Occupy Wall Street

[Cannon Shell]

[quote=somerfrost;811102]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Whenever even one person is injured or worse during a peaceful protest, it's newsworthy! We have taken the moral high ground in condemning crackdowns on peaceful demonstrations throughout the world yet posters here want to rationalize same when it occurs here...sure, the death tole hasn't started...yet. But history tells us it may at any time...whenever common folk take to the streets to demand their rights, the status quo reacts the same...the copper bosses didn't hire thugs to brutalize workers, Joe Hill wasn't railroaded, Dr King was a Commie troublemaker and Bull Connor a loyal civil servant, Kent State and Jackson State were the fault of radical troublemakers etc etc...

Give me a break. When you are repeatedly warned that you are to disperse, you are supposed to disperse. We have laws in this country that are to be followed so that we dont have riots. You cant complain about one set of laws when you dont follow another. If you are injured resisting arrest then it is your fault. Nothing in that video looked like police brutality.

[jms62]

[quote=Cannon Shell;811111]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Give me a break. When you are repeatedly warned that you are to disperse, you are supposed to disperse. We have laws in this country that are to be followed so that we dont have riots. You cant complain about one set of laws when you dont follow another. If you are injured resisting arrest then it is your fault. Nothing in that video looked like police brutality.

I think I need a drink because I agree with you.

[Riot]

[quote=jms62;811112]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I think I need a drink because I agree with you.

So if someone is accused of breaking a misdemeanor law, and stands there passively without resistance as the police come to arrest them, the police are entitled to beat them in the process of the arrest, because they are of course guilty?

Holy ****ing crap.

[Cannon Shell]

[quote=Riot;811120]

Originally Posted by jms62

So if someone is accused of breaking a misdemeanor law, and stands there passively without resistance as the police come to arrest them, the police are entitled to beat them in the process of the arrest, because they are of course guilty?

Holy ****ing crap.

Your definition of beating is obviously quite different than most.

[jms62]

[quote=Cannon Shell;811128]

Originally Posted by Riot

Your definition of beating is obviously quite different than most.

Cannon wtf i never posted that. Things are effed up here

[Riot]

[quote=jms62;811133]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Cannon wtf i never posted that. Things are effed up here

No, I posted that, the auto-reply quote things are weird today. See what happened above? You said that, but it quoted as Cannon

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Your definition of beating is obviously quite different than most.

Being charged and knocked over, hit in the head with a truncheon and thrown to the ground, then being sat upon, while standing still passively accepting arrest with no resistance, for a misdemeanor, doesn't count as "beating" in your book?

You should teach at the police academy.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Being charged and knocked over, hit in the head with a truncheon and thrown to the ground, then being sat upon, while standing still passively accepting arrest with no resistance, for a misdemeanor, doesn't count as "beating" in your book?

You should teach at the police academy.

Yeah they really Rodney King'ed them

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

Being charged and knocked over, hit in the head with a truncheon and thrown to the ground, then being sat upon, while standing still passively accepting arrest with no resistance, for a misdemeanor, doesn't count as "beating" in your book?

You should teach at the police academy.

that shi.t happens every day in every town and every city in every state. to protesters and non protesters alike.

the majority of Cops should be arrested.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

that shi.t happens every day in every town and every city in every state. to protesters and non protesters alike.

the majority of Cops should be arrested.

They all seem to be pretty darn laid back out in Liberal-land in Seattle, however

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

that shi.t happens every day in every town and every city in every state. to protesters and non protesters alike.

the majority of Cops should be arrested.

do you really think the cops on the street are the ones directing what happens? or do you suppose that perhaps the mayor gets a call, he calls the chief, and the officers on the street are given express orders....i'm figuring it's the latter.
the street cops and beat cops and sod's don't decide when to move on protesters.
my father was a policeman in d.c. for 20 years, and was at countless protests-and riots as well. he didn't decide when and where to do things, just like soldiers don't choose their plans of attack.

so, if you have a problem with how the police handle things, don't blame the peons, blame the brass.

edit~i saw riots post where she quotes the mayor of boston-helps prove my point.

[somerfrost]

[quote=Cannon Shell;811111]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Give me a break. When you are repeatedly warned that you are to disperse, you are supposed to disperse. We have laws in this country that are to be followed so that we dont have riots. You cant complain about one set of laws when you dont follow another. If you are injured resisting arrest then it is your fault. Nothing in that video looked like police brutality.

As I said, the response is always the same. Bull issued "lawful" orders to disperse, then resorted to firehoses, dogs and clubs. The National Guard at Kent issued "lawful" orders then moved on to random killing as did the State Police at Jackson. There is never one side that is 100% to blame or is blameless, but power does not equate to "right" and the laws of man are only as morally justified as they are fair to all.

[Cannon Shell]

[quote=somerfrost;811122]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

As I said, the response is always the same. Bull issued "lawful" orders to disperse, then resorted to firehoses, dogs and clubs. The National Guard at Kent issued "lawful" orders then moved on to random killing as did the State Police at Jackson. There is never one side that is 100% to blame or is blameless, but power does not equate to "right" and the laws of man are only as morally justified as they are fair to all.

What should they do? How would you deal with it? Comparing Kent state and the videos Riot posted is laughable. How would you deal with a situation where people intentionally bring about confrontation by not following police orders?

[somerfrost]

[quote=Cannon Shell;811130]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

What should they do? How would you deal with it? Comparing Kent state and the videos Riot posted is laughable. How would you deal with a situation where people intentionally bring about confrontation by not following police orders?

Kent State is part of history and shows what can happen when those in power think they have a right to use said power with no regard for the consequences. Once again, reading comprehension comes into play, I never compared Kent to recent events but used it as an example of past events...what could very easily happen again if folks allow....nonviolence civil disobedience is preferred to violent riots I think you'd agree...neither side is 100% blameless because even in the most noble endeavors there are bound to be some lawless individuals who will seize the opportunity, that doesn't mean authorities have a green light to repress those who are acting in an appropriate manner. Common sense and foresight are not too much to expect, the thing I always taught new officers at the prison was never back inmates into a corner where they feel they must defend their "manhood" always give them a peaceful alternative, you are in control and things will always work out in your favor. Sure, there comes a time when physical force becomes necessary but ONLY AS A LAST RESORT! The letter of the law should never replace the objective of the law!

[Cannon Shell]

[quote=somerfrost;811146]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Kent State is part of history and shows what can happen when those in power think they have a right to use said power with no regard for the consequences. Once again, reading comprehension comes into play, I never compared Kent to recent events but used it as an example of past events...what could very easily happen again if folks allow....nonviolence civil disobedience is preferred to violent riots I think you'd agree...neither side is 100% blameless because even in the most noble endeavors there are bound to be some lawless individuals who will seize the opportunity, that doesn't mean authorities have a green light to repress those who are acting in an appropriate manner. Common sense and foresight are not too much to expect, the thing I always taught new officers at the prison was never back inmates into a corner where they feel they must defend their "manhood" always give them a peaceful alternative, you are in control and things will always work out in your favor. Sure, there comes a time when physical force becomes necessary but ONLY AS A LAST RESORT! The letter of the law should never replace the objective of the law!

At some point people will understand bringing up something in the same context of a subject is in effect comparing the situations otherwise why bring it up? I'm quite sure my comprehension of what you were saying is quite clear.

Again maybe this time you will answer the question if you can comprehend it. If you were the police and given orders to disperse a crowd that refused to move what would you do?

[somerfrost]

[quote=Cannon Shell;811160]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

At some point people will understand bringing up something in the same context of a subject is in effect comparing the situations otherwise why bring it up? I'm quite sure my comprehension of what you were saying is quite clear.

Again maybe this time you will answer the question if you can comprehend it. If you were the police and given orders to disperse a crowd that refused to move what would you do?

saying that in the past events that are similar to today's events led eventually to a specific outcome is not comparing a past outcome with present yet to be determined outcome but warning that in the near future the past outcome may repeat itself. The situation(s) that preceded Kent are very similar to what we are seeing today, I can hardly compare Kent to the eventual outcome of today's situation because it hasn't happened yet so no, Kent isn't similar to the events we have seen thus far but it may be very similar to the future. Kent happened, that's an historical fact...what happens as a result of the current situation is as of now unknown, my point being that in the past, the use of power because one can, has led to violence by the powerful.
Regarding what I would do, I would seek a result that the crowd might be able to accept without them seeing it as a defeat...perhaps relocation to another site, a hearing to express grievances, anything that would allow them to gracefully disperse. My main ally should be time...as long as there is no violence, there is no need to rush in and bust heads. In the end however, the police cannot address the issues that brought about this situation, it is up to those holding the power to do so and only public outcry can convince them to address same.

The rulers shall not hear any grievances from the peasants. Preposterous. Back to work with thee, swine!!