PDA

View Full Version : Peaceful demonstrations in Oakland meet violent resistance


Chef Ramen
Apr 7, 2003, 02:51 PM
Rubber Bullets Used on War Protesters in Oakland

By Jim Winborne

OAKLAND, Calif. (Reuters) - Oakland police fired rubber bullets and wooden pellets on Monday to disperse hundreds of anti-war protesters in what was believed to be the first such use against U.S. protesters since the American-led war on Iraq (news - web sites) began.

Demonstrators were seeking to block access to American President Lines, a shipping company they claimed was profiting from the war in Iraq when said they used the pellets and bullets to disperse about 750 protesters.

Several people were injured, including some who suffered large bruises. One man lifted up his shirt to show a welt about the size of a baseball.

"We gave our dispersal order, we gave them an order, we gave them ample time to disperse," said Oakland Police spokeswoman Danielle Ashford. "When we give our dispersal order, that's pretty much it. (If) there are safety issues involved, that's when we step in."

The anti-war demonstrators carried signs including "Shut down the war makers."

The action is believed to be the first police use of anti-crowd munitions against U.S. demonstrators since President Bush launched a war aimed at toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Police continued to fire upon a group of about 150 protesters that remained in mid-morning after the initial burst of rubber bullets broke up most of the crowd. Police arrested at least a dozen demonstrators in Oakland.

San Francisco police detained about 18 protesters at the Federal Building in a separate demonstration. Several people were also reported to be blocking one of the city's main highways.

Anti-war activists in the San Francisco area said they were resuming protest actions on Monday after a period of relative quiet in a city famous for its history of dissent. Police arrested more than 2,000 people in San Francisco in the first two days of the war.

Also on Monday, New York police arrested several dozen people who blocked the entrance to the Manhattan building of the Carlyle Group, a firm which has a stake in the defense industry.

Up to three hundred people chanted: "Carlyle gets fat on war" outside the offices of the $14 billion investment group.

Police said about two or three dozen demonstrators were arrested outside the 5th Avenue building and charged with disorderly conduct.

Groovsonic
Apr 7, 2003, 03:08 PM
This was private property they were blocking. They were tresspassing, and they were removed. They were told to leave, and they didn't. What right to they have to break the law?Should the police have left them there to interrupt business, and violate that businesses rights? I have no problem with people protesting (although at this point it seems pretty silly, since we are in baghdad already) but they shouldn't violate other peoples rights (i.e., blocking traffic, trespassing, ect...) in the process.

jayscheuerle
Apr 7, 2003, 03:55 PM
I agree with Groovsonic.

If you break the law, be prepared to feel the sharp sting of punishment. Use your moral superiority for salve if you need it. If you don't like the laws, work to change them. Most likely, this crowd considers the use of rubber bullets a boon to the media coverage they'll receive, which is really why they break the law in the first place. Peaceful protests don't warrant air or print space.

Unless someone lost an eye, everybody was probably pretty happy all around here. The cops got to break up the lawless protesters and the protesters got their coverage. What a great day to be an American!!

NavyIntel007
Apr 7, 2003, 04:23 PM
Yeah for real... we tell our children to look both ways before crossing a street. These people are blocking the road... surely they should expect to be hit by something. I said it before and I'll say it again... get a ********** job! Quit wasting the time of the 75% of us who want to feed our families.

mymemory
Apr 7, 2003, 04:35 PM
I'm leaving my Sh**ty country because of those situations to fall in to another country with the same problems. Hmmm....

At list I "may" find a job in the US, that is the only difference :rolleyes:

Groovsonic
Apr 7, 2003, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by mymemory
I'm leaving my Sh**ty country because of those situations to fall in to another country with the same problems. Hmmm....

At list I "may" find a job in the US, that is the only difference :rolleyes:

Just remember... about .01% of people here do stuff like this, and even then it only very rarely ends up like that, and no one was killed. At these protests, no one usually gets arrested unless they break the law. Trust me, the "problems" here are pretty small when viewed in the big picture.

Stelliform
Apr 7, 2003, 05:34 PM
....

pseudobrit
Apr 7, 2003, 05:57 PM
Randomly shooting peaceful protesters in the back is the work of tyrants.

Were I armed and at such a protest, or happening to be walking in the vicinity of one and come under fire, so help me God I would fire back with lethal force. If I saw someone shooting at me without reason I would defend myself with whatever means necessary, regardless of badges. A thug with a badge is still a thug.

We need to take these weapons away from the cops. All it does is give the gung-ho killhappy ones license to open fire and not have to file paperwork.
____

All those who seem to be in favor of these actions, let me ask you this: why is it okay to shoot protesters when arresting them is the legal recourse that should be pursued and has been effective at all other peaceful demostrations?

This is not "punishment," because the judicial system hands down such sentences. To give the police the ability to judge and punish is not Constitutional, but some of you have expressed your willingness to discard many of the provisions of that ancient piece of garbage anyway I guess. :( :rolleyes:

Sun Baked
Apr 7, 2003, 06:09 PM
Skipping water cannons and going directly to rubber bullets is a bad move...

Rubber bullets can be a step below lethal force, and makes for some ugly press.

In Tucson they tried the same thing to disperse a crowd, including sending up a SWAT team snipers with lethal loads to protect the officers, and it got extremely ugly in the press.

mymemory
Apr 7, 2003, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
Skipping water cannons and going directly to rubber bullets is a bad move...

You just say it before me. One thing is to remove people using water than shooting at them. I'm sure they didn't have a truck with watter near by if protest are so unusual.

The thing is that the police know very well how to handle a shootgun and how to make or not harm to some one, specially when you can not detect who shooted the gun if this one really hurt some one. That kind of represion lloks too bad for a politician, trust me, I have been there about 10 times just last year.

sparkleytone
Apr 7, 2003, 06:34 PM
peaceful my ass. somehow the article just forgot to mention that the 'peaceful' demonstrators were chunking hunks of concrete and rock at people.

Groovsonic
Apr 7, 2003, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Randomly shooting peaceful protesters in the back is the work of tyrants.

Were I armed and at such a protest, or happening to be walking in the vicinity of one and come under fire, so help me God I would fire back with lethal force. If I saw someone shooting at me without reason I would defend myself with whatever means necessary, regardless of badges. A thug with a badge is still a thug.

We need to take these weapons away from the cops. All it does is give the gung-ho killhappy ones license to open fire and not have to file paperwork.
____

All those who seem to be in favor of these actions, let me ask you this: why is it okay to shoot protesters when arresting them is the legal recourse that should be pursued and has been effective at all other peaceful demostrations?

This is not "punishment," because the judicial system hands down such sentences. To give the police the ability to judge and punish is not Constitutional, but some of you have expressed your willingness to discard many of the provisions of that ancient piece of garbage anyway I guess. :( :rolleyes:

Wow, Thank you Mr. Generalization.

Let me ask you this... Should people who break the law be allowed to break the law? If they were asked/told to leave/disperse 8 times, they must have known there would be consequences. Why would you side with the lawbreakers? This was not punishment being handed down, this was an attempt to get unlawful people to disperse. I agree they should have tried watercannons first, but I wasn't there, and mabye the situation called for something else.

pseudobrit
Apr 7, 2003, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by Groovsonic
Wow, Thank you Mr. Generalization.

Let me ask you this... Should people who break the law be allowed to break the law? If they were asked/told to leave/disperse 8 times, they must have known there would be consequences. Why would you side with the lawbreakers? This was not punishment being handed down, this was an attempt to get unlawful people to disperse. I agree they should have tried watercannons first, but I wasn't there, and mabye the situation called for something else.

Well, thank you for the personal attack.

Let me ask you this... wouldn't hauling their lawbreaking butts off to jail to be thrown in front of a judge be what is supposed to happen in this nation?

Or is it okay to shoot first and not bother with the arrests and true justice?

Here's what rubber bullets do to people:

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20030407/s/1049743752.2550276186.jpg
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030407/lthumb.1049738719.war_iraq_us_protests_caps105.jpg

But what the hell should we care? They're just a bunch of commie loving hippies like those bastards at Kent State...

macfan
Apr 7, 2003, 08:27 PM
pseudobrit,
Let me ask you this... wouldn't hauling their lawbreaking butts off to jail to be thrown in front of a judge be what is supposed to happen in this nation?

Or is it okay to shoot first and not bother with the arrests and true justice?

It is important to have more of the facts before deeming this another case of the "Boston Massacre" (an incident where force was justified, BTW). However, if the "peaceful protesters" were chunking metal objects at the cops, they should feel lucky that some of them are not dead.

Sometimes it is justified to use force to disperse a crowd. Sometimes this is not the work or tyrants. Whether this is one such case we can't tell yet, but the police don't have beanbag guns for decoration, and if the protesters were chunking metal objects at the cops, then my sympathy for their injuries is somewhat limited.

Sometimes, it is even justified for the SWAT team to shoot someone in the head from 300 yards. No trial, no arrest, just a decision to use deadly force.

ddtlm
Apr 7, 2003, 08:35 PM
pseudobrit:

...the work of tyrants. ... Were I armed and at such a protest ... so help me God I would fire back with lethal force. ... We need to take these weapons away from the cops.
Prior to this thread I though you were just anti-war, but now I think you're simply disfunctional. I just can't wrap my mind around what your world view appears to be. I'm glad that I don't know anyone like you here in the "real" world.

Rower_CPU
Apr 7, 2003, 09:06 PM
Let's keep this discussion on-topic and free from personal attacks.

pseudobrit
Apr 7, 2003, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by macfan
pseudobrit,


It is important to have more of the facts before deeming this another case of the "Boston Massacre" (an incident where force was justified, BTW). However, if the "peaceful protesters" were chunking metal objects at the cops, they should feel lucky that some of them are not dead.

Sometimes it is justified to use force to disperse a crowd. Sometimes this is not the work or tyrants. Whether this is one such case we can't tell yet, but the police don't have beanbag guns for decoration, and if the protesters were chunking metal objects at the cops, then my sympathy for their injuries is somewhat limited.

Sometimes, it is even justified for the SWAT team to shoot someone in the head from 300 yards. No trial, no arrest, just a decision to use deadly force.

Who said the protesters were throwing stuff? The police. The same police that shot an unarmed and handcuffed black man last year because "he was going for my gun" and got off scot-free.

You can use force to justify dispersal of a crowd -- an anrgy, violent mob that is out of control. That was clearly not the situation here. Even if one or two people were throwing things, that does not give the police authority to shoot randomly into a peaceful but defiant crowd. Military -- yes. Police -- no.

SWAT teams and snipers are only allowed to do head shots with approval from a higher authority and only then when not taking it would put someone else's life at risk (i.e. a hostage situation or if the subject is heavily armed/ wearing body armor etc.)

jayscheuerle
Apr 7, 2003, 09:19 PM
There's a new breed of peaceful protesters out there. We call them "idiots".

They were in town for the Republican Convention a couple of years ago, tipping over dumpsters, lighting cars on fire, grafittiing everything in sight, running down busy streets knocking children over. About the only thing they didn't do was bathe. Their protests had neither message or focus, but did have a purpose– to disrupt the establishment, inconvenience others and get on television. The Philly cops were GREAT! They hauled them off left and right, pumped up the charges and didn't even let them post bail until the event was over. Then let most of them go back to mummy and daddy ("My son's a good kid, honest!").

These punks needed a water canon with soap in it and a summer job. - j

MrMacMan
Apr 7, 2003, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by sparkleytone
peaceful my ass. somehow the article just forgot to mention that the 'peaceful' demonstrators were chunking hunks of concrete and rock at people.
*sparkleytone throws small rock at macman*
Me: Okay, I WARNED YOU!
*sparkley looks purplexed* About wha...
Me: Thats it Final warning! : pumps rumber bullet shotgun:
*sparkley oh no*
Me: *fires at sparkley, round after round*
I WARNED YOU, REMEMBE THAT!

Ruber Bullets is not = to small rocks
Rubber Bullets > rocks

QCassidy352
Apr 7, 2003, 09:33 PM
"why is it okay to shoot protesters when arresting them is the legal recourse that should be pursued and has been effective at all other peaceful demostrations?"

Shall I take the fact that none of you answered this point to mean that you have no answer for it?

Stelliform
Apr 7, 2003, 11:07 PM
....

pseudobrit
Apr 7, 2003, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by Stelliform
Because there is no way to peacefully arrest this illegal mob. Don't forget the facts before you extend your sympathies. These people were trespassing. They were not following orders from the police to disperse.

No? What's been going on for the past month then? There have been countless demostrations larger than this and more illegal things happening. This is the first incidence where police have shot protesters.

Arrest happened peacefully in those cases.
What makes this case any different?

You can't ignore these facts in order to make an argument, unless of couse you didn't want to make a very good argument.

macfan
Apr 8, 2003, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
No? What's been going on for the past month then? There have been countless demostrations larger than this and more illegal things happening. This is the first incidence where police have shot protesters.

Arrest happened peacefully in those cases.
What makes this case any different?

You can't ignore these facts in order to make an argument, unless of couse you didn't want to make a very good argument.

We don't know the facts on this case yet, but you have already decided that there is no way that use of these crowd dispersal weapons could have been justified. Maybe it wasn't justified, but your naked prejudice against the police is shining through brightly.

pseudobrit
Apr 8, 2003, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by macfan
We don't know the facts on this case yet, but you have already decided that there is no way that use of these crowd dispersal weapons could have been justified. Maybe it wasn't justified, but your naked prejudice against the police is shining through brightly.

I've seen stuff with my own two eyes that would make any American fear the power of the police in this nation.

Plus, many of the protesters were shot *in the back*.

C'mon now, you'd be the first to jump on a story with half this info if it said they found chemical weapons in Iraq. No double standards...

macfan
Apr 8, 2003, 01:40 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
I've seen stuff with my own two eyes that would make any American fear the power of the police in this nation.

Plus, many of the protesters were shot *in the back*.

C'mon now, you'd be the first to jump on a story with half this info if it said they found chemical weapons in Iraq. No double standards...

Here's what I had to say about the chemical weapons finds on a previous thread:

Given the history of Saddam, I expect that WMDs will be found in Iraq, but there aren't any confirmed reports from the US yet, just initial reports from field units. It seems some have been found already, including some on rockets, but inital press reports are often wrong, so it's important not to jump to conclusions.

This would tend to indicate that I am not the first to jump on a story with half this info if it said they found chemical weapons in Iraq. When you want to accuse someone of double standards, you should at least try to have actual evidence instead of just relying on your prejudices about how you think someone might react to a story.

pseudobrit
Apr 8, 2003, 01:57 AM
Ah, but maybe that's because the stories about chemical weapons don't have half the information in the protest stories. ;)

Anyway, you're right, you've been pretty good with being skeptical about these reports. The great majority in the pro-war camp are not. My apologies :)

NavyIntel007
Apr 8, 2003, 01:58 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Randomly shooting peaceful protesters in the back is the work of tyrants.

Were I armed and at such a protest, or happening to be walking in the vicinity of one and come under fire, so help me God I would fire back with lethal force. If I saw someone shooting at me without reason I would defend myself with whatever means necessary, regardless of badges. A thug with a badge is still a thug.

We need to take these weapons away from the cops. All it does is give the gung-ho killhappy ones license to open fire and not have to file paperwork.
____

All those who seem to be in favor of these actions, let me ask you this: why is it okay to shoot protesters when arresting them is the legal recourse that should be pursued and has been effective at all other peaceful demostrations?

This is not "punishment," because the judicial system hands down such sentences. To give the police the ability to judge and punish is not Constitutional, but some of you have expressed your willingness to discard many of the provisions of that ancient piece of garbage anyway I guess. :( :rolleyes:

I'd love to see you fire back at an Oakland Police Officer.... In fact, why don't you do so?

There's no such thing as a "peacefull" protest when little anarchists are blocking traffic and yelling obsenities at police officers that have to sit there and take it. You ever been yelled obsenities at for a few hours straight? They're lucky those were rubber bullets.

Taking guns away from cops? Are you on crack?

Tell you what brit, please leave this country.

NavyIntel007
Apr 8, 2003, 02:00 AM
Originally posted by sparkleytone
peaceful my ass. somehow the article just forgot to mention that the 'peaceful' demonstrators were chunking hunks of concrete and rock at people.

Funny how that is...

pseudobrit
Apr 8, 2003, 02:07 AM
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
I'd love to see you fire back at an Oakland Police Officer.... In fact, why don't you do so?

There's no such thing as a "peacefull" protest when little anarchists are blocking traffic and yelling obsenities at police officers that have to sit there and take it. You ever been yelled obsenities at for a few hours straight? They're lucky those were rubber bullets.

Taking guns away from cops? Are you on crack?

Tell you what brit, please leave this country.

There's that right-wing mantra again -- if you don't like it, leave -- except now you're telling me to leave instead. Maybe you could have the police come by and shoot me a couple times so I get the point. You are the one who hates America; you can't stand the rights and freedoms she's founded upon.

P.S. I was talking about taking nonlethal guns away from cops. They're more likely to use them on a whim, whereas lethal force must be taken more seriously.

NavyIntel007
Apr 8, 2003, 02:11 AM
Originally posted by macfan
We don't know the facts on this case yet, but you have already decided that there is no way that use of these crowd dispersal weapons could have been justified. Maybe it wasn't justified, but your naked prejudice against the police is shining through brightly.

Hey it's going to bite him in the A$$ one day trust me... karma is real.

I remember back in highschool, I was sitting at the breakfast table before school and said something like "All cops are corrupt." Sure enough, that morning, I got into an accident. I was probably going a little too fast, but got no ticket. I never said anything bad about a police officer again.

You have to give police officers a lot more credit man. These guys deal with the people in the sections of town you've probably never been near. They are underpaid and overworked but very proud of their profession. Be careful pseudobrit, that police officer you are bad mouthing today might just save your life one day.

NavyIntel007
Apr 8, 2003, 02:18 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
There's that right-wing mantra again -- if you don't like it, leave -- except now you're telling me to leave instead. Maybe you could have the police come by and shoot me a couple times so I get the point. You are the one who hates America; you can't stand the rights and freedoms she's founded upon.

P.S. I was talking about taking nonlethal guns away from cops. They're more likely to use them on a whim, whereas lethal force must be taken more seriously.

All I'm saying is that you clearly don't like it here. If you don't like it here, we're certainly not forcing you to stay. And why do you care about those protestors? Were you there? Did you get shot?

Yeah maybe the police officers jumped to conclusions but Oakland isn't exactly the safest place on god's green earth. Look what they did to the city after my Tampa Bay Buccaneers beat the Raiders in the superbowl (sorry had to rub it in).

It seems like everytime you see someone in uniform you want to jump on them and gouge their eyes out. Everytime I see one, I want to thank them (even when they give me parking tickets and tell me I ran a stop sign on the same day) because they're doing a job I'm not willing to.

edit: To add to that, there are and always will be tradeoffs between liberty and security. Unfortunatly 9/11 caused us to get really anal about security. One day, that'll change, but for now all you can do is stay out of trouble and maybe help the next guy too.

pseudobrit
Apr 8, 2003, 02:27 AM
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
You have to give police officers a lot more credit man. These guys deal with the people in the sections of town you've probably never been near. They are underpaid and overworked but very proud of their profession. Be careful pseudobrit, that police officer you are bad mouthing today might just save your life one day.

If karma's involved, there's gonna be some sore cops someday.

I was about 10 feet away as a group of rogue PLCE agents and city cops beat the hell out three or four people in a nightclub for no reason. They dragged the DJ out of his booth and smacked his head so hard he went into a seizure. They beat the living crap out of an Hispanic guy standing very close to me after he made a comment like "aw, the party's over now..."

They were there under the auspices of finding underage drinking violations. No one was cited. The only ones who were cited were cited for "resisting arrest" only with a few added "disorderly conducts" thrown in for good measure. They came in and started beating people within 30 seconds of announcing themselves. The mayor was outside watching the whole thing from a cruiser.

I raised the issue with the city council that week. The council held a special meeting and gathered testimony from the public. The tapes were confiscated by the mayor through the chief of police.

I saw police officers tell outright lies in the paper day after day. It sickened me, because the truth was never given consideration over the officer's testimony, despite the fact that dozens of people saw and testified as to what happened that night.

I've been nothing but nice, pleasant and cooperative to police officers my entire life, but for some reason every virtually every single one I've come across is a total youknowwhat-hole. The last one I remember made my girlfriend cry when he pulled her over. She was sweet and innocent to her and he just laid into her, verbally assaulting her and asking her asinine, unanswerable questions (dripping with scorn and contempt: "you like speeding, do you? Yeah, I bet you do. I might too if I had an Audi" The badge on his chest was the only thing keeping me from punching his lights out)

They have almost all been powertripping bullies who seem to get off on their position. Until I meet one who's not an instant ass, my opinion remains the same.

I guess I'm just lucky. :rolleyes:

d46799
Apr 8, 2003, 02:51 AM
Wish they'd used *real* bullets...OH, WAIT...these people weren't worth the expense.

For all the crap people speak about America, I don't see very many leaving, unfortunately. People still die on rafts trying desperately to get here...there must be something to that, doyathink?!

wsteineker
Apr 8, 2003, 03:30 AM
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
To add to that, there are and always will be tradeoffs between liberty and security. Unfortunatly 9/11 caused us to get really anal about security. One day, that'll change, but for now all you can do is stay out of trouble and maybe help the next guy too.

Benjamin Franklin once said that those who would trade freedom for short term security deserve neither freedom nor security. I don't see anyone calling him an anti-war commie moron. ;)

wsteineker
Apr 8, 2003, 03:31 AM
Originally posted by d46799
Wish they'd used *real* bullets...OH, WAIT...these people weren't worth the expense.

For all the crap people speak about America, I don't see very many leaving, unfortunately. People still die on rafts trying desperately to get here...there must be something to that, doyathink?!

You don't have to be an ass right off the bat, man. I'd let that wait until you're a regular. As for the folks trying like hell to get here, well I guess they're still under the impression that liberty's not under constant assault here these days. They must not have heard about the USA PATRIOT act whereever they're from. :rolleyes:

caveman_uk
Apr 8, 2003, 06:43 AM
Originally posted by d46799
Wish they'd used *real* bullets...OH, WAIT...these people weren't worth the expense.

For all the crap people speak about America, I don't see very many leaving, unfortunately. People still die on rafts trying desperately to get here...there must be something to that, doyathink?!
I think America would be pretty damn low on the list of places I'd want to live right now. Sadly our Tony seems to want the UK to be the 51st state so I don't have much choice.

jayscheuerle
Apr 8, 2003, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
You have to give police officers a lot more credit man. These guys deal with the people in the sections of town you've probably never been near. They are underpaid and overworked but very proud of their profession.

I've always thought that the cop you want protecting you isn't the one you want arresting you. In many cities, a police force job is for union mentality pension collectors with a penchant for violence. They're not that bright and enjoy the power they have over others.

State cops are a different, tougher, smarter breed.

That said, I have a lot of respect for the job that these people are being asked to do and know that I have NO IDEA what I'd do when faced with some of the stuff they see. I'm not going to second guess them. That's what review boards are for. Philly's not Oakland, but we have our share...

skunk
Apr 8, 2003, 08:56 AM
Having just read through this thread, I'm amazed at the tired old right-wing vitriol being poured out. "Unwashed", "stinking" "commies", "deserve everything they get", "lucky to be here", "should have used real bullets", "get a job", "love it or leave it". Geez, what are you guys ON? This was a demonstration, not an assault. What happened to the rule of law? What happened to the power of arrest? Has GW brought you all out of the woodwork, or have you been there all along, biding your time? You should be ashamed of yourselves! :confused:

wsteineker
Apr 8, 2003, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by skunk
Having just read through this thread, I'm amazed at the tired old right-wing vitriol being poured out. "Unwashed", "stinking" "commies", "deserve everything they get", "lucky to be here", "should have used real bullets", "get a job", "love it or leave it". Geez, what are you guys ON? This was a demonstration, not an assault. What happened to the rule of law? What happened to the power of arrest? Has GW brought you all out of the woodwork, or have you been there all along, biding your time? You should be ashamed of yourselves! :confused:

Ah, the voice of reason. I'm totally buying you a beer if we ever get the chance to meet. :)

skunk
Apr 8, 2003, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by wsteineker
Ah, the voice of reason. I'm totally buying you a beer if we ever get the chance to meet. :)
Your place or mine? :) Probably safer over here...

jayscheuerle
Apr 8, 2003, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by skunk
This was a demonstration, not an assault.

Right, a demonstration on how to assault cops with rocks and concrete until they shoot rubber bullets at you. Any idea of the ratio of protesters to police here? At what size does an unruly mob start to appear life-threatening?

I wasn't there, but I've seen trouble on both sides of the fence. Sounds like an escalation game where the protesters came out on the short end. Maybe next time they'll stick to launching just obscenities at the cops (as though the police have ANYTHING to do with what's going on in Iraq other than the fact that they're armed government employees)... - j

wsteineker
Apr 8, 2003, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by skunk
Your place or mine? :) Probably safer over here...

You've got absolutely no idea how right you are, my friend. Some of the students here at my school recently threw a huge pro-war rally. That's not the weird part, though. It was all of the "liberals hate america" and "bomb france first" signs that got me. Just amazing.

jayscheuerle
Apr 8, 2003, 09:33 AM
“Some people were blocking port property, and the port authorities asked us to move them off,” said Deputy Police Chief Patrick Haw. “Police moved aggressively against crowds because some people threw rocks and big iron bolts at officers.”

skunk
Apr 8, 2003, 09:36 AM
Now THERE's a picture that's worth a thousand words. Need one say more? :( :mad:

pseudobrit
Apr 8, 2003, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
?Some people were blocking port property, and the port authorities asked us to move them off,? said Deputy Police Chief Patrick Haw. ?Police moved aggressively against crowds because some people threw rocks and big iron bolts at officers.?

So where are the pictures of the injured police? Sounds like BS to me.

wsteineker
Apr 8, 2003, 09:40 AM
Hey Jay, why did you post that image. It seems to negate your whole "necessary force" argument. Sure doesn't look like the bare minimum to get the job done. And again I'd like to ask why the water cannons were skipped, moving straight to the rubber bullets. No one has answered that question yet.

NavyIntel007
Apr 8, 2003, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by wsteineker
Benjamin Franklin once said that those who would trade freedom for short term security deserve neither freedom nor security. I don't see anyone calling him an anti-war commie moron. ;)

He also never fathomed 9/11.

skunk
Apr 8, 2003, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by wsteineker
Hey Jay, why did you post that image. It seems to negate your whole "necessary force" argument.
I was wondering that, too. The image certainly does not strengthen the police case. Or is she an undercover cop? And if the police were outnumbered, surely the correct procedure would be to call reinforcements? The disruption of business can't have worth that kind of reaction.

mkubal
Apr 8, 2003, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Plus, many of the protesters were shot *in the back*.

If I saw someone point a gun at me i would probably turn my back to them too. Especially after the first shot was fired. No one wants to get shot in the face with one of those. It's not like they were leaving and they were shot in the back as they were walking away.

All I'm saying is don't assume that what the police did was wrong just because you agree with the protest. I probably distrust the police just as much as you do, but you should give them a little room to do their job and make the judgement call of whether or not the force was justified.

Matt

skunk
Apr 8, 2003, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by mkubal
you should give them a little room to do their job and make the judgement call of whether or not the force was justified.

Matt

If they are to make judgment calls, that calls for sound judgment.

jayscheuerle
Apr 8, 2003, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
So where are the pictures of the injured police? Sounds like BS to me.

Maybe it is BS. I don't know, but...

Photos of injured protesters are news.
Photos of injured police are not.
Protesters happily pose for these photographs and wear their wounds like badges of honor.

You don't need to hit me to get me to fight back. Throwing a punch at me and missing is your miscalculation. I'll respond to your aggression, not to your accuracy. Who throws rocks or bottles or whatever at armed, protected officers of the law? Idiots, that's who...

To say that the police over-reacted is not to say that they weren't provoked. Maybe the protesters got more than they planned, but they knew they'd get something. They were riding that fine line between a little media attention and a lot. Rubber bullets, wooden dowels and stinger bombs make for a lot. They should pat themselves on the back for attracting national attention.... - j

sparkleytone
Apr 8, 2003, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by MrMacman
Ruber Bullets is not = to small rocks
Rubber Bullets > rocks

egg****ingzactly. so they are just supposed to throw rocks back??

skunk
Apr 8, 2003, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Maybe it is BS. I don't know, but...

Protesters happily pose for these photographs and wear their wounds like badges of honor.
.......

To say that the police over-reacted is not to say that they weren't provoked. Maybe the protesters got more than they planned, but they knew they'd get something. They were riding that fine line between a little media attention and a lot. Rubber bullets, wooden dowels and stinger bombs make for a lot. They should pat themselves on the back for attracting national attention.... - j
1. No you don't know.
2. She doesn't LOOK happy: would you be?
3. Protesters in a democracy which allows protest should be able to expect reasonable behaviour from their police.

jayscheuerle
Apr 8, 2003, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by wsteineker
Hey Jay, why did you post that image. It seems to negate your whole "necessary force" argument. Sure doesn't look like the bare minimum to get the job done. And again I'd like to ask why the water cannons were skipped, moving straight to the rubber bullets. No one has answered that question yet.

I posted that image because I decided to look a little deeper at a few more sources and see what I could find out about the particulars of this situation. Most media coverage leans a bit to the left, so that must be taken with a grain of salt, but even if this girl bruises easily, HOLY *****!! That looks like it hurts!!

I've never been a cop. Wouldn't want to. They face nasty stuff around here and I say "better them than me", but you're not going to find that idyllic combination of compassioned reason coupled with aggressive courage with a city officers salary. I'll say it again -The cop you want protecting you is NOT the cop you want arresting you.

If this protest had been truly peaceful and law-abiding, this would have never happened. Does that justify the response? I don't know. I wasn't there, but I'd like to know what I'd have to do to deserve being shot at with something that gives me giant bruises and welts.

- just giving due to both sides... - j

jayscheuerle
Apr 8, 2003, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by skunk
3. Protesters in a democracy which allows protest should be able to expect reasonable behaviour from their police.

Protesting does not equal breaking the law.

"Reasonable" is subjective.

mkubal
Apr 8, 2003, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by skunk
If they are to make judgment calls, that calls for sound judgment.

Agreed.

So I guess they should have run it by us here at Mac Rumors before they went ahead with anything.;)

But seriously, thats what their job is. There is no one else to make those calls. We have to trust them to do whats right. (As much as I wish that weren't the case.)

I'm sure there will be an investigation into what happened. We should let that play out before trying to convict the cops of using excessive force. That and people need to stop thinking that everything is a right wing conspiracy. Honestly people. Honestly.

caveman_uk
Apr 8, 2003, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Maybe it is BS. I don't know, but...

Photos of injured protesters are news.
Photos of injured police are not.
Protesters happily pose for these photographs and wear their wounds like badges of honor.
So they wanted to be shot at...that's OK then. I'm sure that girl really wanted to have her face f*cked up like that. Apparently some of the workers who were waiting for the demo to be cleared also got shot at by the police. So were they throwing rocks too?

Kid Red
Apr 8, 2003, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Randomly shooting peaceful protesters in the back is the work of tyrants.

Were I armed and at such a protest, or happening to be walking in the vicinity of one and come under fire, so help me God I would fire back with lethal force. If I saw someone shooting at me without reason I would defend myself with whatever means necessary, regardless of badges. A thug with a badge is still a thug.

We need to take these weapons away from the cops. All it does is give the gung-ho killhappy ones license to open fire and not have to file paperwork.
____

All those who seem to be in favor of these actions, let me ask you this: why is it okay to shoot protesters when arresting them is the legal recourse that should be pursued and has been effective at all other peaceful demostrations?

This is not "punishment," because the judicial system hands down such sentences. To give the police the ability to judge and punish is not Constitutional, but some of you have expressed your willingness to discard many of the provisions of that ancient piece of garbage anyway I guess. :( :rolleyes:

Wow, it;s not like they showed up rasied their protest signs and were shot, ahaha. The police spokesman said they were told to disperse a few times. Sorry, the cops have to stop the situation from esculating in a hurry. Why resort to a croud riot fighting hand to hand with cops tossing bottles, etc? Why let it come to that? If people could protest on public property or get a permit to hold a march of sorts then this wouuldn;t have happened. Instead these people wish to invade and tresspass onto a companies private property wishing to disrupt their business and income. By refusing to leave, they were taking the offensive.

This was not 'punishment'. You think when a cop wrestles with a resisting arrest suspect and puts in face down into the pavement or into a choke hold or slams him onto the hood of a car, that's that punishment? No, it taking apporpriate action to gain control of the situation.

Notice the tatic worked as most of the crowd left?

skunk
Apr 8, 2003, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by sparkleytone
egg****ingzactly. so they are just supposed to throw rocks back??

No. They are supposed to call for enough back-up so they can do their job properly.

skunk
Apr 8, 2003, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Protesting does not equal breaking the law.

Was SHE breaking the law? Any evidence? Any evidence at all? Collateral damage? Friendly fire? Are you serious? :eek:

Sun Baked
Apr 8, 2003, 10:15 AM
You guys are right anybody that make you lose money should be shot. :rolleyes:

A life or well-being of an individual isn't worth the effort to safely remove them from you property, just have them shot.

You making war items, it could mean soldiers lives -- so just have the public shot to protect the lives of the soldiers. :(

They're only rubber bullets, they only kill and main on occasion.

There was no reason to call a fire truck early in case the crowd got out of hand. So the protesters could be knocked off they're ass with water instead.

Kid Red
Apr 8, 2003, 10:15 AM
Well, back in the 60 and 70s the cops just beat you with a billy clubs, breaking bones, jaws, cracking heads, etc. That's acceptable and protestors continued their crusade. Yet for some reason rubber bullets are eccessive force?

Guys, ah, just think back to the last major protest, something about a world trade organization. Seem to remember millions of dollars in damage, protestors looking like terrorists with black sky macks. The cops give them a chance to disperse peacefully. After that, they need to take action to gain control of the situation, not sure why some of you are surprised at the pic of that girl, I've seen a lot worst from other countires and a lot worse from past protests.

skunk
Apr 8, 2003, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by Kid Red
Well, back in the 60 and 70s the cops just beat you with a billy clubs, breaking bones, jaws, cracking heads, etc. That's acceptable and protestors continued their crusade. Yet for some reason rubber bullets are eccessive force?

Guys, ah, just think back to the last major protest, something about a world trade organization. Seem to remember millions of dollars in damage, protestors looking like terrorists with black sky macks. The cops give them a chance to disperse peacefully. After that, they need to take action to gain control of the situation, not sure why some of you are surprised at the pic of that girl, I've seen a lot worst from other countires and a lot worse from past protests.
Irrelevant on all counts.

Kid Red
Apr 8, 2003, 10:19 AM
Let's not forget that cops are standing in plain view with their weapons. They are shouting for the crowd to disperse. And they are shooting rubber bullets. Rubber bullets. It's not like these cops popped around the corner convert style and started popping these peaceful unsuspecting innocent protestors in the head. They knew few well they were gonna receive some type of force to remove them.

skunk
Apr 8, 2003, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
You guys are right anybody that make you lose money should be shot. :rolleyes:

A life or well-being of an individual isn't worth the effort to safely remove them from you property, just have them shot.


Welcome to the party! :)

skunk
Apr 8, 2003, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by Kid Red
Let's not forget that cops are standing in plain view with their weapons. They are shouting for the crowd to disperse. And they are shooting rubber bullets. Rubber bullets. It's not like these cops popped around the corner convert style and started popping these peaceful unsuspecting innocent protestors in the head. They knew few well they were gonna receive some type of force to remove them.
Are you arguing in favour of indiscriminate assault and intimidation of protesters by the police?

caveman_uk
Apr 8, 2003, 10:30 AM
Why is everyone saying it was only rubber bullets. They still hurt really bad and can kill. In the UK the police have never (as far as I can recall) used plastic bullets on the British mainland. Not in big riots let alone some little demonstration. Why couldn't you just disperse these guys by charging them and arresting them?

jayscheuerle
Apr 8, 2003, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by skunk
Was SHE breaking the law?


Doesn't look like she dispersed to me...

Taft
Apr 8, 2003, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
You have to give police officers a lot more credit man. These guys deal with the people in the sections of town you've probably never been near. They are underpaid and overworked but very proud of their profession. Be careful pseudobrit, that police officer you are bad mouthing today might just save your life one day.

While I'm not nearly as cynical as pseudo, I have to agree with him on some level.

The fact of the matter is that police officers are no better or worse than the average person. And as such, they have all the same faults you and I do. So basically, I give the average police officer no more trust than the average citizen.

Now it is true that for every corrupt cop, you can probably show me several good and honest cops. But how do I tell the difference? And how do we hold the bad cops accountable when they cross the line? Is there accountability?

Something that really scares me about living in a big city is the power police often have. And I see accountability as taking a back seat often times. Especially in Chicago. Did you guys hear about the cop a few months back that was dealing drugs and effectively running gangs and supplying them with weapons? Scary stuff. And we all have our share of bad cop stories.

But then there was a cop in my hometown of Iron Mountain. I got into a bad accident and hurt some old guy. I felt really bad about it and the cop was really nice. He handled the situation professionally and apologized for doing his job and having to give me a ticket. He was a real class act.

So, in summary, I don't implicitly trust any individual, cop or otherwise. There is much evil in the world and you get burned far less if you don't put blind faith in strangers. Especially strangers in powerful positions.

Taft

skunk
Apr 8, 2003, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by Taft
While I'm not nearly as cynical as pseudo, I have to agree with him on some level.

The fact of the matter is that police officers are no better or worse than the average person. And as such, they have all the same faults you and I do. So basically, I give the average police officer no more trust than the average citizen.

Now it is true that for every corrupt cop, you can probably show me several good and honest cops. But how do I tell the difference? And how do we hold the bad cops accountable when they cross the line? Is there accountability?

Something that really scares me about living in a big city is the power police often have. And I see accountability as taking a back seat often times. Especially in Chicago. Did you guys hear about the cop a few months back that was dealing drugs and effectively running gangs and supplying them with weapons? Scary stuff. And we all have our share of bad cop stories.

But then there was a cop in my hometown of Iron Mountain. I got into a bad accident and hurt some old guy. I felt really bad about it and the cop was really nice. He handled the situation professionally and apologized for doing his job and having to give me a ticket. He was a real class act.

So, in summary, I don't implicitly trust any individual, cop or otherwise. There is much evil in the world and you get burned far less if you don't put blind faith in strangers. Especially strangers in powerful positions.

Taft
And your point is?

jayscheuerle
Apr 8, 2003, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by skunk
And your point is?

Knock, knock?!!!

If someone, anyone, is pointing a gun at you and telling you to move, DO IT! Worry about your "rights" later. Cops are people too, they get frustrated, they ***** up. Why, why, WHY!!! put yourself in a position to antagonize them?

Sun Baked
Apr 8, 2003, 10:45 AM
In the lethality of the round beanbags may or may not be less lethal, but...

The injury pattern of a new law enforcement weapon: The police bean bag (http://www2.us.elsevierhealth.com/scripts/om.dll/serve?action=searchDB&searchDBfor=iss&id=jem010384&target=)

D de Brito, KR Challoner, A Sehgal, W Mallon

Abstract (full text available in text/pdf through link):

We describe a case series of the injury pattern of the police bean bag, a new weapon adopted by law enforcement agencies in the United States. Between 1996 and 2000, 39 men and 1 woman, ranging in age from 16 to 70, were shot by officers of either the Los Angeles Police or Sheriff's Department. One fatality was caused by massive hemothorax after thoracic penetration. Serious penetrating injuries included the thoracic cavity, eye, abdomen, arm, and leg. Psychiatric consultation was requested for 27 (69.2%) of 39 surviving patients. Psychosis was diagnosed in 16 (59.3%) of 27 of these patients, suicidal ideation in 15 (55.6%) of 27 patients, and major depression in 6 (22.2%) of 27 patients. Schizophrenia had previously been diagnosed in 7 (25.9%) of 27 patients. All but 1 of the patients had toxicology screens performed and the results of 29 (74.4%) of 39 were positive.
This has been out since Oct 2001, but departments "like" using the beanbag gun.

[EDIT - forgot to say full text will probably be pay-per-download, but it's there for those interested.]

jayscheuerle
Apr 8, 2003, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
Psychiatric consultation was requested for 27 (69.2%) of 39 surviving patients. Psychosis was diagnosed in 16 (59.3%) of 27 of these patients, suicidal ideation in 15 (55.6%) of 27 patients, and major depression in 6 (22.2%) of 27 patients. Schizophrenia had previously been diagnosed in 7 (25.9%) of 27 patients. All but 1 of the patients had toxicology screens performed and the results of 29 (74.4%) of 39 were positive.

Geez, I knew most of these protesters were soft in the head, but nothing like this...:D

skunk
Apr 8, 2003, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Knock, knock?!!!

If someone, anyone, is pointing a gun at you and telling you to move, DO IT! Worry about your "rights" later. Cops are people too, they get frustrated, they ***** up. Why, why, WHY!!! put yourself in a position to antagonize them?
In other words, stay quiet and don't protest?

skunk
Apr 8, 2003, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Geez, I knew most of these protesters were soft in the head, but nothing like this...:D
Aren't you the one who posted the picture? Whatever the facts, you think it's funny?

Taft
Apr 8, 2003, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by skunk
And your point is?

My point was relating to earlier comments.

That whole "we can't question the police because they are doing a tough job and protecting our freedom" line. They are doing a tough job, but they need to be held accountable. They aren't above scruitiny and they certainly don't implicitly have my trust.

They say the reason they fired on the crowd was because they were being attacked? I say, prove it. Prove you needed to use force instead of arresting the crowd. This situation should be examined and a judgement made as to the legitimacy of their actions.

Get it? That a good enough point for you?

Taft

jayscheuerle
Apr 8, 2003, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by skunk
In other words, stay quiet and don't protest?

Of course not. Protesting does not need to be antagonistic.

sparkleytone
Apr 8, 2003, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by skunk

3. Protesters in a democracy which allows protest should be able to expect reasonable behaviour from their police.

4) Policing officials in a democracy which allows protest should be able to expect reasonable behavior from said protesters.

jayscheuerle
Apr 8, 2003, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by skunk
Aren't you the one who posted the picture? Whatever the facts, you think it's funny?

The comment was in reference to the statistics about the mental health issues that the victims of rubber bullet shootings had in the studies, not to the girl.

No it's not funny that she got hurt.
It's not even funny that it was 100% preventable.
The least funny aspect of the picture is that she probably learned the wrong lessons from it happening. My money is on her putting herself in a similar situation in the future...

wdlove
Apr 8, 2003, 11:18 AM
I agree that an independent task force should investigate the use of force.

Think it was treason what the peace protestors were doing, if I understand correctly. They should not give aid and comfort to our enemy by denying needed supplies to our troops in Iraq!

They have a constitiutional right to protest, the troop are fighting to protect that right.

Groovsonic
Apr 8, 2003, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by skunk
In other words, stay quiet and don't protest?


WOW... I feel sorry for you.

People in the USA have evry right to protest anything they want, It dosent matter if you are the KKK protesting interracial marrige or Greenpeace protesting pollution. The responsibility of the protester is to protest in a legal and peaceful manner. Trespassing and throwing things at police is neither legal nor peaceful. What about the rights of the business, or the rights of the cops?

Nobody told them to "stay quiet and don't protest". We welcome protest here. It is a vital function of our democracy. All they had to do was do it in a legal manner, and none of this would have happened. I think they wanted to get busted by the cops so they and their minority cause would get on the news.

People keep mentioning that they had civil rights and shouldn't have been dealt with so harshly, and I agree that it may have been a little too harsh (although I don't know, I wasn't there and I didn't have to make that call), but you surrender some of your rights when you do illegal stuff. If I break into someones house and try to take their stuff, I surrender my right not to get shot at/clubbed on the head/ect... by the homeowner who is protecting their family and possessions.

Man...

pseudobrit
Apr 8, 2003, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by wdlove
I agree that an independent task force should investigate the use of force.

Think it was treason what the peace protestors were doing, if I understand correctly. They should not give aid and comfort to our enemy by denying needed supplies to our troops in Iraq!

They have a constitiutional right to protest, the troop are fighting to protect that right.

Oh, good. I was wondering when someone was going to pop in the "treason" argument again. :rolleyes: Maybe when the troops come back and find their VA benefits have been gutted, they'll want to protest only to be shot with rubber bullets for treason...

Does anyone have the facts that the protesters were doing anything illegal?

The article says the police told them to disperse and they didn't listen, but just because a cop tells you to do something doesn't mean it's the law that you must do it. (example: you are not required to identify yourself on the street, nor answer ANY questions a cop might ask you)

Groovsonic
Apr 8, 2003, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Oh, good. I was wondering when someone was going to pop in the "treason" argument again. :rolleyes:

Does anyone have the facts that the protesters were doing anything illegal?

The article says the police told them to disperse and they didn't listen, but just because a cop tells you to do something doesn't mean it's the law that you must do it. (example: you are not required to identify yourself on the street, nor answer ANY questions a cop might ask you)

They were tresspassing. Right away, thats illegal. Seconly, if the police tell you to disperse, you disperse. If you have no respect for authority, than you do not deserve the protection it affords. Seconly, no one said that legal protesting was treason. Blocking a plant that provides supplies for our military might be considered treason, although I think that may be streching it a bit. But then again, it might not be streching it.

(by the way, my brother is over there, and I sure do not want to see him not getting what he needs because of some stupid illegaly held protest)

jayscheuerle
Apr 8, 2003, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
...just because a cop tells you to do something doesn't mean it's the law that you must do it. (example: you are not required to identify yourself on the street, nor answer ANY questions a cop might ask you)

You've obviously never been to Oakland.;)

Groovsonic
Apr 8, 2003, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by sparkleytone
4) Policing officials in a democracy which allows protest should be able to expect reasonable behavior from said protesters.

Yes!

pseudobrit
Apr 8, 2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Groovsonic
They were tresspassing. Right away, thats illegal. Seconly, if the police tell you to disperse, you disperse. If you have no respect for authority, than you do not deserve the protection it affords. Seconly, no one said that legal protesting was treason. Blocking a plant that provides supplies for our military might be considered treason, although I think that may be streching it a bit. But then again, it might not be streching it.

(by the way, my brother is over there, and I sure do not want to see him not getting what he needs because of some stupid illegaly held protest)

Now, here's what I can gather.

1) They trespass

2) Police gather and tell them to disperse

3) They do not

4) Police friggen shoot them!

What's missing? Maybe any attempt to arrest the protesters?

Maybe the same exact types of arrests that have taken place over the past month, peacefully?

Treason is fighting for the enemy, with the enemy. This is not treason.

This was protesting a company that profits if your brother dies.

Groovsonic
Apr 8, 2003, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
First of all, thanks for the personal insult, I totally deserved that one just for being a traitor...

Now, here's what I can gather.

1) They trespass

2) Police gather and tell them to disperse

3) They do not

4) Police friggen shoot them!

What's missing? Maybe any attempt to arrest the protesters?

Maybe the same exact types of arrests that have taken place over the past month, peacefully?

Treason is fighting for the enemy, with the enemy. This is not treason.

This was protesting a company that profits if your brother dies.


They we told to disperse like 8 times! That showed a willful disregard of legal authority, IMO.

Treason could also be trying to sabotage your governments supply chain, thus aiding the enemy. I am not saying they should be arrested on charges of treason, but they should think about the concequences of their actions.

If this company profits if my brother dies (which is doubtful), so what? So do funeral parlors. Should we protest them?

jayscheuerle
Apr 8, 2003, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
First of all, thanks for the personal insult, I totally deserved that one just for being a traitor...

Now, here's what I can gather.

1) They trespass

2) Police gather and tell them to disperse

3) They do not

4) Police friggen shoot them!

What's missing? Maybe any attempt to arrest the protesters?

Maybe the same exact types of arrests that have taken place over the past month, peacefully?

Treason is fighting for the enemy, with the enemy. This is not treason.

This was protesting a company that profits if your brother dies.

3b) Police give them a warning & start moving in

3c) Protesters throw rocks and bolts

You can arrest protesters lying passively on the ground, but all it takes is one idiot to start the ball rolling out of hand, then you're not longer a protester, you're part of a mob. Probably 95% of those kids were in the wrong place at the wrong time, but you throw a rock at a cop- be prepared to get MORE than you deserve. That's just common sense...

Taft
Apr 8, 2003, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
3b) Police give them a warning & start moving in

3c) Protesters throw rocks and bolts

You can arrest protesters lying passively on the ground, but all it takes is one idiot to start the ball rolling out of hand, then you're not longer a protester, you're part of a mob. Probably 95% of those kids were in the wrong place at the wrong time, but you throw a rock at a cop- be prepared to get MORE than you deserve. That's just common sense...

You are totally correct. If a protester is using force against a cop, that cop needs to have the right to use appropriate force in response. But the key word is appropriate.

Should they be allowed to use lethal force in a situation where a person is throwing a rock at them? Probably not. The rubber bullet case is a little more murky. First, do we know absolutely that the protesters were becoming violent? Second, do we know how the use of non-fatal force was employed? Third, was that use of force appropriate?

A small and simple investigation could clear this case up so that no misinformation--on either side--would be disseminated.

Just the facts, ma'am.

Taft

Sun Baked
Apr 8, 2003, 12:32 PM
AP - Rubber Bullets Fired at Anti-War Protest (http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/other/1110/4-7-2003/20030407091502_50.html)

Police open fired Monday morning with rubber bullets at an anti-war protest at the Port of Oakland, injuring several longshoremen standing nearby.

Police were trying to clear protesters from an entrance to the docks when they opened fire and the longshoremen apparently were caught in the crossfire.

Six longshoremen were treated by paramedics and at least one was expected to be taken to a hospital. It was unclear if any of the protesters was injured.

"I was standing as far back as I could," said longshoremen Kevin Wilson. "It was very scary. All of that force wasn't necessary."Shoot the people you're trying to protect.

What a novel police procedure. :rolleyes:

Taft
Apr 8, 2003, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Groovsonic
Treason could also be trying to sabotage your governments supply chain, thus aiding the enemy. I am not saying they should be arrested on charges of treason, but they should think about the concequences of their actions.

If this company profits if my brother dies (which is doubtful), so what? So do funeral parlors. Should we protest them?

You are distorting the definition of treason under the constitution.

This has been discussed ad nauseam in other threads. Like this one. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22391&perpage=40&highlight=protest&pagenumber=2) Short answer? There is little to no legal backing for the claim that these acts are acts of treason. Read my comments (and mccrain's) in the other thread for more on why.

These acts are not treason. Lets make that absolutely clear.

Taft

Groovsonic
Apr 8, 2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
Shoot the people you're trying to protect.

What a novel police procedure. :rolleyes:

Because you have never made a mistake...right?

Sun Baked
Apr 8, 2003, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by Groovsonic
Because you have never made a mistake...right? Not with a gun...

These are officers trained to handle guns, they are also liable and responsible for any mistakes they make when firing those guns.

jayscheuerle
Apr 8, 2003, 12:55 PM
The phrase "rubber bullets" is often used to describe what are more accurately termed "rubber-coated metal bullets", heavy steel projectiles with a minimal coating of 1mm or 2mm of rubber, that are regularly used to lethal effect alongside -- not instead of -- live ammunition.

Rubber-coated metal bullets are fired from metal tubes placed on the end of high-velocity rifles such as the M-16s commonly used by Israeli troops. Tubes contain around 8 rubber-coated, cylindrical, steel projectiles, which are powered by blank rounds fired from the gun's magazine.

Plastic-coated metal bullets (circular, with a 1mm or 2mm hard plastic coating) are fired in the same way, from "cannisters" with a wider diameter, holding around 15.

Range and velocity of both types are unknown. When fired, seen from the side at about 20 meters distance, the swarm of bullets are large enough to be perceived but move far too fast to avoid.

Both rubber and plastic-coated metal bullets are capable of entering the skull cavity and also breaking bones.

Groovsonic
Apr 8, 2003, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Taft
You are distorting the definition of treason under the constitution.

This has been discussed ad nauseam in other threads. Like this one. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22391&perpage=40&highlight=protest&pagenumber=2) Short answer? There is little to no legal backing for the claim that these acts are acts of treason. Read my comments (and mccrain's) in the other thread for more on why.

These acts are not treason. Lets make that absolutely clear.

Taft

You are right, this is probably not treason. I overstepped what I was trying to say, and I apologize.

On the other hand, it is not exactly good. Protesting the war is not treason. Trying to negatively affect the outcome of the war and possibly causing problems for those fighting for our country might be. I am not saying they could have done any real harm, but they shoudln't have gone about it like they did.

Groovsonic
Apr 8, 2003, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
Not with a gun...

These are officers trained to handle guns, they are also liable and responsible for any mistakes they make when firing those guns.

I would have to say that I question the accuracy of that article. Not only did it look very on sided the way they reported it, they also said it was unclear if any protesters were injured. I think that has been made clear.

Sun Baked
Apr 8, 2003, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Groovsonic
I would have to say that I question the accuracy of that article. Not only did it look very on sided the way they reported it, they also said it was unclear if any protesters were injured. I think that has been made clear. Even the latimes article (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-war-protests8apr08,1,7276918.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dcalifornia) backs up that article's one sided view of longshoreman being shot.

The police barrage of beanbag bullets, wooden dowels and sting-ball grenades hit demonstrators in the backs of their legs and on arms, necks and faces as many were leaving the area. About a dozen suffered welts, cuts and bruises. Half a dozen longshoremen, there to work the morning shift, also were hurt by the shots. No police officers were injured.

Rower_CPU
Apr 8, 2003, 01:18 PM
Let's keep the name calling out of this discussion. One person's tongue-in-cheek remark is another's insult.

sparkleytone
Apr 8, 2003, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
This is not treason.

This was protesting a company that profits if your brother dies.

thats a leap of faith if i ever saw one. your logic (or lack thereof) is astounding. by your words, when someone dies, they make money. wrong. they make money from government contracts. one of the INDIRECT consequences of these contracts may in fact be death of american soldiers. yet somehow you can try and twist that into 'a company that profits if your brother dies'. this is just plain inflammatory and false. check your logic before you post drivel like that.

and by the way, your logic is flawed on another level. should i protest a company that profits if my brother dies? so i should go out and protest all morticians and funeral homes, because they are profiteering off of death eh?

Taft
Apr 8, 2003, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by Groovsonic
You are right, this is probably not treason. I overstepped what I was trying to say, and I apologize.

On the other hand, it is not exactly good. Protesting the war is not treason. Trying to negatively affect the outcome of the war and possibly causing problems for those fighting for our country might be. I am not saying they could have done any real harm, but they shoudln't have gone about it like they did.

Agreed. Some of these protesters are just plain stupid and/or inconsiderate and/or dangerous. I'm all for freedom of speech and I speak out against the war myself. But the level to which some people take it is dumb.

The rubber bullet thing does worry me, though. Non-lethal force is a dangerous thing because it is easier to abuse it without drawing a lot of negative attention. I get worried when I read reports stating it was used unnecesarily. Its a slippery slope towards a government where the police are used as an instrument of fear to silence dissent.

Taft

wsteineker
Apr 8, 2003, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
He also never fathomed 9/11.

No, but he was an architect of both the constitution and the bill of rights, as well as a participant in and survivor of the revolutionary war, so I think he had a little experience here. It's not like guerilla "terrorist" tactics weren't used by the colonies to successfully defeat the British regulars, after all.

Groovsonic
Apr 8, 2003, 02:09 PM
I kind of have a problem with the Ben Franklin quote. First off, he was human and prone to mistakes.
Secondly, If you go by the logic of his quote, we should have no restrictions.
I give up my right to drink alcohol and drive a car for the security of others on the road.
You see what I am saying?

Taft
Apr 8, 2003, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Groovsonic
I kind of have a problem with the Ben Franklin quote. First off, he was human and prone to mistakes.
Secondly, If you go by the logic of his quote, we should have no restrictions.
I give up my right to drink alcohol and drive a car for the security of others on the road.
You see what I am saying?

Then again, I think Ben Franklin was (by today's standards) a libertarian. He might not have agreed with drunk driving laws. Then again, maybe he wouldn't have a problem.

The issues that things like drunk driving raise are difficult to answer. I agree that drunk driving is very, very wrong. And in that case, executing a personal freedom poses a great threat to rest of the population. But where do we draw the line? Can the government say, "The CIA not knowing all of your daily activities poses a great threat to the rest of the population. We need full access to all of your personal information!" Obviously not. So where is the happy medium? How do we decide that?

Taft

Groovsonic
Apr 8, 2003, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Taft
So where is the happy medium? How do we decide that?
Taft

I think we are about there, and have been for some time. We as a country are constantly evolving, due to constant political pressure from both sides. We kind of self-center. There may be lapses in security, and there also may be abuses and invasions of privacy, but both of those are pretty few and far between. We should certianly be aware and careful that our constitution is not being trampled in the name of security, but we should certianly not overlook security as an important concern.
People are all talking about how our rights and freedoms are being stripped away post 9/11. That may or may not be true, but even if it is, eventually the pendulum of policy will swing the other way, and thisngs will balance themselves. Thats one of the great things about this country. It can never get too extreme one way or the other, because people are so diverse in the way they think. If you look at our elections, we are pretty 50/50 on politics, so no one side can claim to hold the will of the people as its very own. Thats a good thing, as far as keeping people in power in check. IMO!!!!

Sun Baked
Apr 8, 2003, 04:07 PM
Oregon Law Would Jail War Protesters as Terrorists (http://news.findlaw.com/news/s/20030403/lifeprotestsdc.html)

PORTLAND, Oregon (Reuters) - An Oregon anti-terrorism bill would jail street-blocking protesters for at least 25 years in a thinly veiled effort to discourage anti-war demonstrations, critics say.

The bill has met strong opposition but lawmakers still expect a debate on the definition of terrorism and the value of free speech before a vote by the state senate judiciary committee, whose Chairman, Republican Senator John Minnis, wrote the proposed legislation.

Dubbed Senate Bill 742, it identifies a terrorist as a person who "plans or participates in an act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt" business, transportation, schools, government, or free assembly.Oregon Senate Bill 742.pdf (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/orsb742.pdf)

skunk
Apr 8, 2003, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by Groovsonic
I think we are about there, and have been for some time. We as a country are constantly evolving, due to constant political pressure from both sides. We kind of self-center. There may be lapses in security, and there also may be abuses and invasions of privacy, but both of those are pretty few and far between. We should certianly be aware and careful that our constitution is not being trampled in the name of security, but we should certianly not overlook security as an important concern.
People are all talking about how our rights and freedoms are being stripped away post 9/11. That may or may not be true, but even if it is, eventually the pendulum of policy will swing the other way, and thisngs will balance themselves. Thats one of the great things about this country. It can never get too extreme one way or the other, because people are so diverse in the way they think. If you look at our elections, we are pretty 50/50 on politics, so no one side can claim to hold the will of the people as its very own. Thats a good thing, as far as keeping people in power in check. IMO!!!!
Wow! Do you HAVE two political parties? :rolleyes:

skunk
Apr 8, 2003, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
Oregon Senate Bill 742.pdf (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/orsb742.pdf)
Nice.

wdlove
Apr 8, 2003, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Oh, good. I was wondering when someone was going to pop in the "treason" argument again. :rolleyes: Maybe when the troops come back and find their VA benefits have been gutted, they'll want to protest only to be shot with rubber bullets for treason...

Does anyone have the facts that the protesters were doing anything illegal?

The article says the police told them to disperse and they didn't listen, but just because a cop tells you to do something doesn't mean it's the law that you must do it. (example: you are not required to identify yourself on the street, nor answer ANY questions a cop might ask you)

There is a moral duty to respect the commands of a police officer. They put their life on the line to protect us every day.

I haven't seen any specific documentation that VA benfits are being cut. A repriortizaton of funds.

Groovsonic
Apr 8, 2003, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by skunk
Wow! Do you HAVE two political parties? :rolleyes:

Wha? Huh?
I am so confused as to what this was supposed to mean!

Are you mocking me for pointing out our two party system?
Are you implying that I don't know that other countries have two-party systems?

What are you saying?

jelloshotsrule
Apr 8, 2003, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by skunk
Wow! Do you HAVE two political parties? :rolleyes:


yeah. they both rewl!


as for this whole thing. i think taft summed up my thoughts.... protesters need to respect the law, or at least if they are gonig to go the civil disobedience route, they need to do so peacefully, thus there would be no need for "nonlethal" ammo. and i also think the line between ok and not ok force is pretty grey....

iJon
Apr 8, 2003, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
?Some people were blocking port property, and the port authorities asked us to move them off,? said Deputy Police Chief Patrick Haw. ?Police moved aggressively against crowds because some people threw rocks and big iron bolts at officers.?
i saw that picture last night. that gave me one hell of a laugh. dumb idiot should have gotten out of the streets, hope doesnt plan on dating in the next couple of months.

iJon

skunk
Apr 8, 2003, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
yeah. they both rewl!


as for this whole thing. i think taft summed up my thoughts.... protesters need to respect the law, or at least if they are gonig to go the civil disobedience route, they need to do so peacefully, thus there would be no need for "nonlethal" ammo. and i also think the line between ok and not ok force is pretty grey....
In this case it seems like there was no need for the action taken by the police, and in any case their discipline was so lamentable that they fired AFTER people had started to disperse AND managed to hit those in whose interest they were supposedly acting.
Why are so many people here defending what, on the face of it, appears to be the clear use of inappropriate and disproportionate force in the service of democracy? Have you just got used to it?

GeeYouEye
Apr 8, 2003, 05:11 PM
If you trespass on property, or cause someone to lose money, the Police are quite justified in causing you to lose money in the form of medical bills, but that is besides the point. They were stopping commerce. There were arrest attempts made. The targets of arrest picked up whatever they could and threw it at the police. Thus, the police were justified in using non-lethal force to remove them. And whoever it was who said they wished they were there and had a gun: You are either naïve, stupid, foolish, illogical, or some combination of the above. Had you shot a police officer in Oakland, I can guarantee that everyone in the entire protest would have been shot. This is Oakland, after all. They police deal with riots and gang violence on a regular basis. So when stuff comes flying out of the air, they respond. To be honest, I'm amazed they weren't killed. If the protesters really wanted to go somewhere where they could break the law and 90+% of the time get away with it, they should have gone to San Francisco.

In the end, I have one more question: if a burglar breaks into your house, you are justified in using any force necessary to get him out of your house. How is this any different?

jelloshotsrule
Apr 8, 2003, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by GeeYouEye
In the end, I have one more question: if a burglar breaks into your house, you are justified in using any force necessary to get him out of your house. How is this any different?

several reasons

1. it's your home! sorry, but that's not the same even as some private property that's got a commercial use.

2. a burglar is generally being sneaky. doesn't exactly announce their arrival, and quite possibly is armed to an unknown degree. the protesters aren't sneaking around this place. they're there, they make themselves known. and i highly doubt that they brought weapons (we are ignoring the tossing of rocks and stuff, because that is clearly something that incites the use of force in response, and i agree in that case, which might be the case here for all we know. the details are dodgy from source to source, and none of us were there that i know of)

i guess that's it.


i don't nkow enough about this instance to argue for or against either side. i don't think the details are clear enough either way, and i wasn't there. but i just say that in general what i stated above is how i feel about such situations. as soon as the protesters use force, then i think the police have a right to use force in return. but certainly very restrained force and in a very localized sense. not a broad spray of shots in the entire area...

so until i hear from someone who was there, unbiased, i'd have a hard time passing judgment on either side in this one

Les Kern
Apr 8, 2003, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Randomly shooting peaceful protesters in the back is the work of tyrants.

I agree. They could have waded into this peaceful crowd and arrested them one at a time. Resitors of course would be subject to further action. But shooting them? We are on a slippery slope in this country as it is. Now rubber bullets are "standard", what's next?

wsteineker
Apr 8, 2003, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by Groovsonic
I think we are about there, and have been for some time. We as a country are constantly evolving, due to constant political pressure from both sides. We kind of self-center. There may be lapses in security, and there also may be abuses and invasions of privacy, but both of those are pretty few and far between. We should certianly be aware and careful that our constitution is not being trampled in the name of security, but we should certianly not overlook security as an important concern.
People are all talking about how our rights and freedoms are being stripped away post 9/11. That may or may not be true, but even if it is, eventually the pendulum of policy will swing the other way, and thisngs will balance themselves. Thats one of the great things about this country. It can never get too extreme one way or the other, because people are so diverse in the way they think. If you look at our elections, we are pretty 50/50 on politics, so no one side can claim to hold the will of the people as its very own. Thats a good thing, as far as keeping people in power in check. IMO!!!!

We're about there? May or may not be true? Wow. I take it you're not actually familiar with the contents of USA PATRIOT, the upcoming USA PATRIOT II, and bills like the aforememtioned Oregon "terrorism" bill. These things are absolutely terrifying, and the damage they do to the base of civil liberties in this country is, in some cases, irreversible. Law enforcement should not, under any circumstances, have the power to conduct all types of surveillance without so much as a warrant, based solely on suspicion of guilt. That's horrifying. The citizens of this country are who these organizations are supposed to be protecting, and i think they might have forgotten that. US citizens are, under any circumstance, afforded the right to an attorney by the US constitution, and PATRIOT removes that protection. It's all more of this paranoia that the current administration has so deftly proffered since 9/11. Did you know that Patriot II wants to establish a national DNA database of suspected terrorists. You don't even get the benefit of evidenciary rules anymore. And even if the bill is reversed, the DNA database doesn't have to be destroyed! That's disgusting! No, we're nowhere near any sort of happy medium my friend. Nowhere near it. :(

GeeYouEye
Apr 8, 2003, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
several reasons

1. it's your home! sorry, but that's not the same even as some private property that's got a commercial use.
Why not? Why is commercial private property different from residential private property? Both let only people the owners or renters on to the property, and anyone not wanted is a trespasser.
2. a burglar is generally being sneaky. doesn't exactly announce their arrival, and quite possibly is armed to an unknown degree. the protesters aren't sneaking around this place. they're there, they make themselves known. and i highly doubt that they brought weapons (we are ignoring the tossing of rocks and stuff, because that is clearly something that incites the use of force in response, and i agree in that case, which might be the case here for all we know. the details are dodgy from source to source, and none of us were there that i know of)

i guess that's it.

So what if they're making themselves known? Stealth is not a crime beyond trespassing. It's trespassing either way. And why on Earth wouldn't they bring weapons. Someone else in this thread said they would.

i don't nkow enough about this instance to argue for or against either side. i don't think the details are clear enough either way, and i wasn't there. but i just say that in general what i stated above is how i feel about such situations. as soon as the protesters use force, then i think the police have a right to use force in return. but certainly very restrained force and in a very localized sense. not a broad spray of shots in the entire area...

It had to be a spray. Rubber bullets (or rather, rubber-jacketed metal bullets, which are used in this country. "real" rubber bullets are solid plastic and generally not used around here. they also require a silencer-like device to be affixed to the muzzle of the gun to slow down the bullet) are designed to ricochet off something, usually the ground, before hitting the target. If there's no empty ground to fire at, they must use a horizontal field of fire. And as good as they are, cops don't have a perfect sense of trigonometry.

so until i hear from someone who was there, unbiased, i'd have a hard time passing judgment on either side in this one

Can't help you on the unbiased part, but I do have a direct source; I have a friend who was there when it happened. I get all the facts about it from him (opinions mine though).

pseudobrit
Apr 8, 2003, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by GeeYouEye
In the end, I have one more question: if a burglar breaks into your house, you are justified in using any force necessary to get him out of your house. How is this any different?

Try shooting a burglar in the back and see whose side the law is on.

pseudobrit
Apr 8, 2003, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by wdlove
There is a moral duty to respect the commands of a police officer. They put their life on the line to protect us every day.

That doesn't matter! There is no moral duty to respect the commands of an officer; if you're not under arrest and not breaking the law, you're free to go! It's that simple.

iJon
Apr 8, 2003, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Try shooting a burglar in the back and see whose side the law is on.
guy comes into my house like that ill just shoot him in his kneecaps. just so he wont go anywhere till the cops get there.

iJon

pseudobrit
Apr 8, 2003, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by iJon
guy comes into my house like that ill just shoot him in his kneecaps. just so he wont go anywhere till the cops get there.

iJon

You still would have to answer for your actions. If the burglar is fleeing, you would be unwise shoot him.

Also, since when does a burglar break into a house with people in it? If I were a crook, I'd wait until everyone was gone.

The notion that someone's going to bust in while you're sleeping, rape your wife, kill your kids and steal your TV is largely the fiction of ADT commercials.

iJon
Apr 8, 2003, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
You still would have to answer for your actions. If the burglar is fleeing, you would be unwise shoot him.

Also, since when does a burglar break into a house with people in it? If I were a crook, I'd wait until everyone was gone.

The notion that someone's going to bust in while you're sleeping, rape your wife, kill your kids and steal your TV is largely the fiction of ADT commercials.
well of course, if i shot him that would mean he is a dumb robber because he was in my house when it happened. my bro is a cop so ill ask him if im allowed to shoot him in his kneecaps.

iJon

pseudobrit
Apr 8, 2003, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by iJon
well of course, if i shot him that would mean he is a dumb robber because he was in my house when it happened. my bro is a cop so ill ask him if im allowed to shoot him in his kneecaps.

iJon

Ask a lawyer. If they're fleeing, you're likely to have to face the music. If he lunges at you, that's a different story.

sparkleytone
Apr 8, 2003, 10:58 PM
don't worry about it iJon. just use real, pure logic and he will be at a loss for words to argue with. this seems to be the problem with any person who sides themselves extremely left or right. logic and truth fly out the window in favor of sensationalism and spin.

iJon
Apr 8, 2003, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Ask a lawyer. If they're fleeing, you're likely to have to face the music. If he lunges at you, that's a different story.
ill be honest, ill still shoot him in the kneecaps, take back whatever he took and then leave him in my yard. i will ask though because i am curious. i have a security alarm so he would be running as soon as he stepped into my house. unless its one of those dumb robbers that we were talking about.

iJon

pseudobrit
Apr 8, 2003, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by sparkleytone
don't worry about it iJon. just use real, pure logic and he will be at a loss for words to argue with. this seems to be the problem with any person who sides themselves extremely left or right. logic and truth fly out the window in favor of sensationalism and spin.

And what the hel does this have to do with the topic at hand? Or are you just sniping?

sparkleytone
Apr 8, 2003, 11:48 PM
why dont you read through the thread?

humantech
Apr 9, 2003, 01:05 AM
I have yet to hear of people on thhis discussion speak of this whole thing in humanistic terms.

1) The people are allowed to protest as a right of American citizens. They thought they were doing the right thing by protesting the company they felt was supporting the war effort.( Well, a percentage did- there is also another percentage that really are a bunch of wacked out hippies. I know I used to be one)

2) They crossed the line when they started infringing upon the rights of those people who run that company, and worked hard to purchase the private property the protesters thought they had the right to trespass on. They also infringed upon the rights of those folks that worked there that were trying to earn a livinng that day. Or drive through and go home to see their families, or go to the hospital to have a baby, etc... Those people probably thought it was the "right thing" to be allowed to go to work, and were probably relieved to have the police come to break it up.

3) The police Came down to try to "keep the peace" and serve the needs of all parties involved, as is their job. They thought they were doing the right thing to ask the crowd to disperse 8 times. The crowd refused. The police moved in to make arrests and disperse the crowd and were assaulted with Rocks and metal bolts. This is an assault by law if the person being assaulted is willing to prosecute. The police, badly outnumbered and probably very concerned about property damage and injury, moved in and fired "rubber bullets" and some other less than lethal ordinance. Remember, less than lethal still means "hurts like hell and deters someone continuing their assault upon you or those you are sworn to protect. Also, ,As someone who has been in a riot as a bystander, someone attacked and someone almost arrested, I can tell you what the police were thinking. Mob mentality. The situation was a powederkeg and once the violence starts in a big group of people ( as the "peaceful demonstators" were) ,, it spreads quickly and becomes VERY intense before anyone knows what happens. Sooooo... Thhe police did whhat they thought was the right thing at that moment ( Well, a percentagge of them did. A certain percentage of the police were probably over zealous gung ho jerks who really like to bust heads ) . They fired their crowd dispersal ordinance. I spose they could've waited for a fire truck with hoses to show up while they were being pelted with rocks, insulted and intimidated by the crowd. But they feared that the end damage and injury would probably be greater if they let the situation escalate. Their job is to not let things escalate out of control, and sometimes the ONLY way to do that is to control the escalation a little yourself. Sucks. Welcome to the world.

Everyone involved thought they were doing the right thing. Everyone here ( myself inncluded) thinks they have the correct interpretation of the protest, thhe war and the world situation right now. None of us have all the answers.

The situation is complex. I feel for the protestors that were injured. I feel for the police that are being vilified here for doing their jobs ( they are after all, just men and women like you, I and the protestors). I feel for the workers nearby that got caught in the crossfire. In America, nothing is black and white and simple. The sad fact is, all these people thought they were right, and because of where we live, the situation was allowed to get to the point where people were shot with Rubber bullets. I myself would have had a hose there right off the bat. Maybe none were available. Maybe someone made a mistake and didnt coordinnate the hoses getting there in time. Like you. Like me. Like the first person who threw a rock or fired a rubber bullet. To think of people as pro war, or commie hippy , or Fascist cop because you've seen bad cops before is really small minded and an overly simplistic notion. These are all people. As I said above, its complex. I question why water hoses werent used first, but I do think that the protestors chose to go and stand up for what they believed in, and then cried foul when they were injured after disobeying the request to leave private property ( the law) and assaulting the police.
Everyone screwed up.I will note however that the police officers went back to work saving lives and helping to prevent crime while the protestors went to the media to complain about how their rights had been violated by the very same people that were trying to uphold Everyones rights until the situation went out of control.
my 2 cents

pseudobrit
Apr 9, 2003, 03:47 AM
Originally posted by sparkleytone
why dont you read through the thread?

I've been following this thread from the beginning. Why don't you stay on topic?

Stelliform
Apr 9, 2003, 08:31 AM
....

pseudobrit
Apr 9, 2003, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by Stelliform
If these guys were protesting for the war, would y'all care as much?

Yes, I would still care just as much.

caveman_uk
Apr 9, 2003, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by Stelliform
In my state the home owner. There was a case recently where an half drunk teenager got the wrong house for a party. He forced his way into a elderly couples house. (Thinking his friends locked him out) The man shot him dead as he entered his house. No charges were filed against the home owner. <I just wanted to answer you comment>

In the UK the guy with the gun would most likely be convicted of murder as he shot an unarmed man. In the UK you are only allowed to use 'reasonable force' to protect your property. Self-defense only counts if you could have reason to believe your own life to be in danger. Protecting your property doesn't entitle you to violently assault intruders. As guns are much less common in the uK than the US so a burglar is much less likely to have one than in the US.
Indeed, although guns are becoming more common, they are rare enough that the normal British policeman does not carry firearms though there ARE specially trained armed police units. This may seem incredible to most Americans ;)

pseudobrit
Apr 9, 2003, 11:37 AM
Joel Tena, the constituent liason for Oakland Vice Mayor Nancy Nadel, said "I was there from 5a.m. on, and the only violence that I saw was from the police."

How's that for a reliable source?

http://www.counterpunch.org/terrall04082003.html

wsteineker
Apr 9, 2003, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by caveman_uk
In the UK the guy with the gun would most likely be convicted of murder as he shot an unarmed man. In the UK you are only allowed to use 'reasonable force' to protect your property. Self-defense only counts if you could have reason to believe your own life to be in danger. Protecting your property doesn't entitle you to violently assault intruders. As guns are much less common in the uK than the US so a burglar is much less likely to have one than in the US.

Most states here in the US have similar laws regarding home invasion. The threat of deadly force against your person has to be strong enough to justify force in return. You can't just go around shooting intruders. The difference in Stelliform's home state (Louisianna) may be that they use a form of Napoleonic law instead of the commonwealth law in the other 49 states, but that's just a guess. It may also be a conservative judge's interpretation of the law in that particular case.

Indeed, although guns are becoming more common, they are rare enough that the normal British policeman does not carry firearms though there ARE specially trained armed police units. This may seem incredible to most Americans ;)

Not so much incredible as incredibly desirable. ;)

jayscheuerle
Apr 9, 2003, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
How's that for a reliable source?

http://www.counterpunch.org/terrall04082003.html

Seriously pseudo, could you find a more left-wing publication?

That's like looking to Rush Limbaugh to hear good things about Clinton!

- not that I'm doubting the factuality of the statement, but you'd bolster your seemingly liberal stance by backing your points up with quotes from publications that are at least centrist!

pseudobrit
Apr 9, 2003, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Seriously pseudo, could you find a more left-wing publication?

That's like looking to Rush Limbaugh to hear good things about Clinton!

- not that I'm doubting the factuality of the statement, but you'd bolster your seemingly liberal stance by backing your points up with quotes from publications that are at least centrist!

I was referring to the liason for the Vice Mayor, and cited the article where I found his quote.

jayscheuerle
Apr 9, 2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
I was referring to the liason for the Vice Mayor, and cited the article where I found his quote.

Exactly!

Because of the publication from which you pulled, those with more conservative leanings would tend to think it was taken out of context or mis-quoted in order to bolster the politics of the publishers.

The suggestion was just one to help add credence to the post.

wsteineker
Apr 9, 2003, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Seriously pseudo, could you find a more left-wing publication?

That's like looking to Rush Limbaugh to hear good things about Clinton!

- not that I'm doubting the factuality of the statement, but you'd bolster your seemingly liberal stance by backing your points up with quotes from publications that are at least centrist!

Moreover, it's no more discrediting than the more conservative members of this forum (most of whom seem to attack pseudo with alarming regularity) consistently quoting Fox News as their ONLY source. While the publication in question may be liberal, there's no question that it isn't controlled by the current neoconservative attempt to manipulate mass media outlets by limiting information. That, in and of itself, lends the quote in question a great degree of credibility.

pseudobrit
Apr 9, 2003, 12:16 PM
Is Reuters (http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2523269) too leftish too?

jayscheuerle
Apr 9, 2003, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by wsteineker
Moreover, it's no more discrediting than the more conservative members of this forum (most of whom seem to attack pseudo with alarming regularity) consistently quoting Fox News as their ONLY source.

I'm sure it comes as no suprise that after 20 minutes of scanning every conservative publication Google had to offer, I could only come up with 1 reference to the Oakland protests and that one was filled with quotes by the cops... - j

wsteineker
Apr 9, 2003, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Is Reuters (http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2523269) too leftish too?

Ouch. Now that's a good one. :)

wsteineker
Apr 9, 2003, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
I'm sure it comes as no suprise that after 20 minutes of scanning every conservative publication Google had to offer, I could only come up with 1 reference to the Oakland protests and that one was filled with quotes by the cops... - j

Nope, no suprise at all. Thanks for trying, though. It's nice to see that there are still some folks around here that like to play fair. :)

jayscheuerle
Apr 9, 2003, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Is Reuters (http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2523269) too leftish too?

Nope. Seems like a fairly straightforward gathering of he said/she said quotes.

Care to give us your version of how this unfolded based on these quotes?

wsteineker
Apr 9, 2003, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Nope. Seems like a fairly straightforward gathering of he said/she said quotes.

Care to give us your version of how this unfolded based on these quotes?

Come on now, don't pick fights. I think he provided the article simply to show that the quote was also provided by a major (centrist) wire service. And I'll also say that the article doesn't exactly paint the police action in a positive manner. Seems like the only folks who were pleased here were managers of the shipping lines being picketed. Imagine that...

pseudobrit
Apr 9, 2003, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Nope. Seems like a fairly straightforward gathering of he said/she said quotes.

Care to give us your version of how this unfolded based on these quotes?

When a cop needs to cover his/her ass, they will lie. They will lie maliciously, systematically and collectively. I've seen it; I know.

There's nothing in it for the mayor's adjutant and other non-partisan folks who were there -- like the dockworkers who saw the whole thing and went on strike because of it.

jayscheuerle
Apr 9, 2003, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by wsteineker
Come on now, don't pick fights. I think he provided the article simply to show that the quote was also provided by a major (centrist) wire service. And I'll also say that the article doesn't exactly paint the police action in a positive manner. Seems like the only folks who were pleased here were managers of the shipping lines being picketed. Imagine that...

Don't misconstrue. I'm not picking a fight. Though I don't follow pseudo's political line, that gives me no reason to disrespect him, and I haven't even said that I disagree with his viewpoints. I was just interested in seeing a liberal interpretation of this if only to cobble together a "devil's advocate" conservative one from the scraps.

My sole point in all of this is that this event, like all events, is subjective. What happened is based on perspective and as third parties, we tend to align our perspectives with those that we associate ourselves with, to those we can "relate". My wife was protesting at the Coast Guard Station when Bush visited here a week ago or so. CNN's live coverage never even showed them, though they did make the local news.

Thanks for all the gentlemanly back and forth, but I think we've beat this horse to death... - j

pseudobrit
Apr 9, 2003, 01:01 PM
No liberal interpretation needed. Just remove the testimony from the witnesses who had anything vested in the story going one way or the other and what you end up with is the longshoremen's account.

Their account was that the police were the instigators and shot a peaceful crowd. This collaborates the protester's stories and refutes the police version.

More facts then: most wounds were in the back or the back of the legs. There is not a single report of an injured police officer. Doesn't sound like the police were shooting for self-defense or to disperse the crowd. Sounds like they were getting their guns off, because the crowd is obviously dispersing if you're shooting them in the back.

Stelliform
Apr 9, 2003, 03:31 PM
....

wsteineker
Apr 9, 2003, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by Stelliform
However it is illegal to carry a weapon that isn't in plain sight without a conscealed weapon license.

And people say there's no sanity left in this world! ;)

Chef Ramen
Apr 9, 2003, 05:39 PM
man i dont think ive ever seen 'current events' so lively...

iMook
Apr 9, 2003, 11:47 PM
My thoughts...

I frankly don't believe that you can find any news organization which can give an extremely thorough analysis of the event without noticeable and analysis-altering bias (though Reuters tries hard, they still need some work on the thoroughness aspect, IMHO).

This protest was staged on private property, apparently with evidence of intentional assault of the police force. Protests against the war in the past have been either on public property, approved by the local/state gov't, peaceful (not sorta-kinda-wants-to-be-peaceful), or all of the above. I live in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and there's been several thousand-strong protest marches in my area, since there's a massive liberal population here with nothing better to do :D. All of them have been carefully arranged and coordinated with gov't officials, and have come and gone with nary a complaint. THAT is what protests should be like. Protests should not be massive hordes of uncouth like-minded persons hooting and hollering at established gov't, asking for retaliation. Even rallies with crowds which sound like caffeine-injected orangutans in heat are a MUCH better alternative.

Yes, I believe that they were just asking for pain. From what I can gather through the news quotes in this forum (though I admit I have not read every post), I think that the protesters fully deserved to be pummelled by pliable pieces of pacifying pain. If they were indeed throwing weighty projectiles at the police, they should fully expect to have pain liberally (har har) dealt out to them. As for the effects of rubber pellet impacts, I say this: Hey, it's better than getting shot with an ACTUAL bullet, though police forces should consider infrasound cannons or tranquilizer darts :D.
Such a protest in times of peace and tranquility (relatively) would have been met with use of force. Protesters in the current uptight state of the union (yes, I'm liberal) who have the courage (or rather naivete) to actually pelt officers of the law with potential weapons should fully expect to be placed on the rack. Bush has already authorized the use of deadly force against protests on military bases, and his policies for terror suspect apprehensions and interrogations are brushing the edge of MacArthur Land. I am not debating the righteousness of W. I say only that the protesters have no right to expect that their actions will not be met with equally violent countermeasures.

edit: Though I feel that the protesters should have had an inkling of what their actions may trigger, I believe that the justification for such a liberal (har... ahem) shower of nonlethal ordnance is questionable. (They shoulda procured and used diarrhea guns, would dispersed the mob much faster :D)

caveman_uk
Apr 10, 2003, 03:14 AM
Originally posted by wsteineker
Moreover, it's no more discrediting than the more conservative members of this forum (most of whom seem to attack pseudo with alarming regularity) consistently quoting Fox News as their ONLY source. While the publication in question may be liberal, there's no question that it isn't controlled by the current neoconservative attempt to manipulate mass media outlets by limiting information. That, in and of itself, lends the quote in question a great degree of credibility.
Talking of the impartiality of Fox News here's something I found earlier
http://www.spectrumz.com/z/images/FAUXNews.jpg

Bring on the flames....:rolleyes:

wsteineker
Apr 10, 2003, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by caveman_uk
Talking of the impartiality of Fox News here's something I found earlier
http://www.spectrumz.com/z/images/FAUXNews.jpg

Bring on the flames....:rolleyes:

Oh damn! It's funny 'cause it's true. My favorite was Esquire's mock ad for Fox News featuring all of their female anchors who'd had a little work done caught in lurid poses. The caption: "Fox News: It's not quite news, but it's not technically porn." :)