Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Chef Ramen, Apr 7, 2003.
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.
Boing, boing, you're on t.v.
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!!
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 F***ing job! Quit wasting the time of the 75% of us who want to feed our families.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
peaceful my ass. somehow the article just forgot to mention that the 'peaceful' demonstrators were chunking hunks of concrete and rock at people.
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:
But what the hell should we care? They're just a bunch of commie loving hippies like those bastards at Kent State...
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.
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.
Let's keep this discussion on-topic and free from personal attacks.
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.)
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
*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
"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?
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.
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:
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.