up and start filming, several of the protesters were deliberately approaching them and interfering with them. These things are inconsistent with the protester's stories. As far as I'm concerned, nothing I saw there warranted police action, but the protesters weren't being little angels.
You realize that this scenario you've set up makes it sound a bit like if the protesters do anything but act like little angels, then the cops have the right to give them a beatdown, right?

You realize that this scenario you've set up makes it sound a bit like if the protesters do anything but act like little angels, then the cops have the right to give them a beatdown, right?

maybe... but it does cast doubt on their version of the event.

as someone else pointed out. you have three sides to this. The police's version, the protesters, and the truth.

You realize that this scenario you've set up makes it sound a bit like if the protesters do anything but act like little angels, then the cops have the right to give them a beatdown, right?

Only if you completely ignore the part you bolded where I said that police action was not warranted.

I can only imagine the number of other people "trespassing" as well that got away with their horrible violation of the law.

And who paid for it? I don't see anyone saying that either


Several things, first, Clear Channel was the organization that had rented Riverfront Park.

Secondly, it was up to Clear Channel to decide who is trespassing, and who is a guest. They didn't like the disturbance that the protesters were causing, and as such, they decided that they were doing so.

LOL. In the first thread, I was blasted for not thinking the cops were perfectly wonderful. Now it's the protesters I'm not being fair to?

Maybe I need to pick an absolute side to make people happy, but I'm not going to.



Come on! Sign on to the unthinking adherence to a dogmatic viewpoint and throw off the weights of nuance! It makes life so much simpler!

It seemed like the police decided who was trespassing, not Clear Channel. In fact, all I have heard about Clear Channel is that they were hosting some event. I would think their name would be thrown around more if they decided to have people arrested.

It seemed like the police decided who was trespassing, not Clear Channel. In fact, all I have heard about Clear Channel is that they were hosting some event. I would think their name would be thrown around more if they decided to have people arrested.

I think that what we know from the cops is very cursory and distorted, while what we know from the emo's is fairly detailed, it's also distorted, and they're not likely to be the ones who would know what Clear Channel did about their presence.

Jesus, fuck, time warp hell.

It seemed like the police decided who was trespassing, not Clear Channel. In fact, all I have heard about Clear Channel is that they were hosting some event. I would think their name would be thrown around more if they decided to have people arrested.

Not necessarily.

I think this is a clear cut case of cops acting out emotionally (they were the target of this protest, after all) and breaking the rules. Then, to cover their asses, they tried to twist and contort the story.

On the flip side, the emo's seem to have been intentionally trying to stir conflict with the police, picnickers and anyone else in general with their actions. They wanted to provoke, so as to make a political statement. Then they distorted the truth after the fact to try and make themselves more sympathetic.

It seems that this entire incident is so covered in bullshit that the police need a good whacking from IA, and the emos already got a good whacking, and bygones should be let as bygones.

We also have the strange paradox of attitudes towards the cameras. On one hand, without them we'd have even less of a clue than we currently have as to the activities of the day, so as to attempt to serve as a deterrent to this sort of shit, yet, we've got people here claiming that they're being used for big brother purposes. I dunno.

I guess the best punishment would be to have the cops and the emos go out and buy each other beers, and call it even.

rented is not the correct term. partially sponsored a community event. this is the city's 4th of july festival and the city's fireworks display.

What I've heard is that this was the concert that Clear Channel rented the park for, and this was exclusively their event. Other parts they served as co-sponsors, but on this one it would seem that this was exclusively theirs.

No one seemed to give two shits about the "protestors" who were "stirring up trouble" until the police got involved and provoked them.

No one seemed to give two shits about the "protestors" who were "stirring up trouble" until the police got involved and provoked them.

Someone clearly did.

Several things, first, Clear Channel was the organization that had rented Riverfront Park.

i don't think rented is the correct term. "partially sponsored a community event" is probably better. this is the city's 4th of july festival and the city's fireworks display, if i'm not mistaken.

Someone clearly did.

The cops.

The cops.

Who called the cops?

Who called the cops?

no one, they'd been following the march previously and it took them a bit before they decided to attack in the park

Jesus fucking Christ, just going by this thread you'd think the police were all a bunch of fascists that exist almost exclusively to stop protests.

Never mind the reality that most are underpaid, working men and women who, believe it or not, want to serve their community. Heaven forbid they stop a group of masked dorks from trespassing.

Wonderful, another "cops are the enforces of our facist government" thread.

Funny how only the police brutality stories get run, but when a cop saves someone via CPR, it gets passed off as: "Yeah he better do his job."

That's fair.

Jesus fucking Christ, just going by this thread you'd think the police were all a bunch of fascists that exist almost exclusively to stop protests.

Never mind the reality that most are underpaid, working men and women who, believe it or not, want to serve their community. Heaven forbid they stop a group of masked dorks from trespassing.
Again, who says they are trespassing? The underpaid men and women who are infallible because they have a badge?

Wonderful, another "cops are the enforces of our facist government" thread.

Funny how only the police brutality stories get run, but when a cop saves someone via CPR, it gets passed off as: "Yeah he better do his job."

That's fair.

To be fair, that happens with just about every profession. You hear very little about them until they screw up. Then it's all over the place.

Wonderful, another "cops are the enforces of our facist government" thread.

Funny how only the police brutality stories get run, but when a cop saves someone via CPR, it gets passed off as: "Yeah he better do his job."

That's fair.
Oh noz someone expected to do their job but lambasted when they fail miserably

Oh noz someone expected to do their job but lambasted when they fail miserably

No, the whole profession is lambasted when a small group of assholes fail miserably.

No, the whole profession is lambasted when a small group of assholes fail miserably.

Name a profession that dose not get lambasted when a small group fail miserably

Hell name a religion
Political group
Sex
Race

Or anything else that does not get lambasted for those sort of things out of a small group

The situation is exacerbated by the fact that we entrust these people with a fucking lot of power. When they fail so miserably it has a rather big impact

no one, they'd been following the march previously and it took them a bit before they decided to attack in the park

And you know that, how? We've no evidence as to why they chose to arrest the emo's when they were in the park. In fact, there's a truckload of missing information that one side isn't providing, and the other can't provide.

There's an awful lot of willingness here to condemn one side or the other.

The protestors had a lot of cameras. Where are the pictures of the cops beating on them?

The protestors had a lot of cameras. Where are the pictures of the cops beating on them?

Where are the pictures of the cops being choked like they claimed?

Where are *any* of the protestors pictures? The cops video was availiable in the link at the start of this thread.

The protestors had a lot of cameras. Where are the pictures of the cops beating on them?

Where are the pictures of the cops being choked like they claimed?

so both sides accounts are faulty. again, wait for the trial.

Where are *any* of the protestors pictures? The cops video was availiable in the link at the start of this thread.

If you go to the old thread, there's a link to a myspace page where some of the protester's pictures are up.

Are you honestly telling me that not every single cop in existence is a perfect benevolent being?

You see the man with the black sign hopping around trying to keep his sign infront of the camera. so what are the chances that it was HIM that knocked St. John off of his bucket and St John thought it was the cop? (the arrest took place in an area that the camera and sign passed by moments before.) Oh fuck you are something else.

Hey, got any theories as to who killed JFK while you're at it?

JuNii has solved it everyone! It wasn't even a cop that knocked down the protestor...it was ANOTHER protestor!

:rolleyes:

yep. and almost nobody cares. which scares the crap out of me, honestly. i've been in protests where 600 people got arrested and nobody got charged with a crime. something is wrong here.

and while the million dollar lawsuits that result are nice, we need to start personally hitting the people that are in charge and the ones doing the arresting for this shit. 'cause right now they just use tax money to cover for their crimes. fuck that.
It is, as the Nazz has said, an utterly bullshit (yet effective) tactic. And it's frankly disgusting how the public is so fine with OTHER people getting arrested without cause. "Oh it's just those punk kids again...they probably deserve it".

You realize that this scenario you've set up makes it sound a bit like if the protesters do anything but act like little angels, then the cops have the right to give them a beatdown, right?

Yeah, that's pretty much the sense I'm getting too, intended or not.

Who says they have to be 'little angels'? They said they were not being violent, they were not even protesting anymore. But they did not have to sit down and just stare up at the cop cameras with sweet little doe eyes in order to not be called 'liars'.

Their account of their own actions seems pretty damn consistent, frankly, so I'm not sure what the problem here is.

I'm not saying that you, Dem are saying they needed to be stock-still and perfectly meek. But you do seem to be suggesting that any sort of disrespect for the law warrants a a slight belief that 'they kind of deserved SOMETHING'.

And you know that, how? We've no evidence as to why they chose to arrest the emo's when they were in the park. In fact, there's a truckload of missing information that one side isn't
What the fuck is your point, by the way, of calling the protestors "emos"?

I've never been an 'emo' and yet, hey, I protest quite often.

Oh fuck you are something else.

Hey, got any theories as to who killed JFK while you're at it?

JuNii has solved it everyone! It wasn't even a cop that knocked down the protestor...it was ANOTHER protestor!

:rolleyes:

really? so you have evidence that my supposition is correct? I'm just tossing it out as a possible scenario...

oh no, I forgot. Cops are all corrupt to you.

not an honest cop in the world. :rolleyes:

Yep, the protesters are blameless in this incident... it's all the cops fault.

Are you honestly telling me that not every single cop in existence is a perfect benevolent being?

*Gasp!*


Who says they have to be 'little angels'? They said they were not being violent, they were not even protesting anymore. But they did not have to sit down and just stare up at the cop cameras with sweet little doe eyes in order to not be called 'liars'.

They do if they claimed that they were perfectly polite and immediately moved when told to do so and so on. They did lie. I suspect that their story is still closer to the truth than the story told by the police, but it would appear that neither really *is* the truth.

Their account of their own actions seems pretty damn consistent, frankly, so I'm not sure what the problem here is.

I'm not saying that you, Dem are saying they needed to be stock-still and perfectly meek. But you do seem to be suggesting that any sort of disrespect for the law warrants a a slight belief that 'they kind of deserved SOMETHING'.

Not at all. As I said in the other thread, I don't think they did anything that warranted police action and I *definitely* didn't see anything to warrant violent apprehension.

Yeah, that's pretty much the sense I'm getting too, intended or not.

Who says they have to be 'little angels'? They said they were not being violent, they were not even protesting anymore. But they did not have to sit down and just stare up at the cop cameras with sweet little doe eyes in order to not be called 'liars'.

Their account of their own actions seems pretty damn consistent, frankly, so I'm not sure what the problem here is.

I'm not saying that you, Dem are saying they needed to be stock-still and perfectly meek. But you do seem to be suggesting that any sort of disrespect for the law warrants a a slight belief that 'they kind of deserved SOMETHING'.

Please show me photo proof of any police brutality here, oh wise and unbiased Neesika!

*Gasp!*

Not at all. As I said in the other thread, I don't think they did anything that warranted police action and I *definitely* didn't see anything to warrant violent apprehension.

ah, but Dem. because you dared suggest that the Protesters accounts were also faulty, that means to some here that you are saying the cops are blameless.

Even I said that the officers accounts are not supported by that video. but because I also said that the protesters version is also discredited and neither claim about the knocking off the bucket or the choking is proven... I'm seen as giving the cops a free pass and a supported of corrupt cops. :p

You know... selective reading.

really? so you have evidence that my supposition is correct? I'm just tossing it out as a possible scenario...

Yes yes, let's all toss out possible scenarios...

Hey, maybe the cops were also raping some of the female protestors, really quickly, while the signs were up! yeah, yeah, that's totally possible!

Or...hmmm...maybe, when the signs were up, the protestors were involved in sacrificing animals to their 'emo gods'.

oh no, I forgot. Cops are all corrupt to you. Right, just like to you, they are always innocent.

The system gives cops more than the benefit of the doubt. I, frankly, don't need to do the same. And from my experience with police, in the US, in Canada, in Latin America...they tend to be absolute and utter pricks to protestors. So yeah...when protestors say, 'these cops were absolute and utter pricks', I say, 'hmmm, pretty likely'.

not an honest cop in the world. :rolleyes:

Yep, the protesters are blameless in this incident... it's all the cops fault.
Glad you're coming around...because so far, all I've heard from people is 'well, the protestors weren't little angels'...which is hardly a justification for the actions of the police (as Dem herself pointed out). So unless you've got something else...yeah, I'd say it was the cops fault.

Unless you're the type who thinks sitting on a US flag, or just being protestors, is enough provocation to justify the cops losing their cool. In which case I have to say...where's your head at?

Not at all. As I said in the other thread, I don't think they did anything that warranted police action and I *definitely* didn't see anything to warrant violent apprehension.Good enough for me.

Yes yes, let's all toss out possible scenarios...

Hey, maybe the cops were also raping some of the female protestors, really quickly, while the signs were up! yeah, yeah, that's totally possible! maybe, except you don't hear any accusations of rape... so no.

Or...hmmm...maybe, when the signs were up, the protestors were involved in sacrificing animals to their 'emo gods'. could be, but no charges of Cruelty to animals, nor possession of a deadly weapon, nor health code vioations. so no.

Right, just like to you, they are always innocent. until the trial, I and several others on this thread, thinks that everyone is innocent. both Cops and the protesters.

The system gives cops more than the benefit of the doubt. I, frankly, don't need to do the same. And from my experience with police, in the US, in Canada, in Latin America...they tend to be absolute and utter pricks to protestors. So yeah...when protestors say, 'these cops were absolute and utter pricks', I say, 'hmmm, pretty likely'. the system gives everyone the benefit of the doubt.

unfortunatly, you seem to be that any decision that remotely favors the cops is corrupt.

Glad you're coming around...because so far, all I've heard from people is 'well, the protestors weren't little angels'...which is hardly a justification for the actions of the police (as Dem herself pointed out). So unless you've got something else...yeah, I'd say it was the cops fault. as Neesika shows her "Guilty until proven innocent" mentality.

please show me where I or Dem said what was shown justified the police's action.

Unless you're the type who thinks sitting on a US flag, or just being protestors, is enough provocation to justify the cops losing their cool. In which case I have to say...where's your head at? and if you read my posts on this thread, you know I didn't say those were justification for the officers to make any arrests. Heck in the other thread I mentioned the possiblity that it was a flag that they were sitting on, but it could be a blanket.

In this thread, I pointed out parts that disprove points on BOTH sides. yes, both cops and protesters. and I also said the video does not prove ST John's nor the officer's account of what happened.

oh wait. I said it didn't prove St. John's version. damn, there I go. saying the cops were right! :rolleyes:

JuNii...there were links to pictures given in the original thread, which is linked in the OP.

Because I'm so nice, here's the direct link again. It's pictures of the protest itself, and the arrests. Take it as you may.

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

JuNii...there were links to pictures given in the original thread, which is linked in the OP.

Because I'm so nice, here's the direct link again. It's pictures of the protest itself, and the arrests. Take it as you may.

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

and read my response to the posted pics in that other thread.

and as I said in that thread, work blocks myspace. so please, post the pics that show police brutality.

unfortunatly, you seem to be that any decision that remotely favors the cops is corrupt.

as Neesika shows her "Guilty until proven innocent" mentality.False. I believe that what generally happens is, the police account is taken as gospel truth, and a public investigation is actually rare. An internal investigation is done, much back-slapping and high-fiving ensues, and it dies.

Once again...when there is actually media coverage, photos, videos or what not of the event that sheds doubt on the official version, THEN you get the inquiry.

So no. I'm not damning them before the trial. I'm pissed because there usually ISN'T a trial, because the police are automatically believed, and the protestors are dismissed as lying.

Do you understand the difference? Or are you going to prattle on some more about how I hate all cops and think they are, every single one, corrupt and evil?

please show me where I or Dem said what was shown justified the police's action.

and if you read my posts on this thread, you know I didn't say those were justification for the officers to make any arrests. Heck in the other thread I mentioned the possiblity that it was a flag that they were sitting on, but it could be a blanket.

In this thread, I pointed out parts that disprove points on BOTH sides. yes, both cops and protesters. and I also said the video does not prove ST John's nor the officer's account of what happened.

oh wait. I said it didn't prove St. John's version. damn, there I go. saying the cops were right! :rolleyes:I'll accept that you are here, overall, saying that 'we'll find out the truth later'. But just like you go after what you perceive to be my anti-cop slant, I go after your consant cossetting and idolization of the police force. You seem to think that your view is the better one, as though you aren't making judgments before the facts are in...when in fact, you are giving one side (consistantly, in ALL the threads you participate in relating to law enforcement)the 'benefit of the doubt' and assuming that the other side is probably not telling the truth. What changes your tune here is the video. Otherwise, I'm sure you'd be lock stock and barrel on the side of the cops, as usual. Hardly a stance that gives BOTH sides the benefit of the doubt.

I want these sorts of incidents to be investigated externally. If videos and pictures make that happen, then let every protestor carry a camera with them. Because it's about time cops get taken to task for their behaviour towards us.

and read my response to the posted pics in that other thread. No. I'm not about to comb through another thread to find your responses to pictures you admit below you haven't bothered to see.

and as I said in that thread, work blocks myspace. so please, post the pics that show police brutality.No. Find them yourself, on your own time, with a computer that doesn't block myspace.

Or maybe you don't actually want to see them.

and read my response to the posted pics in that other thread.

and as I said in that thread, work blocks myspace. so please, post the pics that show police brutality.

It was awful.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v719/Lacadaemon/P1010323.jpg

Oh, the humanity!

Yes, it was a flag (since that appears to be at issue):

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/PoliceBrutality080.jpg

Arrests:

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_10.jpg

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_12.jpg

And there's a blurry, 12-second video, links to other videos, and several more pictures. I'll comb thru them, but I'm just not seeing it.

*edit*: ok, I've watched the vids, and I'm still not seeing it. The kid on the bucket is almost completely obscured from view by a tree and several signs. The only thing that seems obvious is that both sides are doing some pretty heavy spin.

Yes, it was a flag (since that appears to be at issue):

It's really irrelevant. Enforcing flag etiquette laws is pretty much undoable.

No. Find them yourself, on your own time, with a computer that doesn't block myspace.

Or maybe you don't actually want to see them.

"Interpretation: I looked through the pics and could not find one instance of police brutality that supports the protesters claims."

:rolleyes:

The request is open to others. I really do want to see if there are pics showing police brutality.

It's really irrelevant. Enforcing flag etiquette laws is pretty much undoable.

Agreed, but I noticed that some posters weren't sure, though I'm not sure why or how. That's the only reason I put it up.

The request is open to others. I really do want to see if there are pics showing police brutality.

The rest of the pics:

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_14.jpg

A possibility, but unless that officer has a vice grip on her arm I don't see it:

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_07-1.jpg

Another possibility:

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_08-1.jpg

sorry dial-up users.

It's really irrelevant. Enforcing flag etiquette laws is pretty much undoable.and they/he wasn't charged with flag desecration... or none of the news stories mention it. so a non point.

And there's a blurry, 12-second video, links to other videos, and several more pictures. I'll comb thru them, but I'm just not seeing it.

*edit*: ok, I've watched the vids, and I'm still not seeing it. The kid on the bucket is almost completely obscured from view by a tree and several signs. The only thing that seems obvious is that both sides are doing some pretty heavy spin.

Please, keep looking through the pics. I suspect, that any such photos may have been turned in to be used as evidence. that is a possiblity.

The rest of the pics:

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_14.jpg

A possibility, but unless that officer has a vice grip on her arm I don't see it:

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_07-1.jpg

Another possibility:

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_08-1.jpg

sorry dial-up users.

You know? After looking at those pictures, one has to wonder if there was any struggling on the part of the person that is being arrested.

Please, keep looking through the pics. I suspect, that any such photos may have been turned in to be used as evidence. that is a possiblity.

The only remaining ones from Neesika's link on page 6 are of the march itself, I've posted all of the relevant ones from said link.

and they/he wasn't charged with flag desecration... or none of the news stories mention it. so a non point.
Everyone keeps harping on the flag. Even the news story.

"Interpretation: I looked through the pics and could not find one instance of police brutality that supports the protesters claims."

:rolleyes:

The request is open to others. I really do want to see if there are pics showing police brutality.

There really aren't. And if those kids really want to protest, they should spend less time in art class and start circuit training.

The rest of the pics:

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_14.jpg a trouble with pics. so is the officer hitting or pushing the kid back. did the kid press forward or the officer being a pissant. oh and isn't that the same kid seen drawing his fist back or being pushed back?

*wonders who will argue what.*

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_07-1.jpg[/QUOTE] yes a possibility. is that a bandage on her hand? I find it unlikely, because bandages are usually beige/fleshcolor/or white. that is a rather dark pink. but it's still possible.

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/unkizzleskizzle/r_08-1.jpgif the person refuses to move, then the officers will bodily carry them away. so a pic showing resisting arrest, but not showing police brutality.

Everyone keeps harping on the flag. Even the news story.

True, it does look like a flag, and I remember seeing the news story where they show the cops folding the flag properly.... but without a closer look, I'll reserve judgement on wether or not that was a flag.

which is why I try to concentrate on the charges and complaints.

btw. the officers mentioned that they did recive complaints at the park. can anyone confirm that there was complaints or confirm the non-exsistance of such complaints?

a trouble with pics. so is the officer hitting or pushing the kid back. did the kid press forward or the officer being a pissant. oh and isn't that the same kid seen drawing his fist back or being pushed back?

*wonders who will argue what.*

It's the same kid.

yes a possibility. is that a bandage on her hand? I find it unlikely, because bandages are usually beige/fleshcolor/or white. that is a rather dark pink. but it's still possible.

It's her bare hand, that's flushed skin, you can see the spaces between her fingers. So we at least know the officer does have a firm grip on her wrist.


if the person refuses to move, then the officers will bodily carry them away. so a pic showing resisting arrest, but not showing police brutality.

The was pretty much my interpretation.

It's her bare hand, that's flushed skin, you can see the spaces between her fingers. So we at least know the officer does have a firm grip on her wrist.

... I dont see the spaces for her fingers. it looks like the wrapping is extending from her knuckles, past the first joint and possibly to the second finger joint.

if that is flushed skin, then the officer's grip is WAY to tight (affecting the blood flow in her fingers).

... I dont see the spaces for her fingers. it looks like the wrapping is extending from her knuckles, past the first joint and possibly to the second finger joint.

if that is flushed skin, then the officer's grip is WAY to tight (affecting the blood flow in her fingers).

Dunno, but I'm just not seeing anything like a bandage.

It doesn't take much to constrict blood flow, a firm grip in the right spot would do it. And they're not going to use a light touch and polite words when arresting someone.

Whether such an arrest was warranted is another story.

Whether such an arrest was warranted is another story. yep. never denied that after this latest video.

however, the first arrest, the choking assault/knocking off bucket cannot be proven either way. but it does seem that it was that incident that triggered the other arrests which were probably done at the heat of the moment and no real trigger.

yep. never denied that after this latest video.

however, the first arrest, the choking assault/knocking off bucket cannot be proven either way. but it does seem that it was that incident that triggered the other arrests which were probably done at the heat of the moment and no real trigger.

I didn't get much from the videos, to be honest. I heard an order to disperse that was disobeyed, though I won't go into whether such an order was legal.

After looking thru all this, while I won't feel bad if the ASAP protesters lose their case, I won't be surprised if they win either. I just don't have enough information, I have sympathy for the police (there's nothing like being distrusted by the populace and also tools of the establishment), but I'm not going to leap to their defence. If they did in fact do wrong, they should be punished severely (i.e.: anyone remember the video of the Chicago cop beating that bartender? He should be strung up by his fucking toes).