CT GAMER wrote:
Well Frank Miller is a giant tool, so that isn't a surprise...
Man, this can't be said enough.
The dude made interesting things that other people turned into really good interesting things.
But the man himself is inSANE.
If you look up Jingoism in the dictionary you will find his picture. Some of his post 9/11 interviews in which he advocates all manner of atrocities against non-western peoples was an eye-opener to his degree of crazy.
So, if I get it correctly...
Using Marines and Navy troops for law enforcement on US soil is strictly forbidden
Using Army and Air Force troops for law enforcement on US soil is strictly forbidden, unless the congress authorizes it.
That's it ?
That's BASICALLY the cliffs notes of it yeah.
Though it would be a very bad idea to send a military unit to college to quell a protest, given it worked out so well last time
You mean that one time at Kent State?
You are aware that prior to that it was done with no real issues, and there were a few instances afterwards where it was done without the same consequences. Kent State was a powderkeg situation--and to this day, there remains an unsubstantiated report of the National Guardsmen having been shot at. I'd very much suggest you read into the history and timeline of Kent State before shooting your mouth off.
That word has a meaning.
Also are you seriously suggesting that given that is the instance that people remember that it would be wise for a politician to call in the national guard to quell a college protest. It doesn't matter that if it went off without a hitch that's a career ender.
Key set of words. National Guard.
Established under Title 10 and Title 32 of the U.S. Code, the Army National Guard is part of the National Guard and is divided up into subordinate units stationed in each of the 50 states, three territories and the District of Columbia operating under their respective governors.[3] The Army National Guard may be called up for active duty by the state governors or territorial commanding generals to help respond to domestic emergencies and disasters, such as those caused by hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes.[3]
With the consent of state governors, members or units of the Army National Guard may be appointed, temporarily or indefinitely, to be federally recognized armed force members, in the active or inactive service of the United States.[4][5] If federally recognized, the member or unit becomes part of the Army National Guard of the United States,[6][7][8] which is a reserve component of the United States Army,[6] and part of the National Guard of the United States
Army National Guard of the United States units or members may be called up for federal active duty in times of Congressionally sanctioned war or national emergency.[3] The President may also call up members and units of state Army National Guard, with the consent of state governors, to repel invasion, suppress rebellion, or execute federal laws if the United States or any of its states or territories are invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation, or if there's a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the federal government, or if the President is unable with the regular armed forces to execute the laws of the United States.[9] Because both state Army National Guard and the Army National Guard of the United States relatively go hand-in-hand, they are both usually referred to as just Army National Guard
Posted that to make sure everyone on line on the role of the National Guards
On November 6, 1962, Ohioans voted Rhodes into the governorship with 59% of the vote.[2]
Rhodes served two terms as governor, and he also was a "favorite son" Presidential candidate who controlled the Ohio delegation to the Republican National Conventions in 1964 and 1968, before retiring in 1971. He ran for the U.S. Senate in 1970 and narrowly lost, to U.S. Representative Robert Taft, Jr., the primary election, which was two days after the events at Kent State.
Rhodes oversaw the last two (by electrocution) pre-Furman executions in Ohio,[3] which were both in early 1963, before Ohio resumed executions in 1999.
At a news conference in Kent, Ohio, on Sunday May 3, 1970, the day before the Kent State shootings, he said of campus protesters:
"They're worse than the Brownshirts, and the Communist element, and also the Night Riders, and the vigilantes. They're the worst type of people that we harbor in America."[4]
Since the Ohio Constitution limits the governor to two four-year terms, when Rhodes initially filed to run again in 1974, his petitions were refused by the Secretary of State. Rhodes sued, and the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the limitation was on consecutive terms, thus freeing him to return to office by narrowly defeating incumbent John Gilligan in an upset in the 1974 election. He served two more terms before retiring again in 1983. During the energy crisis of the winter of 1976–77, Rhodes led a 15-minute service, in which he "beseech[ed] God to relieve the storm."[5] The next year, January 1978, amid a blizzard which dropped 31 inches of snow onto Ohio and killed 60 people in the Northeast, Rhodes called the storm "the greatest disaster in Ohio history."[5]
Think it didn't end his carreer.
Don't branch out on the snow storm saying it was an act from God or something.
National Guard side
Yet the declassified FBI files show the FBI already had developed credible evidence suggesting that there was indeed a sniper and that one or more shots may have been fired at the guardsmen first.
Rumors of a sniper had circulated for at least a day before the fatal confrontation, the documents show. And a memorandum sent to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover on May 19, 1970, referred to bullet holes found in a tree and a statue — evidence, the report stated, that “indicated that at least two shots had been fired at the National Guard.”
Another interviewee told agents that a guardsman had spoken of “a confirmed report of a sniper.”
It also turned out that the FBI had its own informant and agent-provocateur roaming the crowd, a part-time Kent State student named Terry Norman, who had a camera. Mr. Norman also was armed with a snub-nosed revolver that FBI ballistics tests, first declassified in 1977, concluded had indeed been discharged on that day.
Then there was the testimony of an ROTC cadet whose identity remains unknown, one of the pervasive redactions concealing the names of all the FBI agents who conducted the interviews and of all those whom they interrogated. Although presumably angry over the demonstrators’ destruction of the campus ROTC building, the cadet’s calm, precise firsthand account nonetheless carries a credibility not easily dismissed.
Before the fatal volley, the ROTC cadet told the FBI, he “heard one round, a pause, two rounds, and then the M-1s opened up.”
The report continued that the cadet “stated that the first three rounds were definitely not M-1s. He said they could possibly have been a .45 caliber. … [He] further stated that he heard confirmed reports of sniper fire coming in over both the National Guard radio and the state police radio.”
The cadet also told the FBI he observed demonstrators carrying baseball bats, golf clubs and improvised weapons, including pieces of steel wire cut into footlong sections, along with radios and other electronic devices “used to monitor the police and Guard wavelengths.”
Separately, a female student told the FBI she “recalled hearing what she thought was [the sound of] firecrackers and then a few seconds later [she] heard noise that to her sounded like a machine gun going off, but then later thought it may have been a volley of shots from the Guard.”
Absent the declassification of the FBI’s entire investigative file, many questions remain unanswered — including why the documents quoted here were overlooked, or discounted, in the Justice Department’s official findings.
At a minimum, the FBI documents strongly challenge the received narrative that the rioting in downtown Kent was spontaneous and unplanned, that the burning of the ROTC headquarters was similarly impulsive and that the guardsmen’s fatal shootings were explicable only as unprovoked acts.
The FBI files provide, in short, a hidden history of the killings at Kent State. They show that the “four dead in Ohio” more properly belong, in the grand sweep of history, to four days in May, an angry, chaotic and violent interlude when a controversial foreign war came home to American soil.
Regardless of how fun it might be to watch fellow citizens, or in this case students, subjected to unnecessary police force, here is another link for your reading pleasure.
What is WRONG with those cops? Why the HELL would they do that to people who are peacefully protesting? Cops are not supposed to be getting people to fear them, they are here to protect us from the kind of people who would do things like spray pepperspray into peaceful students! WE ARE THE FUTURE DAMMIT!
Sorry. My feelings for this whole situation cannot be contained in a forum post. I just think that was a totally despicable thing to do and they should be punished for it, not just put on administrative leave or whatever half ass punishment they were given. That was assault, and they know it.
You also cannot separate your feelings from logic.
When it comes down to it, pepper spray is the "appropriate response" for this situation. Pepper spray is not simply a deterrent, it's also a way to control a situation.
This was not assault, like one can (quite rightly, depending on how the whole thing plays out) claim for the Anthony Bologna incident.
Kanluwen wrote:You also cannot separate your feelings from logic.
When it comes down to it, pepper spray is the "appropriate response" for this situation. Pepper spray is not simply a deterrent, it's also a way to control a situation.
This was not assault, like one can (quite rightly, depending on how the whole thing plays out) claim for the Anthony Bologna incident.
While I agree the logic of my rant was questionable (it was a rant), but if some guy in a park came up to a little girl with pepper spray and sprayed it all over here face, would that be considered assault (Really, would it? I'm not sure. It would definitely be illegal)
Also pepperspray presumably hurts really, really bad. The way that guy sprayed them was in the manner in which one would kill weeds. No regard for humanity. And that situation did NOT look very controlled. And if we have the right to free speech, but every square inch of public land is restricted to protestors, that isn't really free speech, now, is it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Huffy wrote:
GalacticDefender wrote: who are peacefully protesting?
As it's been stated before..illegally protesting, as well as blocking a walkway,
is UC a public school system/college?
Walk around them. Take an extra fifty steps out of your way. I'd do it gladly.
Kanluwen wrote:You also cannot separate your feelings from logic.
When it comes down to it, pepper spray is the "appropriate response" for this situation. Pepper spray is not simply a deterrent, it's also a way to control a situation.
This was not assault, like one can (quite rightly, depending on how the whole thing plays out) claim for the Anthony Bologna incident.
While I agree the logic of my rant was questionable (it was a rant), but if some guy in a park came up to a little girl with pepper spray and sprayed it all over here face, would that be considered assault (Really, would it? I'm not sure. It would definitely be illegal)
If "some guy" came up to a little girl with pepper spray and sprayed it all over her face, it would be considered assault. Depending on the age of the little girl, it very well might be considered to be a more serious charge of assault.
Also pepperspray presumably hurts really, really bad.
It doesn't so much "hurt" as it makes you really freaking uncomfortable. Have you ever handled chili peppers and accidentally rubbed your eyes? Think of that--but about 5x worse and at the same time you're having a really bad coughing fit because of choking on that pepper you just ate.
The way that guy sprayed them was in the manner in which one would kill weeds.
The "way that guy sprayed them" is the way in which one would in fact spray someone with lower grade pepper spray. You'll notice that at least two of the individuals did not actually seem to be affected, despite being sprayed head on.
No regard for humanity.
The fact that they weren't shot, beaten, or tasered suggests otherwise.
And that situation did NOT look very controlled.
It was pretty controlled once the pepper spray got involved. The whole point was that the officers were trying to go further into the quad to remove students who were "squatting" on the premises and had established tents to sleep in overnight. Those students were warned--twice over the two preceding days that such activity was unacceptable
And if we have the right to free speech, but every square inch of public land is restricted to protestors, that isn't really free speech, now, is it?
"Freedom of speech" is not directly related to expression of speech in public areas. There is a limit as to what is acceptable in a "free for all" setting.
The most common example is, of course, that of hate speech or rhetoric designed to incite a crowd to violence.
"Freedom of assembly" does not allow for setting up a hovel in a public space. It also has been interpreted to not include for protests which "interrupt" the general flow of activity, unless one obtains permits and the like.
Huffy wrote:
GalacticDefender wrote: who are peacefully protesting?
As it's been stated before..illegally protesting, as well as blocking a walkway,
is UC a public school system/college?
Walk around them. Take an extra fifty steps out of your way. I'd do it gladly.
Not relevant. The officers were acting under lawfully handed down orders. The "Good Faith" exemption is in play for this example--unless it can be proven that Pike was acting of his own accord--and the fact that those officers are now being hung out to dry likely means we'll see the officers' union prepare a legal pimpslap for the college.
Kanluwen wrote:Doesn't really matter if it's public or private.
Blocking the walkway or camping out without explicit permission to do such is illegal.
Eh, not on most college campuses, if you are a student. Though, generally, the administration can require to disperse an assembly for just about any reason.
Really, universities tend to be pretty flexible regarding protests, for example US just didn't want tends or sleeping bags, but the protest itself was allowed to continue 24/7; which can be easily accomplished with a rolling schedule of demonstrators.
Like I said when OWS first took off, these guys really suck at protesting.
GalacticDefender wrote:
Walk around them. Take an extra fifty steps out of your way. I'd do it gladly.
Alternatively, the protesters could assemble to the side, which is what they should have done if their intention was not to allow themselves to be arrested (which is certainly a valid tactic, when executed correctly.).
BTW I wasn't questioning the legality of the situation. I'm sure it was all perfectly legal in some way or another. Though I still think it was the wrong thing to do and could have been handled better. For instance, a different spot for protesting could have been proposed or something. I think pepperspray should be used for violent people, not for getting someone who is sitting on the ground trying to hide their eyes to move out of the way. The cops weren't in danger, so they didn't have to resort to a weapon (pepper spray is a weapon as far as I'm concerned)
In what manner would you recommend people protest issues? The internet works pretty well, but there is only so much you can do sitting at home behind a screen.
1000th POST YEEE HAWWW
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
GalacticDefender wrote:
Walk around them. Take an extra fifty steps out of your way. I'd do it gladly.
Alternatively, the protesters could assemble to the side, which is what they should have done if their intention was not to allow themselves to be arrested (which is certainly a valid tactic, when executed correctly.).
Yeah, I agree. Though I think the cops still might have pepper sprayed them even if they weren't directly blocking anything.
GalacticDefender wrote:
In what manner would you recommend people protest issues? The internet works pretty well, but there is only so much you can do sitting at home behind a screen.
For one, organize, organize, organize. Organization is key to a good protest, because it helps prevent idiots from ruining what you're trying to do by acting like, well, idiots. It also helps to give the movement an identity, which keeps people coming back when they start to lose that immediate feeling of interest.
Second, don't go out of your way to mess with the police. It doesn't help your image, unless the police really are oppressive, and you get thrown in jail to boot.
Third, if the police really are oppressive, or the policies they are enforcing are, its alright to allow yourself to be arrested but, again, its all about doing it right. Don't resist, when they try to put you in handcuffs, comply with instructions, and let them do their jobs. When you resist arrest, or refuse to comply with an order, you're going to get pepper sprayed and, at least in the US, that isn't going to help your image outside of the group that already agrees with you.
Organization is key, as is having a sense of identity for the movement.
"Messing with the police" is also not a very good idea, as it is more often than not going to be damaging to the movement.
Treating the police as simple automatons, as we see in these cases most often as not is also not a very good idea. Whatever you may think of the laws, police are still people.
They are still fallible, but the difference is that if you or any of your fellow protesters slip up the police will be able to do a lot of things that will really screw you guys up.
Charges have been dropped against all 10 protesters who were arrested. University to pay for hospital bills of 11 people. UC Prez weighs in with support of full independent investigation.
GalacticDefender wrote:What is WRONG with those cops? Why the HELL would they do that to people who are peacefully protesting? Cops are not supposed to be getting people to fear them, they are here to protect us from the kind of people who would do things like spray pepperspray into peaceful students! WE ARE THE FUTURE DAMMIT!
Sorry. My feelings for this whole situation cannot be contained in a forum post. I just think that was a totally despicable thing to do and they should be punished for it, not just put on administrative leave or whatever half ass punishment they were given. That was assault, and they know it.
I noticed you still haven't answered, what would you have done if you were the poice ordered to clear the scum, er protesters?
We are the future? Well in that case:
"Go back to your own time. The future is not what it used to be."
-G Kar
The thing I'm not sure whether to laugh at or just shake my head at is the interviews of the people who got sprayed...
I mean, yeah, getting sprayed can be kind of traumatic...I've been hit in the face wit the stuff before and it is nowhere near my definition of fun...
But whenever I hear the account of the people who were sprayed they treat it like it was a bloody massacre and the cops just waltzed up and opened fire on the group like you see the bad guy nazi/communists/terrorists you see in movies...
People are already camping out in tents in front of Best Buy and all the other big box stores, in order to be first in line for Black Friday.
Since they are camping illegally and blocking sideways, by the logic of many in this thread they should get some pepper spray in the face and somebody better be getting those water cannons out of storage....
Automatically Appended Next Post: Interesting article on pepper spray use:
“I can’t get into the head of people using it in New York and Davis and around the country, but it seems that rather than turning to other tactics, they turn to the simple tool,” said Geoffrey Alpert, a professor of criminology at the University of South Carolina. “There’s an overreliance on technology.”
.........................
Indeed, while law enforcement scholars unanimously acknowledge that, on a per-violent-incident basis, pepper spray results in fewer injuries than direct physical violence, research suggests that having pepper spray could lead to higher numbers of violent incidents.
In one analysis, criminologists found that police use of force rose by 33 percent in Concord, North Carolina following the approval of pepper spray as a law enforcement tool. After an arrestee died in custody after being sprayed, pepper spray use was restricted; use-of-force incidents then fell by 57 percent, even though arrest rates rose by almost 4 percent.
“This suggests that the use of spray may not necessarily be an alternative to force, but provides officers with options to use more force — perhaps unnecessarily. In other words, if it is there, they will use it,” wrote that study’s co-authors, criminologists Paul Friday and Richard Lumb of the University of North Carolina.
That the number of times police used force seemed disconnected from threats to public order led Friday and Lumb to hypothesize that having pepper spray could change how officers behaved.
“Do officers become more assertive in suspect confrontational situations when they are ‘armed’ with an additional tool? Does the possession of OC spray unreasonably increase the sense of self-confidence and security and thereby create a self-fulfilling prophecy of threat?” they wondered. “While OC spray, when used, reduced injuries, does its mere possession increase the potential for physical force being used?”
Don't be a dumbass. Its only illegal if its against permission of the property owner.
d-usa wrote:People are already camping out in tents in front of Best Buy and all the other big box stores, in order to be first in line for Black Friday.
Since they are camping illegally and blocking sideways, by the logic of many in this thread they should get some pepper spray in the face and somebody better be getting those water cannons out of storage....
Automatically Appended Next Post: Interesting article on pepper spray use:
“I can’t get into the head of people using it in New York and Davis and around the country, but it seems that rather than turning to other tactics, they turn to the simple tool,” said Geoffrey Alpert, a professor of criminology at the University of South Carolina. “There’s an overreliance on technology.”
.........................
Indeed, while law enforcement scholars unanimously acknowledge that, on a per-violent-incident basis, pepper spray results in fewer injuries than direct physical violence, research suggests that having pepper spray could lead to higher numbers of violent incidents.
In one analysis, criminologists found that police use of force rose by 33 percent in Concord, North Carolina following the approval of pepper spray as a law enforcement tool. After an arrestee died in custody after being sprayed, pepper spray use was restricted; use-of-force incidents then fell by 57 percent, even though arrest rates rose by almost 4 percent.
“This suggests that the use of spray may not necessarily be an alternative to force, but provides officers with options to use more force — perhaps unnecessarily. In other words, if it is there, they will use it,” wrote that study’s co-authors, criminologists Paul Friday and Richard Lumb of the University of North Carolina.
That the number of times police used force seemed disconnected from threats to public order led Friday and Lumb to hypothesize that having pepper spray could change how officers behaved.
“Do officers become more assertive in suspect confrontational situations when they are ‘armed’ with an additional tool? Does the possession of OC spray unreasonably increase the sense of self-confidence and security and thereby create a self-fulfilling prophecy of threat?” they wondered. “While OC spray, when used, reduced injuries, does its mere possession increase the potential for physical force being used?”
The ACLU's notices of "pepper spray related deaths" is a joke, IMO. They do not take other factors into account, just if pepper spray was used in the incident and make no further notice of the context of the situation. I know that the "arrestee" who died in custody after being sprayed died because of existing respiratory conditions which of course are unknowable to police at the time of the incident. They can't just look at someone and say "Hrmh...he's got asthma, clearly".
As for the people camping in front of Best Buy, the property of the store goes as far as the street abutting the sidewalk. It's the store's discretion if they want to let people camp out there or not.
What cop in his right mind going to hold a Black Friday opening hour unless its really out of hand. Then besides taking them jail its "Back of the line" which is worst instead going to jail.
d-usa wrote:Camping for freedom/injustice/whatever ---- bad.
Camping for profit --- good.
Camping overnight in a park where that is not allowed---- bad
Camping overnight in a parking lot where the owner doesn't mind---- good
Besides me just being a smarta**, the question one could ask is this: is the property zoned for overnight camping? Just because the owner doesn't mind does not make it legal. Zoning laws can get crazy at times. But would zoning violations result in actions against campers, or the property owners? If it's a fine, they probably make up for it on Black Friday.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:
Jihadin wrote:What cop in his right mind going to hold a Black Friday opening hour unless its really out of hand.
Far more should. Those things get freakin' crazy at times.
Isn't there usually at least one person trampled to death somewhere? I refuse to go shopping on that whole weekend.
Exactly they get crazy. What cop going to stand in front of a column which is a vast majority of females (who ,I and some of you will agree, are the most vicious of our species) and try to maintain a orderly, calm, and peaceful transition from closed to open time.
Zoning laws don't really come into effect here as more likely than not, the people aren't "sleeping" there. The tents are just there for shelter against the elements or as places for privacy for activities of the amorous kind(seriously. A friend of mine who worked for Best Buy had to ask a couple to leave because they had a relatively see through tent and were doing some very...acrobatic activities within the tent while children were around).
And yeah, usually at least one person gets trampled to death somewhere(almost inevitably it's a Wal-Mart for some reason) and more injured. Fights will break out every so often and you'll see people mugged in the parking lots.
d-usa wrote:
Besides me just being a smarta**, the question one could ask is this: is the property zoned for overnight camping? Just because the owner doesn't mind does not make it legal. Zoning laws can get crazy at times. But would zoning violations result in actions against campers, or the property owners? If it's a fine, they probably make up for it on Black Friday.
That may be the case, but regular police don't actually have anything to do with zoning laws. That's all inspectors and permitting etc. At worst, you get fined, not arrested, so it's not really the same type of thing.
And in a zoning issue, it's the business getting in trouble, not the campers.
Jihadin wrote:Exactly they get crazy. What cop going to stand in front of a column which is a vast majority of females (who ,I and some of you will agree, are the most vicious of our species) and try to maintain a orderly, calm, and peaceful transition from closed to open time.
I don't think that a crazy mob of shoppers could even be subdued by pepper spray or water cannons. They would fight through the pain for that $9.99 DVD Player. We once ran a 911 call at Wal-Mart, and do you think anybody made room for an ambulance crew? Who cares about the live of a fellow human if there is a deal to be had.
Standing in front of that mob might be a good way to test your Zombie Survival plan. If you can survive them, you can survive anything.
Here's a link to a discussion on this topic, hosted by Democracy Now involving Norm Stamper (Police Chief of Seattle during the WTO protests in '99); Chuck Wexler, who heads a national police organization thats been involved in setting up conference calls with police chiefs on how to respond to the Occupy demonstrations; Karen Smith, former New York Supreme Court judge who has acted as a legal observer at OWS in New York; and even Dorli Rainey, the 84-year old whose pepper-sprayed face we've all seen.
Monster Rain wrote:I'm looking forward to the news on Friday evening. If these people really try to "Occupy Black Friday" there will be blood on the pavement.
Monster Rain wrote:I'm looking forward to the news on Friday evening. If these people really try to "Occupy Black Friday" there will be blood on the pavement.
This seriously needs to be pay per view.
I am not against the OWS movement, but I am interested in how many protesters will be shopping this weekend instead of protesting and seeing protesters they know....I mean I have friends who scream at you if you don't recycle but cross the border to Idaho so they can buy dish washing detergent with sulfates in it because it gets their dishes cleaner. With a movement so large there is plenty of hypocrisy in some of its members. I was thinking of checking out a few places to see the stampedes....guilty pleasure I guess.
Oh...don't buy cocacola products...they are EVIL. (I drink Pepsi who are marginally less evil!)
This means that Jefferson and the other writers of the Declaration wished people to believe that God created human beings with certain rights that should never be taken away -- life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. They avoided "God" using instead "their creator" to avoid religious disputes because they were preparing to move away from government-sponsored religion.
The concept of "certain unalienable rights" is evidence that the Founding Fathers of the United States believed in God and for the most part we're strongly religious men with strong beliefs in entitlements bestowed by God upon men, and that these entitlements were so important that no earthly power can rightfully deny them. Therefore, no Government can deny these rights.
The whole of the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence sheds more light on this phrasing:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
The definition of "unalienable rights," is those rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred to someone else - the government, for example, or another person. Some people refer to these as "natural" or "God-given" rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). Certain unalienable rights, such as a Social Security number, however, are "unalienable" only because the law prohibits reassigning your number to someone else.
In contrast, "inalienable rights" are those rights that can only be transferred with the consent of the person possessing those rights.
Jihadin wrote:Unalienable Rights= Is an excuse to break the laws?
Apparently our Founding Fathers thought so.
Our founding father thought a lot of things. Right after celebrating his "Give me liberty or give me death" speech Patrick Henry went achasing after escaped slaves. On more than one occasion our founding fathers saw fit to send troops to end protests, albeit Americans of that era were more volatile and tended towards "armed rebellion" over "nonviolent civic disobedience" which is why OWS is such epic fail.
Workers World Party has an article titled "Greece to OWS: a global youth rebellion"
The Nation called OWS "Shays Rebellion without guns"
Salon called it "Today's Whiskey Rebellion"
It's a dirty shame that the OWS protesters don't have the backbone to live up such comparisons. If the did you could point out that the Founding Fathers crushed them. Maybe they will rise up in rebellion and let us talk to our kids about the Squatters Rebellion or the Unwashed Insurrection.
So Unalienable rights can not be surrendered, sold, or transferred. Great!
However, they can still be deprived from you. What do you do if your "unalienable rights" are being threatened?
You resist, potentially via protest.
If the government has deemed such actions as illegal because it restricts access to a sidewalk for example; you are then violating the law, while still upholding your "unalienable rights".
The question we are faced with today is, what is more imporatant to our society? Is it Legality or our Unalienable Rights? They can and do conflict at times.
I'm going out on the limb here to make this. Since a lot of people like to point at the Founding Fathers as examples. The values and morals of that time won't fit in this time. Auston made a good example with Patrick Henry
Jihadin wrote:Unalienable Rights= Is an excuse to break the laws?
Apparently our Founding Fathers thought so.
Our founding father thought a lot of things.
Yup. That's the crux of the dilemna. What things did they think that matter today.
Is the Constitution a living document or just an old piece of paper from a bygone time? Did the ideas of the Declaration of Independence end after the revolution was over, or is it still relevant today?
What essentially are the core values of the nation? That's what we are really debating when we talk about pepper-spraying protesters. It's pretty clear, that there is not a lot of consensus around those larger issues here.
OWS is not illegal. No one in Gov't has declare them illegal. Its the action they took. If you protest within the boundaries of the laws/ordinance not an issue and people will listen. If you protest with a mob mentality then its illegal...what message are they sending then?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Core values are what you learn from your parents at first but its changes as you mature.
Example with be Army values
Loyalty
Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. constitution, the Army, and other soldiers.
Be loyal to the nation and its heritage.
Duty
Fulfill your obligations.
Accept responsibility for your own actions and those entrusted to your care.
Find opportunities to improve oneself for the good of the group.
Respect
Rely upon the golden rule.
How we consider others reflects upon each of us, both personally and as a professional organization.
Selfless Service
Put the welfare of the nation, the Army, and your subordinates before your own.
Selfless service leads to organizational teamwork and encompasses discipline, self-control and faith in the system.
Honor
Live up to all the Army values
Importance of Character.
Integrity
Do what is right, legally and morally.
Be willing to do what is right even when no one is looking.
It is our "moral compass" an inner voice.
Personal Courage
Our ability to face fear, danger, or adversity, both physical and moral courage.
Over time one developes their own version listed above. They develope their version from other leading by example (NCO's) and strong E4's.
Jihadin wrote:I'm going out on the limb here to make this. Since a lot of people like to point at the Founding Fathers as examples. The values and morals of that time won't fit in this time. Auston made a good example with Patrick Henry
I could get really philosophical about this and go on a rambling diatribe for pages and pages, so I will try to keep it brief.
Western philosphy of time is linear, and we are on a continuum from past to future. The arc of progress if you will. The future should be better than the past. I think it was a Kantian idea.
Anyway, in that persepective, the Founding Fathers had a great goal or idea for what this nation "should be". However, at no point has it ever been entirely this goal. It is like the idea of Plato and the Cave. We only see the images of the "nation" on the wall, with the "true" form hidden behind our view where we can not perceive it.
So, the role of subsequent American generations is to move the "true" nation ever closer to that "ideal" of the mythical nation the Founding Fathers wanted to form, based on continued analysis and understanding of the documents they left us as guides. The ideas of "Unalienable Rights", "All Men are Created Equal", and "We the People". At no point in the past or present have these ideals been 100% personified, but we as a Nation should be striving for the high standards the mythology of the Founding Fathers has set out for us.
So the question in my mind is, are we moving towards that better "form" of a Nation or are we still just content with the shadows before us?
Depends on the party you ask. Eventually though reality is going to bite them in the a$$ but by the time that happens there will be some pissed off people
Crablezworth wrote:Would anyone be talking about the occupy movement if the occupation side of it had not occured?
No.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:Depends on the party you ask. Eventually though reality is going to bite them in the a$$ but by the time that happens there will be some pissed off people
Yes, now you are starting to see the problem.
I'm not sure what you mean by the "reality will bite them in the A$$, and there will be soem pissed off people" though?
The Founding Fathers sought "Honor" -- freedom from corruption, and a positive devotion to civic virtue. These were key elements of Republicanism, and the Founding Fathers made republicanism the core values of the American system of government.
Corruption was the great evil the Founding Fathers confronted. When Britain showed too much corruption, it was time to break free with the American Revolution. To overcome the temptations of corruption--such as luxury and bribery--in their own lives, the Founding Fathers cultivated the virtue of disinterestedness. That is, the made a conscious effort to not be the creature of his financial interests, and not give any sign to the public that they sought luxury or bribes. The goal was to be impartial, concerned only for the public good, not the advancement of friends or, still less, of party.
Even personal shame and humiliation was preferable to a tarnished honor or the hint of corruption. When Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton was accused of corruption for making secret payments to a man named James Reynolds, Hamilton revealed he had been set up and was paying blackmail to Reynolds following an affair with Mrs. Reynolds. Duels over honor were common in the era--Hamilton was killed in one, as was Hamilton's son.
Republicanism is a political ideology in opposition to monarchy and tyranny. Republicans hold that a political system must be founded upon the rule of law, the rights of individuals, and the sovereignty of the people. It is also closely connected to the idea of civic virtue, the responsibility citizens owe to their republic, and to opposition to corruption, or the use of public power to benefit the politician
Crablezworth wrote:Republicans opposed to corruption? Would these be the same ones that think money is free speech and corporations are people?
Republicans who wanted to form a Republic vs Monarchists in the 1780's. As opposed to Republicans that started the civil rights movement and ended slavery, as opposed to the Republicans that support legislatively controlling morality.
Easy E wrote:So Unalienable rights can not be surrendered, sold, or transferred. Great!
However, they can still be deprived from you.
Actually, no, they can't. I cannot deprive you of freedom, in the general sense, for example. I can deprive you of the freedom to leave a certain room without great effort by locking you inside it, but you would still have freedom to do things within that room, and therefore freedom.
The question, ultimately, is not about what your inalienable rights are, but what facets of your inalienable rights are to be protected by either government fiat, or social institution.
Easy E wrote:
Did the ideas of the Declaration of Independence end after the revolution was over, or is it still relevant today?
What are the ideas of the Declaration? I mean, aside from the specific grievances levied against the British crown, its incredibly vague.
If it had been constructed somewhere where tents are not allowed, it would not have been protected speech. The right of the state to regulate the time, place and manner of speech that is to be protected has been held up in many supreme court cases.
Just because you are protesting doesn't mean you magically get to ignore all other laws and rules for where you are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote:A quick summary for those keeping score at home...
Camp for profits= Good
Camp for political reasons= bad
$$$$ is speech= Good
Tents are speech= Bad
Letter of the Law= Good
Unalienable Rights= Bad
We were doing pretty well discussing this and now you are backsliding into black and white strawmen and cheap points again. Please stop. You are arguing with people who have functioning brains and real opinions.
Especially the first one which we've explained our position on several times. You're being willfully obtuse about what we actually think.
Rented Tritium wrote:
If it had been constructed somewhere where tents are not allowed, it would not have been protected speech. The right of the state to regulate the time, place and manner of speech that is to be protected has been held up in many supreme court cases.
Not to beat a dead horse, but that's solid ground for the restriction of corporate "speech".
Rented Tritium wrote:
If it had been constructed somewhere where tents are not allowed, it would not have been protected speech. The right of the state to regulate the time, place and manner of speech that is to be protected has been held up in many supreme court cases.
Not to beat a dead horse, but that's solid ground for the restriction of corporate "speech".
Yes it is. It's grounds for restricting corporate speech in the general sense, that is, time place and manner. But the corporate speech that is ACTUALLY up for debate right now is corporate political speech.
Thing is, CONTENT-based restrictions are not ok. You can restrict based on where and when and how it is being said, but you can't restrict based on WHAT is being said. That's the core of citizen's united.
I'm going to post this ruling again and maybe this time some of you will actually read it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, before you put scare quotes around corporate speech, remember that newspapers and tv stations are corporations.
Rented Tritium wrote:
Yes it is. It's grounds for restricting corporate speech in the general sense, that is, time place and manner. But the corporate speech that is ACTUALLY up for debate right now is corporate political speech.
Thing is, CONTENT-based restrictions are not ok. You can restrict based on where and when and how it is being said, but you can't restrict based on WHAT is being said. That's the core of citizen's united.
No, the question for debate is whether or not corporate speech falls under the "time, place, and manner" restrictions already imposed. Granted, that is not exclusive of what is being said, but neither is "Fire!" in a movie theater. No one would be upset if I yelled "Popcorn!" for example.
Rented Tritium wrote:
I'm going to post this ruling again and maybe this time some of you will actually read it.
No issue in burning the US flag but if you light up the flag right by a gas pump don't be suprise to see me stomping the fire out and then straight out throw in a few at you for screaming how I deny your right to protest. You light up the flag be safe about it. Actually had someone do that at Ft. Bragg
The flag burning issue is pretty much a ignition for an explosive situation. Yes your allowed to burn the flag and yes your allowed to press charges against anyone assualting you for burning the flag. Its a no issue. I know your making a general point of the flag burning. Question is when? When should you burn the flag? What perception do you want if you burn a flag at a protest rally? What political message are you sending when you burn the flag. Has OWS burn the US flag yet? I don't think OWS has gone that far and kind of doubt they will. Since the perception of a US flag burn is tied with the middle east. Also if one going to go out and do it at a protest I hope he/she look up open flame laws or whatever. Also use common sense
Jubear wrote:Hang on, I thought protesting was legal in the US? I dont get it they allow those idots to picket servicemen funerals but if your sitting in a park your commiting a crime?
That's what I said! It is horrible that people who died for the U.S. get heckled by people. When in reality then should be whipped for that kind of hate. It's sick. Yet if want to peacefully protest you get beat like a dog. Sad state of affairs but the more people who see these things stand up and protest. Simply shaking the bees next. If people aren't allowed to peacefully protest they will become violent. That is something no one wants to see again. =(
The difference is that WBC doesn't break any laws.
They're despicable, horrendous people who should be purged from society, but they don't break laws when they protest so they don't get pepper sprayed. Like they ought to.
Jihadin wrote:The flag burning issue is pretty much a ignition for an explosive situation. Yes your allowed to burn the flag and yes your allowed to press charges against anyone assualting you for burning the flag. Its a no issue. I know your making a general point of the flag burning. Question is when? When should you burn the flag? What perception do you want if you burn a flag at a protest rally? What political message are you sending when you burn the flag. Has OWS burn the US flag yet? I don't think OWS has gone that far and kind of doubt they will. Since the perception of a US flag burn is tied with the middle east. Also if one going to go out and do it at a protest I hope he/she look up open flame laws or whatever. Also use common sense
I'm making a general point that "free speech" does not apply only to speaking, it can also apply to tents and flags.
Of course the issue of how and when to protest is key. I would argue that an effective protest needs to be mildly illegal or at least very annoying to the powers that be.
Take ticket strikes and mass cycling protests for examples.
ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) - Anti-Wall Street protesters in Minneapolis will be able to affix signs and posters to the plaza outside the Hennepin County Government Center, but their request to use tents without law enforcement interference was denied.
However, Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Kyle says the protesters may continue to challenge the county's restriction on sleeping and on the use of tents. He ordered both sides to participate in settlement talks.
The protesters say Hennepin County's rules against having tents, using electricity, writing with chalk, or posting signs are unconstitutional and are violating their free speech rights.
The county argues its restrictions are reasonable, saying no group has a First Amendment right to use the plaza as a private campground.
Protesters have been at the downtown Minneapolis plaza since Oct. 7.
Rented Tritium wrote:
Speech is not a get out of all other laws card.
So I would be free to ban the moving of lips?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:
Martin Luther King Jr. was, I hope we'll agree, a good person, but broke some laws in the course of his protesting and was jailed for it.l
There is a long tradition of intentionally breaking unjust laws in order to protest them.
Monster Rain wrote:MLK's organized protesters weren't documented gaking in the street though.
Just sayin'.
They may not have been documented doing it, but I can virtually guarantee that public defecation happened. Its pretty much guaranteed at any large public gathering.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:Nope they were not. I just find it amusing that the Founding Fathers and Civil Rights/MLK movements as justification for the action of OWS
The ultimate justification is that their message is politically popular.
The message is lost when protest with intent became the norm. Do you believe the message is any stronger today then say..like two weeks ago? Its an individual question on how you view the message now. To me they had a somewhat message at first but then they lost their credibility when protest with intent wnt norm.
I don't care one way or the other, but then I'm petite bourgeoisie, so I'll be fine in almost all foreseeable circumstances. Though I do think that a protest founded in anti-consumerism and socialism is unlikely to gain traction in the US, regardless of how well founded. US citizens like their conception of freedom, and rarely enjoy having it challenged, much as is the case everywhere.
Jihadin wrote:Maybe some people need to look up the laws that MLK were trying to change?
Maybe some people lack historical perspective, and aren't aware that he was dismissed and insulted and disregarded in much the same way as the OWS folks. I doubt many (maybe not any) of the OWS folks are any match for MLK's genius or nobility of spirit, but then it's not as if the entire civil rights movement was made up of tens of thousands of MLKs. It's mostly ordinary people, who may be silly or foolish or do dumb things sometimes, but have a degree of passion and willingness to stand up in public and complain.
Rosa Parks was also arrested, of course. Her famous protest was breaking a law.
People aren't trying to shoot the OWS protesters, nor are they all a member of a minority which was forcibly removed from their home continent to work as slave labor.
Just sayin'. Comparing the Civil Rights movement and Martin Luther King Jr to these guys is insulting to MLK and the Civil Rights movement. The fact that there is no one single consensus on what it is they're actually "protesting" makes it, to my eye at least, quite clear that while it may have started out as one thing it has degenerated into a free for all of ideological shenanigans.
Kanluwen wrote:People aren't trying to shoot the OWS protesters
Rubber bullets? What about the marine who had is skull cracked.. as a result of being shot by a police officer with a teargas grenade launcher?
Which is it? A tear gas launcher or rubber bullets?
One of these things is not like the other. "Rubber bullets" are still entirely capable of causing serious harm at short ranges.
Tear gas launchers are NEVER supposed to be aimed at people. They're fairly solid canisters, with quite a bit of heft to them, launched at a relatively decent velocity. If they hit someone in the head at a close range--it will cause damage.
But hey. It's not like cops can use pepper spray, since that's so "inhumane".
Oh really? You're going to use the Brandon Watts goon as an example?
For those who don't know: Watts had been arrested and removed four separate times during the OWS protests. Once for starting a fight, once for trying to set a fire in the park bathroom and subsequently "escaping" from the police van where he was being held until his parents came to pick him up. After that one, he was warned not to return or he would be taken into custody for violating a community sentence. The last time(before he was injured fleeing police--dumbass ran into a tree after stealing a hat from an officer, throwing a brick and then fleeing with a "witness" claiming that police slammed his head repeatedly into the concrete. Look at that photo and tell me that looks like someone who has suffered blunt force trauma from repeated contact with concrete and not just some moron who ran facefirst into something) was for stealing a barricade while "disguised" as a city worker and then trying to throw it at someone.
That article is one of the worst written pieces I've read. It's worse than the one on wired.com about how "dangerous" pepper spray is and how "militarized" police departments are.
They're uneducated, idiotic opinion pieces that make you realize exactly why the public is so easily riled up against the police. All it takes is a few words about "brutality" and it's suddenly the Third Reich up in here.
Kanluwen wrote:People aren't trying to shoot the OWS protesters, nor are they all a member of a minority which was forcibly removed from their home continent to work as slave labor.
Just sayin'. Comparing the Civil Rights movement and Martin Luther King Jr to these guys is insulting to MLK and the Civil Rights movement. The fact that there is no one single consensus on what it is they're actually "protesting" makes it, to my eye at least, quite clear that while it may have started out as one thing it has degenerated into a free for all of ideological shenanigans.
No, it is not insulting to MLK and the Civil Rights movement. It is in the same tradition and it is in the same spirit of non-violence. MLK was assasinated for his role in the Civil Rights movement. Just sayin'.
Kanluwen wrote:People aren't trying to shoot the OWS protesters, nor are they all a member of a minority which was forcibly removed from their home continent to work as slave labor.
Just sayin'. Comparing the Civil Rights movement and Martin Luther King Jr to these guys is insulting to MLK and the Civil Rights movement. The fact that there is no one single consensus on what it is they're actually "protesting" makes it, to my eye at least, quite clear that while it may have started out as one thing it has degenerated into a free for all of ideological shenanigans.
No, it is not insulting to MLK and the Civil Rights movement.
Yes. It is. It's also insulting to compare them to the Founding Fathers, before you want to go into it.
It is in the same tradition and it is in the same spirit of non-violence.
No, it's not. It's "in the same tradition" insofar as they're "non-violent"(which they haven't been, as protesters HAVE been starting up violence). But you know what else is non violent?
The majority of how these protests have been broken up. There's what, 5-600ish at some of these protests?
If this, in fact, was a police state we'd have people vanishing. We'd have families being suddenly "vacated" from their homes as banks foreclose on them, etc etc.
This is pure and simple demonstrative nonsense. Most of the people are my age and have no clue what the feth kind of protections they are actually granted under the First Amendment.
MLK was assassinated for his role in the Civil Rights movement. Just sayin'.
I know you're not trying to say that anyone has been assassinated for their speeches at Occupy Wall Street.
You cannot possibly be saying that, or remotely believe that.
Kanluwen wrote:People aren't trying to shoot the OWS protesters, nor are they all a member of a minority which was forcibly removed from their home continent to work as slave labor.
Just sayin'. Comparing the Civil Rights movement and Martin Luther King Jr to these guys is insulting to MLK and the Civil Rights movement. The fact that there is no one single consensus on what it is they're actually "protesting" makes it, to my eye at least, quite clear that while it may have started out as one thing it has degenerated into a free for all of ideological shenanigans.
No, it is not insulting to MLK and the Civil Rights movement. It is in the same tradition and it is in the same spirit of non-violence. MLK was assasinated for his role in the Civil Rights movement. Just sayin'.
Comparing this movement to the Civil Rights movement is downright asinine. No one is being killed for their beliefs. At worst, you've got officers who have no business being officers.
But you know what? That goes down to "you reap what you sow".
Police officers get afforded, by and large, virtually no respect when they are in the process of executing the law when it is inconvenient to us. We're fine with it and laud them for it whenever it's in a clear-cut, black and white situation like a robber breaking into an old lady's home. But when it's students being removed from an area for an illegal protest--they're "fascists".
Kanluwen wrote:And I suggest you read my statement again.
Comparing this movement to the Civil Rights movement is downright asinine. No one is being killed for their beliefs. At worst, you've got officers who have no business being officers.
But you know what? That goes down to "you reap what you sow".
Police officers get afforded, by and large, virtually no respect when they are in the process of executing the law when it is inconvenient to us. We're fine with it and laud them for it whenever it's in a clear-cut, black and white situation like a robber breaking into an old lady's home. But when it's students being removed from an area for an illegal protest--they're "fascists".
It is not asinine to compare the current non-violent movement to the Civil Rights movement. It is asinine to think there is no comparison.
Radiation wrote:
It is not asinine to compare the current non-violent movement to the Civil Rights movement. It is asinine to think there is no comparison.
It's also a fallacious argument to state that because they have one thing in common(and not even entirely in that regard), they are in the same category or should be regarded the same.
Radiation wrote:
It is not asinine to compare the current non-violent movement to the Civil Rights movement. It is asinine to think there is no comparison.
It's also a fallacious argument to state that because they have one thing in common(and not even entirely in that regard), they are in the same category or should be regarded the same.
Kanluwen wrote:People aren't trying to shoot the OWS protesters, nor are they all a member of a minority which was forcibly removed from their home continent to work as slave labor.
Just sayin'. Comparing the Civil Rights movement and Martin Luther King Jr to these guys is insulting to MLK and the Civil Rights movement. The fact that there is no one single consensus on what it is they're actually "protesting" makes it, to my eye at least, quite clear that while it may have started out as one thing it has degenerated into a free for all of ideological shenanigans.
No, it is not insulting to MLK and the Civil Rights movement.
Yes. It is. It's also insulting to compare them to the Founding Fathers, before you want to go into it.
I don't think the comparison of OWS to MLK is any more inappropriate than the comparison of MLK to the Black Panthers, they're both protest movements so its apt. Though, honestly, OWS reminds me more of Vietnam protests than anything else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:
It's also a fallacious argument to state that because they have one thing in common(and not even entirely in that regard), they are in the same category or should be regarded the same.
They always have been, despite what the Andy Griffith show wants us to believe.
The only difference has been that different techniques have been utilized.
The ability to hang the collar "paramilitary" on the police's neck is a recent phenomena. You can believe what you like but starting at least in the 60's and building especially through the "war on drugs" the police have transformed from locally recruited notably non professional keepers of the public faith to a professional force distinctly set apart from the public.
They always have been, despite what the Andy Griffith show wants us to believe.
The only difference has been that different techniques have been utilized.
The ability to hang the collar "paramilitary" on the police's neck is a recent phenomena. You can believe what you like but starting at least in the 60's and building especially through the "war on drugs" the police have transformed from locally recruited notably non professional keepers of the public faith to a professional force distinctly set apart from the public.
Police have ALWAYS been a militarized organization.
You've been able to see that on the basis of them traditionally having "ranks" and "uniforms", along with a "basic standard of training and fitness".
It's only since the 60s and onwards that people started complaining about it. I've always found it amusing that the 1970s marked the beginnings of the "Community Policing Era", when it was also a time when police were fairly universally scorned.
The "locally recruited notably non professional keepers of the public faith" part is ridiculous to mention. It hasn't been like that since the days of the Bow Street Runners and the shift from what is called the "Political Era"(marked by a noticeable tie between local politicians and police officers, who even then were "uniformed officers in paramilitary-style organizations") to the "Reform Era" in 1930 to the 1970s.
Dogma wrote:I don't think the comparison of OWS to MLK is any more inappropriate than the comparison of MLK to the Black Panthers, they're both protest movements so its apt. Though, honestly, OWS reminds me more of Vietnam protests than anything else.
My problem is the comparison of what they're representing. MLK and the Civil Rights Movement had a goal. They had an outlined ideology, methodology, and they took steps to distance themselves from the more radical elements.
OWS seemingly doesn't give a crap. It's the Tea Party all over again.
Dogma wrote:No it isn't.
Yeah. It is, at least in this context.
It is purposely constructing a misleading argument on the basis of a false assumption.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:I've been attacked on the basis of my species.
Does that mean that a coyote is prejudiced?
No, but only because its a Coyote and prejudice isn't a meaningful concept (so far as we know) with respect to coyotes.
Sure it is.
I mean, if MLK's death at the hands of a known white supremacist for his part in organizing and spearheading the Civil Rights movement can be likened to a 22 year old(with four arrests at Zucatti Park, with Watts knowing that he would actually be arrested and taken into custody if he showed up again and started any trouble) miscreant getting his face busted running into something while fleeing from police (who by all accounts, were not really "curbstomping face into concrete" mad), I don't see how a prejudiced coyote doesn't fit in this wildly careening train running off the logic track.
Kanluwen wrote:
My problem is the comparison of what they're representing. MLK and the Civil Rights Movement had a goal. They had an outlined ideology, methodology, and they took steps to distance themselves from the more radical elements.
Sure, Civil Rights was a far better organized protest movement than OWS is, but they're still both protest movements and therefore comparable.
Kanluwen wrote:
Yeah. It is, at least in this context.
It is purposely constructing a misleading argument on the basis of a false assumption.
The truth value of argumentative premises has no bearing on the validity of the argument. Logical validity is determined by internal consistency.
Kanluwen wrote:
Sure it is.
I mean, if MLK's death at the hands of a known white supremacist for his part in organizing and spearheading the Civil Rights movement can be likened to a 22 year old(with four arrests at Zucatti Park, with Watts knowing that he would actually be arrested and taken into custody if he showed up again and started any trouble) miscreant getting his face busted running into something while fleeing from police (who by all accounts, were not really "curbstomping face into concrete" mad), I don't see how a prejudiced coyote doesn't fit in this wildly careening train running off the logic track.
No it isn't. Prejudice is a human concept, coyotes aren't human, ergo prejudice has no relevance to coyotes.
Compare this to MLK who was a human political activist that suffered as a result of pursuing his political agenda. The kid basically did the same thing, though you might not consider his political agenda to be laudable.
Kanluwen wrote:Comparing this movement to the Civil Rights movement is downright asinine.
Agreed.
It shows a serious lack of perspective to even countenance the idea. Two words: "Attack dogs."
EDIT: I just went and re-read the accounts of the Birmingham Bombing... I've changed my mind. Comparing the Civil Rights movement to this pack of savages in OWS isn't asinine. It's absolutely offensive.
Kanluwen wrote:Comparing this movement to the Civil Rights movement is downright asinine.
Agreed.
It shows a serious lack of perspective to even countenance the idea. Two words: "Attack dogs."
EDIT: I just went and re-read the accounts of the Birmingham Bombing... I've changed my mind. Comparing the Civil Rights movement to this pack of savages in OWS isn't asinine. It's absolutely offensive.
It is asinine to think there are no comparisons to be made and your sensibilities are easily offended.
Police have ALWAYS been a militarized organization.
You've been able to see that on the basis of them traditionally having "ranks" and "uniforms", along with a "basic standard of training and fitness".
So do fire fighters. Have they ALWAYS been militarized?
You're argument is pedantic, but don't let that stop you.
In the 17 years since, literally millions of pieces of equipment designed for use on a foreign battlefield have been handed over for use on U.S. streets, against U.S. citizens. Another law passed in 1997 further streamlined the process. As National Journal reported in 2000, in the first three years after the 1994 law alone, the Pentagon distributed 3,800 M-16s, 2,185 M-14s, 73 grenade launchers, and 112 armored personnel carriers to civilian police agencies across America. Domestic police agencies also got bayonets, tanks, helicopters and even airplanes.
All of that equipment then facilitated a dramatic rise in the number and use of paramilitary police units, more commonly known as SWAT teams. Peter Kraska, a criminologist at the University of Eastern Kentucky, has been studying this trend since the early 1980s. Kraska found that by 1997, 90 percent of cities with populations of 50,000 or more had at least one SWAT team, twice as many as in the mid-1980s. The number of towns with populations between 25,000 and 50,000 with a SWAT team increased 157 percent between 1985 and 1996.
I'm sure that the bayonets, tanks, and automatic weapons were ALWAYS a part of policing. Oh wait...
Jihadin wrote:The message is lost when protest with intent became the norm. Do you believe the message is any stronger today then say..like two weeks ago? Its an individual question on how you view the message now. To me they had a somewhat message at first but then they lost their credibility when protest with intent wnt norm.
You seem to be saying that your belief in a cause is challenged by the behaviour of some of the believers rather than your conviction in the merits of the cause in itself.
murdog wrote:
Police HAVE become more militarized.
Eh, I don't know. Definitely more professional, maybe not more militarized.
I do, however, acknowledge that its a difficult argument. Is the cop with the 9mm more militarized with respect to the soldier with the M4 than the cop with the truncheon with respect to the soldier with the Brown Bess?
If you compare British police now with the police of the Miners' Strike era 30 years ago, they are greatly more militarised and organised for hard core riot action. There are also more armed units for situations involving guns.
Police at crowd control operations can deploy Tazers, armoured vans, shields, helmets, body armour, armoured horses and use it all with tactical training
Your average bobby on the beat still wears the traditional blue tit, but he has an anti-stab vest and an extending alloy truncheon.
There are many irritating things about the Occupy movement, but probably the most irritating is its tendency to black up. Not literally, with boot polish, but politically, in the way its supporters continually crib images and slogans from the black civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. Fantastically fancying themselves as the heirs to Martin Luther King and his million-strong march on Washington, the occupiers sing the songs and quote from the books of the civil rights era. When they were turfed out of Zuccoti Park last week, New York's sad-eyed middle-class occupiers sang "We Shall Overcome". When asked by the cops to give their names, occupiers have been known to reply: "Martin Luther King." One supportive article is headlined: “Occupy Wall Street protesters follow Martin Luther King’s arc of justice.”
The sight of well-off white kids rummaging around in black history for a few choice phrases that might make their public temper tantrums appear "with it" and historic is deeply embarrassing. It strikes me that there at least five key differences between the glorified Scouts camping trip that is the Occupy movement and the properly inspiring US civil-rights uprising.
1) Blacks in the American South faced serious repression. Denied full voting rights, educational rights, the freedoms of movement and speech and decent jobs, they were on the receiving end of an extreme form of what is these days called “social exclusion”. The same cannot be said for the well-educated youngsters cramming into Wall Street and the area outside St Paul’s Cathedral, who, schooled from birth in the importance of protecting and polishing their own self-esteem, are the most over-flattered generation in living memory.
2) Civil rights activists had to bear the full brunt of state violence. When they marched to demand equality, they were frequently water-cannoned and truncheoned off the streets or attacked with police dogs. In contrast, the occupiers have been treated with kid gloves by the cops (not to mention by politicians, the church and the media). They’ve been allowed to lounge around in public spaces for weeks on end, experiencing only the “tyranny” of polite legal notices asking them to think about vacating.
3) The civil rights movement was a mass movement. In 1963 it got a million people to march on Washington. The Occupy movement is an infinitesimally tiny clique in comparison. There are possibly 50 or so regular campers outside St Paul’s, and according to some reports journalists frequently outnumber activists at Occupy Wall Street. The masses’ distinct lack of interest in the Occupy movement isn’t surprising, considering the official Occupy website has published articles sneeringly claiming the masses have been “brainwashed by the mainstream media”. That’s another difference between old civil rights activists and modern-day occupiers: the former had faith in the goodness of the common people; the latter looks upon the common people as dumbasses whose brain cells have been fried by Fox News.
4) Civil rights activists were thirsty for freedom. If Occupy London’s “Safe Space Policy” is anything to go by, today’s occupiers wouldn’t know freedom if it accosted them in an alleyway. Aping New Labour-style “safe community zones”, the St Paul’s policy outlaws all forms of offensive speech, forbids the consumption of alcohol, proposes zero tolerance of “putting people down” and “competing with people”, and insists that everyone must get “explicit verbal consent before touching someone”. Whether one has to get explicit verbal consent before linking arms with another to sing “We Shall Overcome” is not made clear.
5) Probably the most important difference is that where black civil-rights activists were driven by a deep desire to be full, free, productive members of society, the occupiers have a deep disdain for the mainstream, or the “rat race” as they call it, for those hordes who cluelessly trudge to pointless jobs every day. Their posters and placards chastise Joe Public for being robotic, while graciously informing us that capitalism has turned us all into “chumps or tarts”. Where civil-rights protesters wanted in, the occupiers want out – they want to opt out of a society which in their minority middle-class view is too competitive and vulgar and stuff-obsessed. Consider the different clothing worn by the self-respecting civil-rights activist and the self-regarding occupier. The black marchers on Washington wore their Sunday best, suits and ties, to signal their respectability and desire to be part of society; the modern occupiers wear psychedelic leggings or fancy dress, to signal their scoffing disregard for the straights and squares who make up the vile mainstream world.
edit
You seem to be saying that your belief in a cause is challenged by the behaviour of some of the believers rather than your conviction in the merits of the cause in itself.
Yep. By the behavior of the OWS movement is taking the cause has been hijacked. No one in a ladership role in OWS has step forward to calm his/her believers. So now when a protest/occupy starts up its looking for a conflict...now that I mention it. MLK was the leadership for the Civili Rights movement....OWS has...who?
edit 2
In the 17 years since, literally millions of pieces of equipment designed for use on a foreign battlefield have been handed over for use on U.S. streets, against U.S. citizens. Another law passed in 1997 further streamlined the process. As National Journal reported in 2000, in the first three years after the 1994 law alone, the Pentagon distributed 3,800 M-16s, 2,185 M-14s, 73 grenade launchers, and 112 armored personnel carriers to civilian police agencies across America. Domestic police agencies also got bayonets, tanks, helicopters and even airplanes.
Research this a bit more before throwing it out. I handle quite a few of the movements to local and state law enforcement
Kilkrazy wrote:
Police at crowd control operations can deploy Tazers, armoured vans, shields, helmets, body armour, armoured horses and use it all with tactical training
You can't define militarism by the tools they use. The actually MILITARY didn't use those things hundreds of years ago. Did they not count as military until they got tanks?
You define militarism by how they operate and function. The core operating structure of police has mostly not changed in 300 years. Just because they got more powerful weapons doesn't mean they weren't militarized before unless you consider the ACTUAL MILITARY to not have been militarized before.
Automatically Appended Next Post: OWS is nothing like the civil rights movement because the civil rights movement spent a lot of time breaking the VERY LAWS they were protesting.
OWS is breaking laws utterly unrelated to wall street. If you want to protest your inability to camp out in a park, fine, but don't pretend that has anything to do with wall street.
It's just like I was saying before, when you spend your time complaining about your tents, your protest becomes about tents.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Speech is not a get out of all other laws card.
para military = a group of civilians organized in a military fashion (especially to operate in place of or to assist regular army troops)
not to be confused with
Fedayeen
Automatically Appended Next Post: Will Rent...if you come in unannounce on me...I won't be so friendly at first....better pay me prior for my time to listen...Lrg Duncan Donut coffee with cream and sugar.
Kilkrazy wrote:Of course you can define militarism by tools and tactics.
One only needs to compare the old style "rugby scrum" police with the modern force to see the clear change.
It arise from the desire to use the police as a para-military force.
No. You are redefining words. You don't get to redefine "paramilitary" to mean "having big guns and tanks". Police have literally always been a paramilitary force since day one.
What you are talking about with the changes in operation between oldschool police work and modern police work has nothing to do with being paramilitary or not. The ranks are the same, the chain of command is the same.
What has happened is that the tactics got BETTER. The old tactics were bad and got cops killed. Every time a few cops died on a traffic stop, the tactics and equipment got a little better to compensate. It's not some dark desire to turn the police into military, it's a desire for cops not to die.
Here, let me show you a little bit of the progression. Read these in order, focus especially on the "aftermath" sections that talk about the changes made after.
This is by no means comprehensive, but it's a taste of how police work has changed.
So yes, there is absolutely an increase in the firepower of police, but no, it's not because of some conspiratorial desire to oppress your rights. It's because a bunch of cops died because of bad tactics and bad equipment over the course of many years.
Military weapons pased over to State and local law enforcement are already paid for so hence State an Local do not have to pay for them. Same with military vehicle and aircrafts.
Norm Stamper was the Police Chief during the Battle of Seattle in '99. Here's his views on the subject:
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Norm Stamper, in your article you mention that you think that there are institutional problems, structural problems in policing, that no matter who the political leaders are or what the top brass are, that these problems continue to crop up and appear to be getting worse.
NORM STAMPER: I certainly do believe that. I think the drug war, which has put police officers against young people and poor people and people of color, the war on terrorism, the domestic dimensions of that war, have all served to increase the militarization of America’s police forces. And this is particularly tragic because, prior to these developments, we were on a path to create what I would call authentic partnerships with the community. That means no more unilateral decision making. It means, for example, today, police officers and Occupy movement leaders understanding the diffusion of that leadership, getting together and carving out rules of engagement, if you will, that will help protect public safety, public health, and also assure civil liberties, human rights and some degree of social justice...
I do believe that since 1999 and the Battle in Seattle there have been many changes. My concern is, many of those changes have been for the worse. The officers, for example, in Oakland were dressed as my police officers were in Seattle, which is, in effect, for full—in full battle gear. We were using military tactics. I authorized the use of chemical agents on nonviolent offenders. I thought I had good justification at that time. I did not. The police officer in me was thinking about emergency vehicles, fire trucks, aid cars being able to get through a key intersection. The police chief in me should have said, "This is wrong," and vetoed that decision. I will regret that decision for the rest of my life. We took a military response to a situation that was fundamentally nonviolent, in which Americans were expressing their views and their values, and used tear gas on them. And that was just plain wrong... There is no question about what anarchists, by definition, or for that matter, even recreational rioters, who are simply sitting in a bar and see the action and get attracted to the downtown area—we had some of that—can help distract attention away from the cause itself and create major public safety issues for the police. Here’s my point: if the police and the community in a democratic society are really working hard—and it is hard work—to forge authentic partnerships rather than this unilateral, paramilitary response to these demonstrations, that the relationship itself serves as a shock absorber. Picture police officers helping to protect the demonstrators. Picture demonstrators saying, "We see people on the fringes, for example, who are essentially undemocratic in their tactics. And so, we need to work together to resolve that issue." These resolutions are clearly not easy. One of the things that complicates the picture enormously is when a woman like Ms. Rainey is pepper-sprayed. When innocent people who are there to protest what I consider to be very legitimate grievances against corporate America, against a government that has, in many respects, been bought off by corporations, the police have a responsibility to be neutral. It should be apparent that I’m not neutral, but I’m no longer a cop. And police officers on the streets really do need to be neutral referees, and they need the help of their civilian, if I may use that term, partners...
About the non-lethal tools at the disposal of local law enforcement, many of those were developed in the wake of a controversial shooting. We understand that cops got a dangerous job. It’s delicate. It’s demanding. There are situations that call for life-and-death decision making, oftentimes with no real time to contemplate options and possibilities. Let’s find non-lethal alternatives to that firearm. So, the motive is good. The question is, to what extent are those non-lethal weapons being abused today? We have seen far too many examples of tasers, for example, used in situations where no force was necessary. It’s just simply a way to get somebody to move faster or to get out of a car when they’re passively resistant.
So, it’s important, I think, to understand the complexities of everything that we’re talking about. For example, there are many compassionate, decent, competent police officers who do a terrific job day in and day out. There are others who are, quote, "bad apples." What both of them have in common is that they occupy, as it were, a system, a structure that itself is rotten. And I am talking about the paramilitary bureaucracy.
You can talk about tactics and equipment, and whether or not that meets the definition of paramilitary or military, but the bottom line is that these tactics and equipment are not what they should be using in these situations.
murdog wrote:but the bottom line is that these tactics and equipment are not what they should be using in these situations.
Democracy Now wrote:AMY GOODMAN, DEMOCRACY NOW!: To talk more about what happened at UC Davis, we go to Sacramento, California, to talk to Elli Pearson, one of the students pepper-sprayed Friday. She’s a sophomore at UC Davis studying sustainable agriculture and food systems.
We’re also joined from Berkeley by Nathan Brown, assistant professor of English at UC Davis. He wrote an open letter calling for the resignation of UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi following the pepper-spraying incident Friday.
Before we turn to our guests, let me just play a short clip, which shows Elli Pearson being pepper-sprayed.
The whole world is watching! The whole world is watching! The whole world is watching! The whole world is watching! The whole world is watching! The whole world is watching!
Shame on you! Shame on you! Shame on you! Shame on you! Shame on you! Shame on you! Shame on you! Shame on you!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to Elli Pearson. Elli, describe exactly what happened on Friday.
ELLI PEARSON: Well, we were protesting together, and the riot cops came at us, and we linked arms and sat down peacefully to protest their presence on our campus. And at one point, they were—we had encircled them, and they were trying to leave, and they were trying to clear a path. And so, we sat down, linked arms, and said that if they wanted to clear the path, they would have to go through us. But we were on the ground, you know, heads down. And all I could see was people telling me to cover my head, protect myself, and put my head down. And the next thing I know, I was pepper-sprayed.
AMY GOODMAN: You were in the white jacket?
ELLI PEARSON: Yes, I was.
AMY GOODMAN: And what did the pepper-spraying feel like?
ELLI PEARSON: Well, I couldn’t see anything. And so, if I—you know, I felt like pepper spray go over my body, and then I started choking on the fumes. And I lifted my head at one point, and one of the protesters had come to kind of protect our huddle of people, and he just told me to keep my head down. And then, from that point on, all I could hear was screaming around me and people being jostled.
The key quote in here is "we had encircled them, and they were trying to leave, and they were trying to clear a path. And so, we sat down, linked arms, and said that if they wanted to clear the path, they would have to go through us"
But of course, the cops should have just sat there and waited.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's funny though that I can post 1000 police chiefs agreeing with me and you guys call it an appeal to authority or tradition, but once you find one that agrees with you, it's totally fine.
The sight of well-off white kids rummaging around in black history for a few choice phrases that might make their public temper tantrums appear "with it" and historic is deeply embarrassing. It strikes me that there at least five key differences between the glorified Scouts camping trip that is the Occupy movement and the properly inspiring US civil-rights uprising.
Well-off white kids is a gross misrepresentation of the people involved. It cuts across all of American society. Calling it a 'glorified Scouts camping trip' is just more insults and dismissal, basically meaningless as it bears no relation to the reality of this.
Jihadin wrote:1) Blacks in the American South faced serious repression. Denied full voting rights, educational rights, the freedoms of movement and speech and decent jobs, they were on the receiving end of an extreme form of what is these days called “social exclusion”. The same cannot be said for the well-educated youngsters cramming into Wall Street and the area outside St Paul’s Cathedral, who, schooled from birth in the importance of protecting and polishing their own self-esteem, are the most over-flattered generation in living memory.
More insults and dismissal. Though 'well-educated youngsters' are part of the movement, they are by no means the whole movement.
Jihadin wrote:2) Civil rights activists had to bear the full brunt of state violence. When they marched to demand equality, they were frequently water-cannoned and truncheoned off the streets or attacked with police dogs. In contrast, the occupiers have been treated with kid gloves by the cops (not to mention by politicians, the church and the media). They’ve been allowed to lounge around in public spaces for weeks on end, experiencing only the “tyranny” of polite legal notices asking them to think about vacating.
Arrests, batons, chemical agents, seizure of property... 'polite'?
Jihadin wrote:3) The civil rights movement was a mass movement. In 1963 it got a million people to march on Washington. The Occupy movement is an infinitesimally tiny clique in comparison. There are possibly 50 or so regular campers outside St Paul’s, and according to some reports journalists frequently outnumber activists at Occupy Wall Street. The masses’ distinct lack of interest in the Occupy movement isn’t surprising, considering the official Occupy website has published articles sneeringly claiming the masses have been “brainwashed by the mainstream media”. That’s another difference between old civil rights activists and modern-day occupiers: the former had faith in the goodness of the common people; the latter looks upon the common people as dumbasses whose brain cells have been fried by Fox News.
'Infinitesimally tiny'? 1500+ Occupations across the continent! 'Distinct lack of interest'? They changed the national narrative! No faith in the common people? This is all about returning control of your democracy to the common people! Brainwashed by the media? Of course people have been - it sounds like you have been too!
Jihadin wrote:4) Civil rights activists were thirsty for freedom. If Occupy London’s “Safe Space Policy” is anything to go by, today’s occupiers wouldn’t know freedom if it accosted them in an alleyway. Aping New Labour-style “safe community zones”, the St Paul’s policy outlaws all forms of offensive speech, forbids the consumption of alcohol, proposes zero tolerance of “putting people down” and “competing with people”, and insists that everyone must get “explicit verbal consent before touching someone”. Whether one has to get explicit verbal consent before linking arms with another to sing “We Shall Overcome” is not made clear.
So a desire for safety automatically equals a disdain for freedom?
Jihadin wrote:5) Probably the most important difference is that where black civil-rights activists were driven by a deep desire to be full, free, productive members of society, the occupiers have a deep disdain for the mainstream, or the “rat race” as they call it, for those hordes who cluelessly trudge to pointless jobs every day. Their posters and placards chastise Joe Public for being robotic, while graciously informing us that capitalism has turned us all into “chumps or tarts”. Where civil-rights protesters wanted in, the occupiers want out – they want to opt out of a society which in their minority middle-class view is too competitive and vulgar and stuff-obsessed. Consider the different clothing worn by the self-respecting civil-rights activist and the self-regarding occupier. The black marchers on Washington wore their Sunday best, suits and ties, to signal their respectability and desire to be part of society; the modern occupiers wear psychedelic leggings or fancy dress, to signal their scoffing disregard for the straights and squares who make up the vile mainstream world.
They don't want 'out', they want change. They don't have a deep disdain for the mainstream, they want the mainstream in control. They don't all wear 'psychedelic leggings or fancy dress', but in any case what does it matter? They are citizens who want social and economic justice for all.
Jihadin wrote:
OWS is nothing like the civil rights movement because the civil rights movement spent a lot of time breaking the VERY LAWS they were protesting.
OWS is breaking laws utterly unrelated to wall street. If you want to protest your inability to camp out in a park, fine, but don't pretend that has anything to do with wall street.
It's just like I was saying before, when you spend your time complaining about your tents, your protest becomes about tents.
The tents have gone, but OWS has not. That tells me its not about tents. They aren't protesting laws, they are trying to change the system.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote:
The key quote in here is "we had encircled them, and they were trying to leave, and they were trying to clear a path. And so, we sat down, linked arms, and said that if they wanted to clear the path, they would have to go through us"
But of course, the cops should have just sat there and waited.
It's funny though that I can post 1000 police chiefs agreeing with me and you guys call it an appeal to authority or tradition, but once you find one that agrees with you, it's totally fine.
They should have sat there and waited, yes. We'll have to agree to disagree on that. Pepper-spraying non-violent people who are sitting on a path to protest the arrest of other non-violent demonstrators should not be met with chemical agents and batons.
Of course you can find 1000 police chiefs agreeing with you, as Norm Stamper said in that interview, this is a structural problem. Why is finding someone who agrees with me not fine?
Blocking with your body has a long history as a nonviolent way to resist injustice and the misuse of power. Nonviolent demonstrators should not have force used on them.
Radiation wrote:It is asinine to think there are no comparisons to be made
There are comparisons to be made, but not in terms of dignity or importance of the movements which I think is the more significant aspect of this to be concerned with.
Radiation wrote:and your sensibilities are easily offended.
murdog wrote:Blocking with your body has a long history as a nonviolent way to resist injustice and the misuse of power. Nonviolent demonstrators should not have force used on them.
Yeah mate I agree with you, but did you read the quote in full? I sided with the protestors until I read it!
Look...
"And at one point, they were—we had encircled them, and they were trying to leave, and they were trying to clear a path. And so, we sat down, linked arms, and said that if they wanted to clear the path, they would have to go through us."
If they have "encircled" you, and your trying to leave, but they wont let you, and then they tell you "If you want to leave your going to have to go through us" then surely you HAVE to go through them dont you?
Whats the other option? Just shrug and say "Oh ok you captured me then, ill just stay here even though I really wanted to leave"
As I said, im no fan of police brutality, but.. well.. It seems like they kinda had no option once it got to this point.
Jihadin wrote:
Research this a bit more before throwing it out. I handle quite a few of the movements to local and state law enforcement
To what end? and what am I looking for?
dogma wrote:
murdog wrote:
Police HAVE become more militarized.
Eh, I don't know. Definitely more professional, maybe not more militarized.
I do, however, acknowledge that its a difficult argument. Is the cop with the 9mm more militarized with respect to the soldier with the M4 than the cop with the truncheon with respect to the soldier with the Brown Bess?
I don't think its that hard to argue at all. I'd rather use pictures though.
These jackwagons are on patrol it looks like the State Fair. Other than the fact you are generally more likely to encounter motorcycle cops these guys are dressed for daily duty.
when we compare them to say...these guys. The difference is striking.
Not so much when we drop North County Swat next to Israeli Army
You don't even have to go very far from home to see the militarization of police forces. Above I showed Arizona DPS in thier daily wear here's Phoenix PD at a raid, I picked this one because out of seven officers ONE is not wearing an OTV (its optional wear but most wear it). Its probably even better that its a raid because I could drive to the mall and take a picture of the officers there in the same gear. But not the same department, depends on the mall.
So when patrol officers are a helmet and carbine away from SWAT, and SWAT is near indistinguisable from the military what do YOU call it?
Jihadin wrote:para military = a group of civilians organized in a military fashion (especially to operate in place of or to assist regular army troops)
Not that your definition excludes the police as they are civilians, but Websters says:
of, relating to, being, or characteristic of a force formed on a military pattern especially as a potential auxiliary military
or to parse out the relevant portion for the discussion:
characteristic of a force formed on a military pattern
Not all police forces are paramilitary, but not all aren't. Utilizing military tactics and training against the civilian population IS paramilitary by definition, so any police department that includes SWAT, by its very nature has a paramilitary element.
Rented Tritium wrote:It's funny though that I can post 1000 police chiefs agreeing with me and you guys call it an appeal to authority or tradition,
Protip: In the Dakka OT, citing sources is an appeal to authority. I just read "that's an appeal to authority!" as "I can't argue that point, so I'm being petulant".
Kilkrazy wrote:Of course you can define militarism by tools and tactics.
One only needs to compare the old style "rugby scrum" police with the modern force to see the clear change.
It arise from the desire to use the police as a para-military force.
No. You are redefining words. You don't get to redefine "paramilitary" to mean "having big guns and tanks". Police have literally always been a paramilitary force since day one.
Kanluwen wrote:And I suggest you read my statement again.
Comparing this movement to the Civil Rights movement is downright asinine.
No it's not. That's an insulting and I think deeply misguided statement. Both are nonviolent protest movements seeking to cause social change in response to social injustice. You could make an argument that the things the Civil Rights movement were trying to change are worse, of course. You could absolutely make the point that the responses to them were frequently more brutal, but if I (as an example) stand up and nonviolently protest something, and a police officer responds by either pepper-spraying me or sicking a dog on me, it's still and inappropriate and violent response. The dog or the bullet is certainly worse than pepper spray or a punch, but that doesn't make the less-violent but still violent response okay or appropriate.
Kanluwen wrote:ANo one is being killed for their beliefs.
Sure. As I said, the situation was certainly WORSE in the 60s. That doesn't mean the two movements are totally dissimilar.
Kanluwen wrote:At worst, you've got officers who have no business being officers. But you know what? That goes down to "you reap what you sow".
And some protesters who are being idiots and giving the movement a bad name, too. Sure. But because a few protestors are being antisocial idiots does not give any police the right to "sow" violence on protestors in general. The police bear a greater responsibility, inherently. They are armed, trained professionals whose duty is to ensure the safety of the protestors as much as any other citizen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:The British police don't have SWAT teams?
A SWAT team is just part of it. Look at those pictures Auston posted above. I can look at the cops on the street here in Manchester and observe that they've been more militarized in the last couple of decades just by observing how much more often I see BDUs, combat boots, and submachine guns on them. Certainly better tactics have needed to evolve over the years, and cops have needed to become more professional. But there is certainly an undeniable trend toward local police becoming more military in their tactics, disposition and attitudes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:It's funny though that I can post 1000 police chiefs agreeing with me and you guys call it an appeal to authority or tradition,
Protip: In the Dakka OT, citing sources is an appeal to authority. I just read "that's an appeal to authority!" as "I can't argue that point, so I'm being petulant".
Everyone's aware of the distinction, right? Citing a source means referencing a specific piece of evidence. Appealing to authority is saying "this authoritative person agrees with me", independent or exclusive of an actual substantive argument.
murdog wrote:Blocking with your body has a long history as a nonviolent way to resist injustice and the misuse of power. Nonviolent demonstrators should not have force used on them.
Yeah mate I agree with you, but did you read the quote in full? I sided with the protestors until I read it!
Look...
"And at one point, they were—we had encircled them, and they were trying to leave, and they were trying to clear a path. And so, we sat down, linked arms, and said that if they wanted to clear the path, they would have to go through us."
If they have "encircled" you, and your trying to leave, but they wont let you, and then they tell you "If you want to leave your going to have to go through us" then surely you HAVE to go through them dont you?
Whats the other option? Just shrug and say "Oh ok you captured me then, ill just stay here even though I really wanted to leave"
As I said, im no fan of police brutality, but.. well.. It seems like they kinda had no option once it got to this point.
I did read it, and I watched the video. It's not that they couldn't leave, it's that they didn't leave. Clearly the police could have stepped over them and left. They were sitting on the ground, not standing up. It was more of a symbolic block than actually blocking them, although it would have been difficult to drag non-violent demonstrators down the path fo sho.
Kanluwen wrote:And I suggest you read my statement again.
Comparing this movement to the Civil Rights movement is downright asinine.
No it's not. That's an insulting and I think deeply misguided statement. Both are nonviolent protest movements seeking to cause social change in response to social injustice.
The difference is that one was in fact a known, proven social injustice while the other is the realm of conspiracy theorists for the most part.
Is the government a bit more receptive to the economic quarter's problems than society at large? Of course. But you don't solve that by "occupying" Wall Street. You solve that by trying to push for more transparency in the ties between the political quarter and economic quarter's links, and then pushing to sever those ties ensuring that business does not get a toehold in politics again.
Another thing that irks me with the Civil Rights movement comparison is that these protesters are purposely provoking a reaction that is acceptable within any and all police department procedures for dispersing groups of people and then acting as if their Constitutional rights are being violated afterwards.
They claim that they have "done nothing to deserve this!"--and then you get statements like we have from the UC Davis students where they KNOW the officers had been leaving. They KNOW the officers are trying to perform their job, and since they can't without inappropriate force--they're leaving. And what do they do?
They sit down around them and try to hold them there.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Those officers did exactly what they're trained to do, and what is acceptable within that situation. If the officers had actually been wearing riot gear/body armor or had started whaling on the students with their nightsticks after pepper spraying them--I would be saying that they were way out of line.
You could make an argument that the things the Civil Rights movement were trying to change are worse, of course. You could absolutely make the point that the responses to them were frequently more brutal, but if I (as an example) stand up and nonviolently protest something, and a police officer responds by either pepper-spraying me or sicking a dog on me, it's still an inappropriate and violent response. The dog or the bullet is certainly worse than pepper spray or a punch, but that doesn't make the less-violent but still violent response okay or appropriate.
To continually equate pepper spray to actual violence is silly. Does it involve potentially injuring someone?
Sure. But circumstances for actual injuries to pepper spray require a certain set of contextual circumstances which are not always present.
And again:
This was not a case of people being "pepper sprayed for standing up and protesting something". This was a case of people "being pepper sprayed for obstructing officers in the course of executing their duties". Officers cannot lay hands on someone or physically restrain them without serious repercussions. They should not be able to taser someone for the same reason.
Which leaves pepper spray as the only viable, nonviolent solution for officers.
Kanluwen wrote:And no one is being killed for their beliefs.
Sure. As I said, the situation was certainly WORSE in the 60s. That doesn't mean the two movements are totally dissimilar.
Thinking they're similar does not necessarily mean they are, Mannahnin. That's what I've been trying to get across for quite awhile now.
Kanluwen wrote:At worst, you've got officers who have no business being officers. But you know what? That goes down to "you reap what you sow".
And some protesters who are being idiots and giving the movement a bad name, too. Sure. But because a few protestors are being antisocial idiots does not give any police the right to "sow" violence on protestors in general. The police bear a greater responsibility, inherently. They are armed, trained professionals whose duty is to ensure the safety of the protestors as much as any other citizen.
It's to ensure the safety of the protesters when they follow the law. Police are there to ensure that the protesters are not injured or targeted by the public at large and to ensure that the protesters do not injure or target the public at large.
When the protest falls outside the scope of the law allowing their protest, it gets shut down.
It's not complicated.
As for my "you reap what you sow" comment, it has nothing to do with the protesters being antisocial idiots. It has to deal with society at large and the frankly ridiculous lack of requirements for some police agencies to recruit officers. It's related to a perception and/or need for officers.
Monster Rain wrote:The British police don't have SWAT teams?
A SWAT team is just part of it. Look at those pictures Auston posted above. I can look at the cops on the street here in Manchester and observe that they've been more militarized in the last couple of decades just by observing how much more often I see BDUs, combat boots, and submachine guns on them. Certainly better tactics have needed to evolve over the years, and cops have needed to become more professional. But there is certainly an undeniable trend toward local police becoming more military in their tactics, disposition and attitudes.
Auston's pictures seem to be a bit prejudicial. Those do not look like officers you will commonly see patrolling. Those look like officers who have been seconded to an operation being run by ICE or the DEA and are responding to a call afterwards. The other potential is that those officers are required by their department to wear such protection due to potential situations patrolling certain areas.
But really. There's a reason you're seeing BDUs and combat boots. They're cheaper for a department than full dress uniforms--and they're far more comfortable for officers to wear.
Mannahnin wrote:No it's not. That's an insulting and I think deeply misguided statement. Both are nonviolent protest movements seeking to cause social change in response to social injustice.
The conditions that the Civil Rights movement were protesting about were absolutely horrific. People were being denied basic human dignity, lethally at times.
Comparing that to people tweeting about how financially oppressed they are from an iPhone 4 is what is misguided, in my opinion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:We have nowadays. We didn't use to. Obviously they are called a much more dignified name than SWAT.
Oh, I don't know. Special Weapons and Tactics has a spartan, utilitarian ring to it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:A SWAT team is just part of it. Look at those pictures Auston posted above. I can look at the cops on the street here in Manchester and observe that they've been more militarized in the last couple of decades just by observing how much more often I see BDUs, combat boots, and submachine guns on them.
Kanluwen wrote:Auston's pictures seem to be a bit prejudicial. Those do not look like officers you will commonly see patrolling. Those look like officers who have been seconded to an operation being run by ICE or the DEA and are responding to a call afterwards. The other potential is that those officers are required by their department to wear such protection due to potential situations patrolling certain areas.
So these Tempe PD patrol officers and bike cop must be seconded to a three letter agency too, and patrolling the area around Arizona State is a notoriously dangerous affair ( this is on campus) it's like the OK corral every day. Why they even appear to have put together a bicycle SWAT team...
This Phoenix PD officer must have just returned from his DEA raid when he was called in for this photo op.
And I'm sure that Brad Jones (RIP) just put on his tactical vest for those special ICE events before going back on patrol.
These Maricopa County Sheriffs Deputies geared up to assault the notoriously violent gang den known as Mesa City Hall.
But I'm sure I'm just being prejudicial, it's not like I see these guys everyday.
AustonT wrote:So these Tempe PD patrol officers and bike cop must be seconded to a three letter agency too, and patrolling the area around Arizona State is a notoriously dangerous affair ( this is on campus) it's like the OK corral every day. Why they even appear to have put together a bicycle SWAT team...
Truly, nothing has happened on a college campus that might require an armed police response.
The Occupy Wall Street Movement like the student movement in the ’60s sixties has spread todozens of cities across the United States. It was publicized as a “people’s movement,” focused on the economy, and was a belief that corporate corruption existed in the political system of the United States of America.
The initial idea for Occupy Wall Street was clearly an expression of dissatisfaction with the financial state of affairs in the United States, and an expression of opposition to the tightly defined capitalistic infrastructure of our democratic government. Specifically, it was an internal outcry that criticized the government and business leaders for the pain that jobless, homeless, hungry, and poor people experienced as they bore the agony of a failing economy on their backs, while wealthy people escaped and continued to live in luxury.
In the midst of a failing economy, the initial publicized idea of Occupy caught on like wild fire because it was an idea easily understood by many, and considered worthy of support because it opposed the gap between the rich, average income, and poor people. I must admit, I was excited to realize that people who were dissatisfied and wanted their voices heard had found a way to express themselves and publicize their opinions regarding the obvious financial inequality that exists across this country between groups of people. I was also excited to witness their efforts to seek change, as they occupied space on Wall Street, pricked the consciousness of people, made people listen to a cry for financial equity, and used the media to garner additional support across state and international boundaries.
The Power in Numbers
Occupy Wall Street
It was gratifying to know the organizers of Occupy Wall Street understood power in numbers, and realized how voiceless they were as individuals but how powerful they could be when united with others who held similar views. Their activities caused me to reflect on the Atlanta Student Movement from the sixties, and how being committed to our goal, understanding the importance of unity, and the power in numbers helped us achieve our goal during the sit-Ins. In reality, there were similarities between Occupy Wall Street and the Civil Rights Movement:
1.A demonstration to bring an issue negatively impacting citizens to a level of consciousness and force the American Government to act.
2.A demonstration that spread and was duplicated in other states.
3.Young adult demonstrators/participants who lacked racial diversity.
While I applaud the efforts of the Occupy demonstrators, support their right to express themselves, and realize the techniques they used emanated (in theory) from those used by the Civil Rights Movement of the ’60s, the differences in the two movements are very obvious. The sit-ins were planned, organized and focused around one goal and were a call for action to achieve the specific goal of integration of public facilities. Occupy Wall Streett publicized one goal initially, dissatisfaction with the financial gap between the rich and the poor in this country.
No Definitive Purpose
But as the movement continues to gain support and spread to other cities and countries, multiple goals are being articulated and publicized that are not clearly defined and accepted by all Occupy groups. Some of those additional goals include income inequality, increased racial diversity, joblessness, foreclosures and homelessness. Additionally, the structure of the demonstrations has been causing health, sanitation, safety, and disease to become clear issues of concern and problems that warrant immediate solution.
1960s Woolworth Sit In
The sit-Ins in the sixties had clearly defined leadership from the beginning. Prior to the sit-Ins, leaders stated the purpose and goal, then gave specific instructions that outlined methods for participants to use to manage their behaviors during the demonstrations. In contrast, Occupy Wall Street has emerging leadership. As the Occupy demonstrations have gained momentum and spread, it has become apparent to the public and organizers that authority, leadership, and organizational hierarchy were neither specified, recognized, nor accepted by all.
The majority of the foot soldiers and leaders of the Civil Rights Movement included a multicultural group of African-Americans struggling to assert their rights, and integrate lunch counters and other public facilities in America. The participants in the Occupy Wall Street Movement are a majority Caucasian multicultural group of citizens who have the right to peacefully assemble and demonstrate for what they believe is right and equitable. Yet, as we attempt to support them in principle, we are left wondering:
1.Who are the leaders of the Occupy Wall Street Movement?
2.Are the goals of the Occupy Wall Street clearly focused?
3.What does Occupy Wall Street want the government and business leaders to do, and when should it be done?
Right, I was saying that there is precedent for having some armed guards on a college campus in counterpoint to your idea that they shouldn't be there.
Kanluwen wrote:Auston's pictures seem to be a bit prejudicial. Those do not look like officers you will commonly see patrolling. Those look like officers who have been seconded to an operation being run by ICE or the DEA and are responding to a call afterwards. The other potential is that those officers are required by their department to wear such protection due to potential situations patrolling certain areas.
So these Tempe PD patrol officers and bike cop must be seconded to a three letter agency too, and patrolling the area around Arizona State is a notoriously dangerous affair ( this is on campus) it's like the OK corral every day. Why they even appear to have put together a bicycle SWAT team...
First of all, those aren't plate carrying vests. Those are load distributing vests--also referred to as "tactical" vests.
If you're going to argue that's paramilitary, then hunters and fishermen are wannabes as many commercially available vests have the same build.
But I can only assume you're actually referring to the "BDUs"(quotes because it's not actually appearing to be BDUs and instead is a more street-acceptable "casual" version. Without the web gear and insignia, they'd look just like cargo pants and a button up shirt). I recognize the design and can probably nail the manufacturer down even(cut of the pants worn by the center officer and the shorts worn by the two on the outside look like 5.11's "brand" and the shirts do as well). They're, as mentioned before...more comfortable. Seeing as how Arizona is in a state known to get quite hot, something far more breathable and comfortable is likely accepted as department standard to avoid potential liability in terms of officers being susceptible to heat stroke or whatever garbage the officers' union could potentially throw at them.
This Phoenix PD officer must have just returned from his DEA raid when he was called in for this photo op.
Considering it's a photo op and I don't have the context, I'd say it was purposely staged for a reason. It's very possible that the officer is a member of a SRT or SWAT team, and not actually a "patrol officer". It's also possible that the photo is used for recruitment brochures distributed within the Phoenix PD for SWAT or SRT.
Public perception of law enforcement does affect how they're equipped, but I can tell you don't really care about that. You're just interested in saying that they're "paramilitarized" and insisting that it is a "new thing", when in fact since the late 1800s police agencies HAVE been paramilitary based organizations in terms of rank and dress. In 1930, they started adding "training" to that list as well. People tend to feel safer when they know that their police agencies are equipped for any potential situation.
And I'm sure that Brad Jones (RIP) just put on his tactical vest for those special ICE events before going back on patrol.
Tactical vests mean nothing, as I said before. I can buy a tactical vest as a civilian. I can't buy a Kevlar vest or plate inserts for a tac vest(legally) though.
All a tactical vest means is that the officer has a fairly relaxed dress code. A "tac" vest is far more comfortable in many cases than all the trimmings you used to see on officers' belts.
These Maricopa County Sheriffs Deputies geared up to assault the notoriously violent gang den known as Mesa City Hall.
But I'm sure I'm just being prejudicial, it's not like I see these guys everyday.
Context is important.
Why are they at Mesa City Hall?
From the look, it appears that they are going to a briefing of some kind or potentially providing security for a meeting at City Hall.
AustonT wrote:
I don't think its that hard to argue at all. I'd rather use pictures though.
These jackwagons are on patrol it looks like the State Fair. Other than the fact you are generally more likely to encounter motorcycle cops these guys are dressed for daily duty.
I'm not claiming that there aren't similarities between the military and the police, that's a ridiculous claim, I'm claiming that there may not be more of them today than there were in the past. I mean, the distinction between an LA beat cop in 1960 and an Army GI (excepting training) was what, a rifle, helmet, and webbing system?
If you're going to argue militarization, you picked one of the worst possible examples.
The uniform has nothing military associated with it. The only "military" item one could associate with Pike is the helmet and lapel insignia. He's not wearing combat boots, he's not wearing a BDU, etc. He's wearing a button-up dress shirt with a rank insignia and badge on it and what looks like dress slacks and dress shoes.
He's wearing a helmet with a visor on it. He's wearing a belt with very little in the way of stuff on it: seemingly four small clips for a service issue pistol, likely a Beretta M9 which means around 32(8 shots per clip) shots total, and the pistol firmly secured in his holster.
The gloves he's wearing are likely puncture proof nitrile or leather, mostly worn when potentially dealing with searching individuals or taking them into custody.
One of the most alarming side effects of the federal government’s war on drugs is the militarization of law enforcement in America. There are two aspects to the militarization phenomenon. First, the American tradition of civil-military separation is breaking down as Congress assigns more and more law enforcement responsibilities to the armed forces. Second, state and local police officers are increasingly emulating the war-fighting tactics of soldiers. Most Americans are unaware of the militarization phenomenon simply because it has been creeping along imperceptibly for many years. To get perspective, it will be useful to consider some recent events:
The U.S. military played a role in the Waco incident. In preparation for their disastrous 1993 raid on the Branch Davidian compound, federal law enforcement agents were trained by Army Special Forces at Fort Hood, Texas. And Delta Force commanders would later advise Attorney General Janet Reno to insert gas into the compound to end the 51-day siege. Waco resulted in the largest number of civilian deaths ever arising from a law enforcement operation.1
Between 1995 and 1997 the Department of Defense gave police departments 1.2 million pieces of military hardware, including 73 grenade launchers and 112 armored personnel carriers. The Los Angeles Police Department has acquired 600 Army surplus M-16s. Even small-town police departments are getting into the act. The seven-officer department in Jasper, Florida, is now equipped with fully automatic M-16s.2
In 1996 President Bill Clinton appointed a military commander, Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, to oversee enforcement of the federal drug laws as the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.3
Since the mid-1990s U.S. Special Forces have been going after drug dealers in foreign countries. According to the U.S. Southern Command, American soldiers occupy three radar sites in Colombia to help monitor drug flights. And Navy SEALs have assisted in drug interdiction in the port city of Cap-Haitien, Haiti.4
The U.S. Marine Corps is now patrolling the Mexican border to keep drugs and illegal immigrants out of this country. In 1997 a Marine anti-drug patrol shot and killed 18-year-old Esequiel Hernandez as he was tending his family’s herd of goats on private property. The Justice Department settled a wrongful death lawsuit with the Hernandez family for $1.9 million. 5
In 1998 Indiana National Guard Engineering Units razed 42 crack houses in and around the city of Gary. The National Guard has also been deployed in Washington, D.C., to drive drug dealers out of certain locations.6
In 1999 the Pentagon asked President Clinton to appoint a “military leader” for the continental United States in the event of a terrorist attack on American soil. The powers that would be wielded by such a military commander were not made clear. 7
What is clear — and disquieting — is that the lines that have traditionally separated the military mission from the police mission are getting badly blurred. Over the last 20 years Congress has encouraged the U.S. military to supply intelligence, equipment, and training to civilian police. That encouragement has spawned a culture of paramilitarism in American police departments. By virtue of their training and specialized armament, state and local police officers are adopting the tactics and mindset of their military mentors. The problem is that the actions and values of the police officer are distinctly different from those of the warrior. The job of a police officer is to keep the peace, but not by just any means. Police officers are expected to apprehend suspected law breakers while adhering to constitutional procedures. They are expected to use minimum force and to deliver suspects to a court of law. The soldier, on the other hand, is an instrument of war. In boot camp, recruits are trained to inflict maximum damage on enemy personnel. Confusing the police function with the military function can have dangerous consequences. As Albuquerque police chief Jerry Glavin has noted, “If [cops] have a mindset that the goal is to take out a citizen, it will happen.”8
The lines that have traditionally separated the military mission from the police mission are getting badly blurred. Paramilitarism threatens civil liberties, constitutional norms, and the well-being of all citizens. Thus, the use of paramilitary tactics in everyday police work should alarm people of goodwill from across the political spectrum.
This paper will examine the militarization of law enforcement at the local level, with particular emphasis on SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) units. The paper will conclude that the special skills of SWAT personnel and their military armaments are necessary only in extraordinary circumstances.
The deployment of such units should therefore be infrequent.More generally, Congress should recognize that soldiers and police officers perform different functions. Federal lawmakers should discourage the culture of paramilitarism in police departments by keeping the military out of civilian law enforcement.
A Brief History of the Relationship between the Military and Civilian Law Enforcement
The use of British troops to enforce unpopular laws in the American colonies helped to convince the colonists that King George III and Parliament were intent on establishing tyranny.9
The Declaration of Independence specifically refers to those practices, castigating King George for “quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us” and for “protecting [soldiers], by mock Trial, from Punishment, for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States.” The colonists complained that the king “has kept among us, in Times of peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of, and superior to, the Civil Power.”
After the Revolutionary War, Americans were determined to protect themselves against the threat of an overbearing military. The Founders inserted several safeguards into the Constitution to ensure that the civilian powers of the new republic would remain distinct from, and superior to, the military:
The Congress shall have Power . . . To declare War . . . To raise and support Armies . . . To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and Naval Forces . . . To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia.10
No State shall, without the consent of Congress, . . . keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, . . . or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.11
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.12
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.13
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.14
It is important to emphasize that those provisions were not considered controversial.3 The debate was only with respect to whether those constitutional safeguards would prove adequate. 15
After the Revolutionary War, Americans were determined to protect themselves against the threat of an overbearing military..
During the Civil War period the principle of civil-military separation broke down. President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and citizens were arrested and tried before military tribunals.
After the Civil War, Congress imposed martial law in the rebel states. And to shield the military’s reconstruction policies from constitutional challenges, Congress barred the Supreme Court from jurisdiction over federal appellate court rulings involving postwar reconstruction controversies.17
The Army enforced an array of laws in the South and, not surprisingly, became politically meddlesome. In several states the Army interfered with local elections and state political machinery. Such interference during the presidential election of 1876 provoked a political firestorm.18
The Democratic candidate, Samuel J. Tilden, won the popular vote while the Republican candidate, Rutherford B. Hayes, garnered more electoral votes. The Republican victory was tainted by accusations that federal troops had stuffed the ballot box in a few southern states to favor Hayes. Negotiations between the political parties ensued and a compromise was reached. The Democrats agreed to concede the election to “Rutherfraud” Hayes (as disgruntled partisans nicknamed him) on the condition that federal troops be withdrawn from the South.19
The Republicans agreed.
The Army’s machinations in the South also set the stage for a landmark piece of legislation, the Posse Comitatus Act.20
The one-sentence law provided, “Whoever, except in cases and under such circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or by Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined no more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”21
Southern Democrats proposed the Posse Comitatus bill in an effort to get Congress to reaffirm, by law, the principle of civil-military separation. President Hayes signed that bill into law in June 1878. Federal troops have occasionally played a role in quelling civil disorder — without prior congressional authorization — in spite of the plain terms of the Posse Comitatus Act. The U.S. Army, for example, was used to restore order in industrial disputes in the late 19th and early 20th century. Except for the illegal occupation of the Coeur d’Alene mining region in Idaho in 1899-1901, army troops were used by presidents to accomplish specific and temporary objectives — after which they were immediately withdrawn.22
Federal troops and federalized National Guardsmen were called upon to enforce the desegregation of schools in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957; in Oxford, Mississippi, in 1962; and in Selma, Alabama, in 1963.
Over the past 20 years there has been a dramatic expansion of the role of the military in law enforcement activity. In 1981 Congress passed the Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement Officials Act.23
That law amended the Posse Comitatus Act insofar as it authorized the military to “assist” civilian police in the enforcement of drug laws. The act encouraged the military to (a) make available equipment, military bases, and research facilities to federal, state, and local police; (b) train and advise civilian police on the use of the equipment; and (c) assist law enforcement personnel in keeping drugs from entering the country. The act also authorized the military to share information acquired during military operations with civilian law enforcement agencies.
As the drug war escalated throughout the 1980s, the military was drawn further and further into the prohibition effort by a series of executive and congressional initiatives: In 1986 President Ronald Reagan issued a National Decision Security Directive designating drugs as an official threat to “national security,” which encouraged a tight-knit relationship between civilian [police and the military].4
As the drug war escalated throughout the 1980s, the military was drawn further and further into the prohibition effort..law enforcement and the military.24
In 1987 Congress set up an administrative apparatus to facilitate transactions between civilian law enforcement officials and the military. For example, a special office with an 800 number was established to handle inquiries by police officials regarding acquisition of military hardware.25
In 1988 Congress directed the National Guard to assist law enforcement agencies in counter-drug operations. Today National Guard units in all 50 states fly across America’s landscape in dark green helicopters, wearing camouflage uniforms and armed with machine guns, in search of marijuana fields.26
In 1989 President George Bush created six regional joint task forces (JTFs) within the Department of Defense.
Those task forces are charged with coordinating the activities of the military and police agencies in the drug war, including joint training of military units and civilian police. JTFs can be called on by civilian law enforcement agencies in counter-drug cases when police feel the need for military reinforcement.27
In 1994 the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense signed a memorandum of understanding, which has enabled the military to transfer technology to state and local police departments. Civilian officers now have at their disposal an array of high-tech military items previously reserved for use during wartime.28
All of those measures have resulted in the militarization of a wide range of activity in the United States that had been previously considered the domain of civilian law enforcement. As one reporter has observed, “Not since federal troops were deployed to the former Confederate states during Reconstruction has the U.S. military been so intimately involved in civilian law enforcement.”29
The Militarization of the Police Department
Not only is the military directly involved in law enforcement; police departments are increasingly emulating the tactics of the armed forces in their everyday activities. This aspect of the militarization phenomenon has gone largely unnoticed.
The Early American Police Force
In one sense, the paramilitarism in today’s police departments is a consequence of the increasing professionalism of police in the 20th century. Professionalism essentially grants a monopoly of specialized knowledge, training, and practice to certain groups in exchange for a commitment to a public service ideal. While that may sound desirable for law enforcement officers, the effects of professionalism have, in many respects, been negative. Over the last century police departments have evolved into increasingly centralized, authoritarian, autonomous, and militarized bureaucracies, which has led to their isolation from the citizenry.
Early police departments were anything but professional. Officers were basically political appointees, with ties to ward bosses. Officers also had strong cultural roots in the neighborhoods they patrolled. Police work was more akin to social work, as jails provided overnight lodging and soup kitchens for tramps, lost children, and other destitute individuals.
Discipline was practically nonexistent, and law enforcement was characterized by an arbitrary, informal process that is sometimes dubbed “curbside justice.” Barely trained and equipped, police aimed at regulating rather than preventing crime, which, in the previous century, meant something closer to policing vice and cultural lifestyles.
On the positive side, the early police forces were well integrated into their communities, often solving crimes by simply chatting with people on the street corners. On the negative side, the police were suspicious of and often hostile to strangers ….immigrants, and, having strong loyalties to the local political machine, they were susceptible to bribery and political influence. 5
Police departments have evolved into increasingly centralized, authoritarian, autonomous, and militarized bureaucracies. Throughout the 19th century police work was considered casual labor, making it difficult for either municipalities or precinct captains to impose any uniform standards on patrolmen. Police did not consider themselves a self-contained body of law officers set apart from the general populace.
The initial round of professionalization took place during the Progressive Era with the appearance of early police literature, fraternal organizations, and rudimentary recruitment standards — all of which suggest the emergence of a common occupational self-consciousness. Internal and external pressures forced the depoliticization and restructuring of police departments, which gradually reformed into centralized, depersonalized, hierarchical bureaucracies. To gain control of the rank and file, police chiefs assigned military ranks and insignia to personnel, and some departments required military drills. “Military methods have been adopted and military discipline enforced,” wrote Philadelphia police superintendent James Robinson in his department’s 1912 annual report.30
A wave of police unionism from 1917 to 1920 was a strong indication that police not only were acquiring a shared occupational outlook but had come to regard policing as a full-time career. Two events, however, signaled the break-away of police from their communities and into their modern professional enclave. In 1905 the first truly modern state police force was formed in Pennsylvania. Ostensibly created to control crime in rural areas, the Pennsylvania State Police was used mainly in labor disputes, since the state militias and local police (who were more likely to sympathize with strikers) had been ineffective. That centralized organization, under one commander appointed by the governor, recruited members from across the state so that no more than a handful of officers had roots in any single community. This new force was considered so militaristic that the Pennsylvania Federation of Labor referred to it as “Cossacks.” Despite the misgivings of many people, Pennsylvania started a trend. Other states began to emulate Pennsylvania’s state police force.
The other significant event was J. Edgar Hoover’s directorship of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. By raising standards of training and recruitment, Hoover rescued federal law enforcement from its former state of corruption and mismanagement. Hoover imbued his agents with a moral zeal to fight crime, and in 1935 he opened the National Police Academy, which has exerted tremendous influence on police training generally.31 Hoover’s FBI acquired a prestige that made it the model police organization
Elite SWAT Units Created
There is agreement in police literature that the incident that inspired the SWAT concept occurred in 1966. In August of that year a deranged man climbed to the top of the 32-story clock tower at the University of Texas in Austin. For 90 minutes he randomly shot 46 people, killing 15 of them, until two police officers got to the top of the tower and killed him. The Austin episode was so blatant that it “shattered the last myth of safety Americans enjoyed [and] was the final impetus the chiefs of police needed” 32 to form their own SWAT teams. Shortly thereafter, the Los Angeles Police Department formed the first SWAT team and, it is said, originated the acronym SWAT to describe its elite force. The Los Angeles SWAT unit acquired national prestige when it was used successfully against the Black Panthers in 1969 and the Symbionese Liberation Army in 1973.
Much like the FBI, the modern SWAT team was born of public fear and the perception by police that crime had reached such proportions and criminals had become so invincible that more armament and more training were needed. SWAT team members have come to consider themselves members of an elite unit with specialized skills and more of a military ethos than the normal police structure.
Another striking similarity with the FBI is that that SWAT units have gained their status and legitimacy in the public eye by their performance in a few sensational events.
The earliest SWAT teams consisted of small units that could be called into action to deal with difficult situations, such as incidents involving hostages, barricaded suspects, or hijackers. Early SWAT team members were not unlike regular police officers and were only slightly better equipped.
SWAT Teams Everywhere, Doing Everything
The 1980s and 1990s saw marked changes in the number of permanent SWAT teams across the country, in their mission and deployment, and in their tactical armament. According to a 1997 study of SWAT teams conducted by Peter Kraska and Victor Kappeler of Eastern Kentucky University, nearly 90 percent of the police departments surveyed in cities with populations over 50,000 had paramilitary units, as did 70 percent of the departments surveyed in communities with populations under 50,000. 33
Although the proliferation of those special units was slow in the late 1960s and early 1970s, their numbers took a leap in the mid-1970s, and growth has remained high since the 1980s. In fact, most SWAT teams have been created in the 1980s and 1990s. Towns like Jasper, Lakeland, and Palm Beach, Florida; Lakewood, New Jersey; Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Charlottesville, Virginia; and Harwich, Massachusetts, have SWAT teams.
The campus police at the University of Central Florida have a SWAT unit — even though the county SWAT team is available.
Kraska refers to the proliferation as the “militarization of Mayberry,” and he is rightly alarmed that the special units are becoming a normal and permanent part of law enforcement agencies.
Under the Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement Officials Act, Congress directed the military to make equipment and facilities available to civilian police in the anti-drug effort. As a result, police departments began to acquire more sophisticated tactical equipment: automatic weapons with laser sights and sound suppressors, surveillance equipment such as Laser Bugs that can detect sounds inside a building by bouncing a laser beam off a window, pinhole cameras, flash and noise grenades, rubber bullets, bullet-proof apparel, battering rams, and more. The Boone County Sheriff’s office in Indiana has acquired an amphibious armored personnel carrier.34
In Fresno, California, the SWAT unit has access to two helicopters equipped with night vision goggles and an armored personnel carrier with a turret.35
According to Cal Black, a former SWAT commander for the FBI, “The equipment SWAT teams use today is many times more sophisticated than it was when I began in SWAT in the 1970s. . . . Because of this high-tech equipment, the ability of SWAT teams has increased dramatically.”36
The National Institute of Justice report on the DOJ-DOD technology “partnership” boasted a number of high-tech items that SWAT teams now have at their disposal. Included among the showcase military technologies deemed applicable to law enforcement were “inconspicuous systems that can detect from more than 30 feet away weapons with little or no metal content as well as those made of metal.”37
Other items in the pipeline include “a gas-launched, wireless, electric stun projectile”; a “vehicular laser surveillance and dazzler system”; “pyrotechnic devices such as flash-bang grenades [and] smoke grenades”; instruments of “crowd control”; mobile, even hand-held, systems to locate gunfire; and tagging equipment to locate, identify, and monitor the “movement of individuals, vehicles and containers.”38
Special body armor and helmets are also under consideration.
Nick Pastore, former police chief in New Haven, Connecticut, says: “I was offered tanks, bazookas, anything I wanted. . . . I turned it all down because it feeds a mindset that you’re not a police officer serving a community, you’re a soldier at war.”39,7
The 1980s and 1990s saw marked changes in the number of permanent SWAT teams across the country, in their mission and deployment, and in their tactical armament..An even more disturbing development reported in the Kraska-Kappeler study, however, is the growing tendency of police departments to use SWAT units in routine policing activity. The Fresno SWAT unit, for example, sends its 40-person team, with full military dress and gear, into the inner city “war zone” to deal with problems of drugs, gangs, and crime. One survey respondent described his department’s use of SWAT teams in the following way: “We’re into saturation patrols in hot spots. We do a lot of our work with the SWAT unit because we have bigger guns. We send out two, two-to-four- men cars, we look for minor violations and do jump-outs, either on people on the street or automobiles. After we jump-out the second car provides periphery cover with an ostentatious display of weaponry. We’re sending a clear message: if the shootings don’t stop, we’ll shoot someone.” 40
A Midwestern community with a population of 75,000 sends out patrols dressed in tactical uniform in a military personnel carrier. The armored vehicle, according to the SWAT commander, stops “suspicious vehicles and people. We stop anything that moves. We’ll sometimes even surround suspicious homes and bring out the MP5s (machine gun pistols).” 41
Unfortunately, it is likely that the number of SWAT “patrols” will rise in the future. In their survey, when Kraska and Kappeler asked the question, Is your department using the tactical operations unit as a proactive patrol unit to aid high crime areas? 107 departments indicated that they were. Sixty-one percent of all respondents thought it was a good idea. In fact, 63 percent of the departments in that survey agreed that SWAT units “play an important role in community policing strategies.”42
According to Police magazine, “Police officers working in patrol vehicles, dressed in urban tactical gear and armed with automatic weapons are here — and they’re here to stay.”43
Limiting the SWAT Mission to Bona Fide Emergencies
The relatively recent phenomenon of special, commando-type units within civilian law enforcement agencies is occurring on both sides of the Atlantic. The British counterpart to the SWAT team in America is the Police Support Unit (PSU). In 1993 the British Journal of Criminology published opposing views on British paramilitarism by P. A. J. Waddington and Anthony Jefferson. Both scholars agreed that public order policing in Britain by PSUs was becoming paramilitaristic, but they could not agree on a precise definition of “paramilitarism.”
While Jefferson defined paramilitarism as “the application of quasi-military training, equipment, philosophy and organization to questions of policing,” Waddington confined paramilitarism to police methods of riot control, namely, “the coordination and integration of all officers deployed as squads under centralised command and control.”44
A third scholar, Alice Hills, has sought the middle ground, rounding off the differences by looking at paramilitary forces of other countries, such as the French Gendarmerie, the Italian Carabiniere, the Frontier Guards in Finland, Civil Defense Units in Saudi Arabia, and the National Security Guards in India. By Hills’s reckoning, paramilitarism should “be defined in terms of function . . . and relationships; of the police to the military and to the state, as well as to the legal system and style of political process.”45
In general, however, as has been the case in this country, British studies have largely “neglected . . . the relationship of the police to the other uniformed services, particularly the army, in the late twentieth century.”46
What is disturbing is that under any of the definitions offered by the British analysts, American SWAT teams can be regarded as paramilitary units. The institutional cooperation between civilian law enforcement and the military has emerged under the direct political sponsorship of elected leaders in the national legislature and the presidency. (In 1981 Congress diluted the Posse Comitatus Act — a law that was designed to keep the military out of civilian affairs — in order to give the military an active role in the war on drugs, and that role has been expanded by subsequent congressional action and by the support of presidents of both political parties.)8
A disturbing development is the growing tendency of police departments to use SWAT units in routine policing activity.. The military-law enforcement connection is now a basic assumption within the federal government, and it receives enthusiastic support in government literature. For example, in a 1997 National Institute of Justice report on the transfer of military technology to civilian police departments, the Joint Program Steering Group explained the “convergence in the technology needs of the law enforcement and military communities”
as due to their “common missions.” In the military’s newest “peacekeeping” role abroad, it is obliged — much as civilian police — to be “highly discreet when applying force,” given the “greater presence of members of the media or other civilians who are observing, if not recording, the situation.”47
Moreover, the military’s enemy abroad has begun to resemble law enforcement’s enemy at home: “Law officers today confront threats that have more and more military aspects” due to the changed “nature of criminals and their crimes.” 48
With widespread political sanction, the military is now encouraged to share training, equipment, technology — and, most subtle, mentality — with state and local civilian police. SWAT team members undergo rigorous training similar to that given military special operations units. Training, as one study has noted, “may seem to be a purely technical exercise, [but] it actually plays a central role in paramilitary subculture” 49 and moreover reinforces “the importance of feeling and thinking as a team.”50
The research of Kraska and Kappeler revealed that SWAT units are often trained alongside, or with the support of, military special forces personnel. Of 459 SWAT teams across the country, 46 percent acquired their initial training from “police officers with special operations experience in the military,” and 43 percent with “active-duty military experts in special operations.” 51
Almost 46 percent currently conducted training exercises with “active-duty military experts in special operations.” 52
Twenty-three respondents to the survey indicated that they trained with either Navy SEALs or Army Rangers.53
One respondent went into greater detail:
“We’ve had special forces folks who have come right out of the jungles of Central and South America. . . . All branches of military service are involved in providing training to law enforcement. U.S. Marshals act as liaisons between the police and military to set up the training — our go-between. They have an arrangement with the military through JTF-6 [Joint Task Force 6]. . . . I just received a piece of paper from a four-star general who tells us he’s concerned about the type of training we’re getting. We’ve had teams of Navy Seals and Special Forces come here and teach us everything. We just have to use our judgment and exclude the information like: “at this point we bring in the mortars and blow the place up.”54
Because of their close collaboration with the military, SWAT units are taking on the warrior mentality of our military’s special forces. SWAT team organization resembles that of a special combat unit, with a commander, a tactical team leader, a scout, a rear guard or “defenseman,” a marksman (sniper), a spotter, a gasman, and paramedics.
Moreover, SWAT teams, like military special forces, are elite units: Their rigorous team training; high-tech armament; and “battle dress uniforms,” consisting of lace-up combat boots, full body armor, Kevlar helmets, and goggles with “ninja” style hoods, reinforce their elitism within law enforcement agencies. (One commander — who disapproved of proactive SWAT policing and turned down requests from team members to dress in black battle dress uniforms while on patrol — nevertheless understood its attraction to team members: “I can’t blame them, we’re a very elite unit, they just want to be distinguishable.”55)
Because of their close collaboration with the military, SWAT units are taking on the warrior mentality of our military’s special forces. The so-called war on drugs and other martial metaphors are turning high-crime areas into “war zones,” citizens into potential enemies, and police officers into soldiers. Preparing the ground for the 1994 technology transfer agreement between the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice, Attorney General Reno addressed the defense and intelligence community. In her speech, Reno compared the drug war to the Cold War, and the armed and dangerous enemies abroad to those at home: “So let me welcome you to the kind of war our police fight every day. And let me challenge you to turn your skills that served us so well in the Cold War to helping us with the war we’re now fighting daily in the streets of our towns and cities across the Nation.”56
The martial rhetoric can be found in both political parties. Bill McCollum (R-Fla.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime of the House Judiciary Committee, has criticized the Clinton administration for not waging the war on drugs aggressively enough: “The drug crisis is a top — if not the top — national security threat facing our nation today . . . [the Clinton] administration’s clear unwillingness to wage an all-out drug war cannot go unchallenged.”57
In the current political climate, anyone who does not support an escalation of the drug war is condemned for being “soft on crime.”58
Departmental SWAT teams have accepted the military as a model for their behavior and outlook, which is distinctly impersonal and elitist; American streets are viewed as the “front” and American citizens as the “enemy.” The sharing of training and technology by the military and law enforcement agencies has produced a shared mindset, and the mindset of the warrior is simply not appropriate for the civilian police officer charged with enforcing the law. The soldier confronts an enemy in a life-or-death situation. The soldier learns to use lethal force on the enemy, both uniformed and civilian, irrespective of age or gender. The soldier must sometimes follow orders unthinkingly, acts in concert with his comrades, and initiates violence on command. That mentality, with which new recruits are strenuously indoctrinated in boot camp, can be a matter of survival to the soldier and the nation at war.
The civilian law enforcement officer, on the other hand, confronts not an “enemy” but individuals who, like him, are both subject to the nation’s laws and protected by the Bill of Rights. Although the police officer can use force in life-threatening situations, the Constitution and numerous Supreme Court rulings have circumscribed the police officer’s direct use of force, as well as his power of search and seizure.59
In terms of violence, the police officer’s role is — or should be — purely reactive. When a police officer begins to think like a soldier, tragic consequences — such as the loss of innocent life at Waco — will result.
After some controversial SWAT shootings spawned several wrongful death lawsuits against the police department of Albuquerque, New Mexico, the city hired Professor Sam Walker of the University of Nebraska to study its departmental practices. According to Walker: “The rate of killings by the police was just off the charts. . . . They had an organizational culture that led them to escalate situations upward rather than deescalating.The mindset of the warrior is simply not appropriate for the civilian police officer charged with enforcing the law..61″60
The city of Albuquerque subsequently hired a new police chief and dismantled its SWAT unit. The tiny town of Dinuba, California (population 15,000), created a SWAT unit in the spring of 1997. A few months later an innocent man, Ramon Gallardo, was killed by the SWAT team when it raided his home looking for one of his teenage sons. The SWAT unit rushed into the Gallardo household at 7 a.m. wearing hoods and masks, yelling “search warrant.” Gallardo and his wife were awakened by the ruckus, but before they could determine what was happening, Ramon was shot 15 times. 10
A police brutality lawsuit was later brought against the city. At trial, the police said they had to shoot in self-defense because Gallardo had grabbed a knife. Gallardo’s wife testified that the knife on the scene did not belong to her husband and alleged that the police had planted it there to legitimize the shooting. The jury awarded the Gallardo family $12.5 million. Because the whopping verdict exceeded the small town’s insurance coverage, the city is now in financial straits. After Gallardo’s killing, the city fathers of Dinuba disbanded the SWAT unit and gave its military equipment to another police department.62
Some local jurisdictions may wish to retain SWAT units for the special skills they possess, but the deployment of such units should be limited to extraordinary circumstances — such as a hostage situation. If a SWAT unit is created (or retained), the need for that unit should be assessed annually by locally elected officials. Policymakers must be especially wary of “mission creep” and guard against it. Inactive SWAT teams have a strong incentive to expand their original “emergency” mission into more routine policing activities to justify their existence.
In recent years, city officials in Dallas and Seattle have curtailed the activity of their SWAT units, taking them off drug raids and suicide calls. Other cities should follow their lead by curtailing the SWAT mission — or even dismantling the entire unit as was done in Albuquerque and Dinuba.
Conclusion
The militarization of law enforcement in America is a deeply disturbing development. Police officers are not supposed to be warriors. The job of a police officer is to keep the peace while adhering to constitutional procedures. Soldiers, on the other hand, consider enemy personnel human targets. Confusing the police function with the military function can lead to dangerous and unintended consequences — such as unnecessary shootings and killings. The proliferation of SWAT teams is particularly worrisome because such units are rarely needed. SWAT teams are created to deal with emergency situations that are beyond the capacity of the ordinary street cop. But, as time passes, inactive SWAT units tend to jettison their original, limited mission for more routine policing activities.
Local jurisdictions should carefully assess the need for SWAT units and guard against the danger of mission creep. SWAT teams do possess specialized skills, but they should only be deployed on those extraordinary occasions when their skills are necessary — such as a hostage situation.
More generally, Congress should recognize that federal policies have contributed to the culture of paramilitarism that currently pervades many local police departments by restoring the traditional American principle of civil-military separation embodied in the Posse Comitatus Act. The Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement Officials Act created a dangerous loophole in the Posse Comitatus Act. That loophole should be closed immediately. Congress should also abolish all military-civilian law enforcement joint task forces and see to it that all military hardware loaned, given, or sold to law enforcement agencies is destroyed or returned.
Armored personnel carriers and machine guns, should not be a part of everyday law enforcement in a free society.
Machine guns aren't part of everyday law enforcement in a free society. Anyone who thinks they are needs a swift kick to the logic center.
As for the allegations that it's somehow 'bad' that some SRT/SWAT units had trained with SEALs or other military special forces--I don't see how it is. SEALs and Special Forces train for a lot of various situations--one of which is working with local law enforcement near the base where they're stationed. I find it disingenuous that they provided no actual examples, as I suspect that is what happened.
Kanluwen wrote:And I suggest you read my statement again.
Comparing this movement to the Civil Rights movement is downright asinine.
No it's not. That's an insulting and I think deeply misguided statement. Both are nonviolent protest movements seeking to cause social change in response to social injustice.
The difference is that one was in fact a known, proven social injustice while the other is the realm of conspiracy theorists for the most part.
I don't think that characterization is at all accurate. It is not a conspiracy theory to observe that the banks (on and symbolized by Wall Street) were given bailouts with taxpayer money, and the people actually directly responsible for the financial crash of 2008 and its continuing aftereffects have not been held responsible. Neither criminally nor fiscally. They have been insulated from the consequences of reckless and dishonest acts, and the American middle class and poor are the ones continuing to suffer for it. Neither is it a conspiracy theory to observe the Citizens United ruling and see that is paves the way for more money and financial influence on elections from corporate and moneyed interests. Neither is it a conspiracy theory to observe that the majority of people in Congress are millionaires, and to be concerned that the way they represent the interests of their constituents is insufficiently taking into account the needs and interests of the people who have less money; which is the vast majority of us.
"Known, proven social injustice" I think is another misguided statement. The authorities and the white electorate in the South evidently did not think Jim Crow laws were unjust. Those laws had to be protested against to make the point that they were unjust and to force social change.
Kanluwen wrote:Is the government a bit more receptive to the economic quarter's problems than society at large? Of course. But you don't solve that by "occupying" Wall Street. You solve that by trying to push for more transparency in the ties between the political quarter and economic quarter's links, and then pushing to sever those ties ensuring that business does not get a toehold in politics again.
Want to tell that to MLK's son? Let's paraphrase that: "You don't change Jim Crow laws by marching in the streets or assembling in crowds on the National Mall. You do it by trying to push for more justice in the courts and in the legislature, then pushing to sever the ties of racists to politics." Do you see how that sounds? If the racists were entrenched (and they were) or the moneyed interests entrenched (and they are), then protesting publicly is a critical tool. How else do you push for those changes? Could a black man in Georgia in 1960 realistically run for office and have a chance at changing the system from the inside? Can the average middle-class American afford to run for Congress and have a prayer of winning a seat and making changes from within?
If I don't have money, but I have time, I can go out and protest. I don't personally have the time available to go protest, but I do have enough time to write letters to my representatives, and I have a few minutes this weekend to write comments like this to try to change the minds of guys like you and Monster Rain, who I think are reasonable and intelligent human beings, and whose opinions on this I honestly find misguided and disappointing.
Kanluwen wrote:Another thing that irks me with the Civil Rights movement comparison is that these protesters are purposely provoking a reaction that is acceptable within any and all police department procedures for dispersing groups of people and then acting as if their Constitutional rights are being violated afterwards.
You're painting with an excessively-broad brush here, Kan. SOME of the protestors are undoubtedly provoking reactions they deserve. Others are undeniably peacefully protesting and getting inappropriately violent responses from trained professionals who should know better. In some cases they are undoubtedly breaking laws (like trespassing at Zucotti Park) in the belief that they are doing so as their best way of expressing their First Amendment rights to protest and to peacefully assemble. When the city allowed them to do so for an extended period, it seemed to grand tacit acknowledgment that this was a legitimate assembly under the First Amendment. Some lawyers, including ones part of or supportive of OWS, believe this to be a legitimate and legal protest. If a given protestor, in light of legal opinion or the city's tacit having allowed the overnight protests for an extended period, sees that seemingly granted/acknowledged right taken away suddenly, are they really out of line to complain that their Constitutional rights have been violated? Now, they may well be WRONG. But to pretend that they don't have any reason for thinking their protest/occupation was legal or legitimate is, I think, ill-considered at best and disingenuous at worst.
Kanluwen wrote:
You could make an argument that the things the Civil Rights movement were trying to change are worse, of course. You could absolutely make the point that the responses to them were frequently more brutal, but if I (as an example) stand up and nonviolently protest something, and a police officer responds by either pepper-spraying me or sicking a dog on me, it's still an inappropriate and violent response. The dog or the bullet is certainly worse than pepper spray or a punch, but that doesn't make the less-violent but still violent response okay or appropriate.
To continually equate pepper spray to actual violence is silly. Does it involve potentially injuring someone?
Yes, it does. Would you like me to pepper spray you for fun? To try to pretend that it's not "actual violence" is offensive and absurd. Sure it's less dangerous and less injurious. That doesn't mean it's not painful. Or do you think pain doesn't count as violence if it doesn't cause lasting injury? You can't really believe that.
Kanluwen wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:And no one is being killed for their beliefs.
Sure. As I said, the situation was certainly WORSE in the 60s. That doesn't mean the two movements are totally dissimilar.
Thinking they're similar does not necessarily mean they are, Mannahnin. That's what I've been trying to get across for quite awhile now.
Of course not. But you've also opined that they're not comparable, and gone further than that by claiming that any comparison is being "asinine". I disagree, and I take exception to your discourtesy. They are both nonviolent, public protest movements attempting to make social change by the means of creating a visible spectacle and demonstrate people's personal commitment to put themselves outside, exposed to the risk of arrest and potential violent response, in the pursuit of that change.
Of course, people don't mind the "militarization" of the fire department when service members are mobilized to fight fires in Southern California and elsewhere.
Kanluwen wrote:Machine guns aren't part of everyday law enforcement in a free society. Anyone who thinks they are needs a swift kick to the logic center.
Submachineguns aren't needed for 99% of law enforcement activities in my city either, so why have I seen them in the streets of my city?
Kanluwen wrote:As for the allegations that it's somehow 'bad' that some SRT/SWAT units had trained with SEALs or other military special forces--I don't see how it is. SEALs and Special Forces train for a lot of various situations--one of which is working with local law enforcement near the base where they're stationed. I find it disingenuous that they provided no actual examples, as I suspect that is what happened.
I don't see any problems with SWAT or similar teams training with military personnel if necessary or appropriate. What I think is a bad and dangerous trend is local PD thinking of themselves as a military organization, apart from and above the community. Good local police work requires being part of the community and seeing yourself as part of your neighborhood.
Kanluwen wrote:Not to civilians. To civilians, a M16 is a gatling gun.
I'm a civilian. This is the kind of "separate from, and superior to" attitude we do NOT want our cops to have about "civilians". It's always a bad thing.
Monster Rain wrote:Do you think part of the cops' "separate" attitude is reciprocal from the way they are perceived by their local community?
Absolutely. It's a complicated feedback loop. Police have a difficult, stressful, occasionally-dangerous job with a great deal of responsibility. To maintain good morale and dedication they definitely need to work to keep their own spirits up and to be proud of what they do. It's always been a tricky line to walk for them, and a challenge to balance pride and professionalism with avoiding a superior or disdainful attitude toward "civilians". I don't envy them their challenges, but their responsibility, as trained, and trusted professionals, as people we arm and who give their oaths to serve and protect their communities, to see themselves as part of that community and keep "serve" as high in their minds as "protect". If I'm and cop, even if me community, or at least some people in it, treat me badly and with disrespect, that does not excuse me doing the same in return even to those jerks, much less the community in general. This is something I used to have to train basic customer service people on all the time- even if the customer is rude to you, you cannot be rude to the customer. You must remain polite and professional and treat them well, even if abused and provoked. That principle holds equally true for PD. Moreso; they're a lot better paid and hold positions of a lot more trust, authority, and responsibility than any of the customer service people I've trained. Even my folks doing emergency response and coordinating medical evacuations weren't armed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:You have it in the military though
In the military it's largely an unavoidable product of the ways you build Esprit de Corps, and get guys to be willing to go into combat. Ideally they still shouldn't see themselves as superior to civilians in general. Maybe superior to lazy people.
1.
swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.
2.
rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence.
3.
an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.
4.
a violent act or proceeding.
5.
rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.
Monster Rain wrote:Do you think part of the cops' "separate" attitude is reciprocal from the way they are perceived by their local community?
Absolutely. It's a complicated feedback loop. Police have a difficult, stressful, occasionally-dangerous job with a great deal of responsibility. To maintain good morale and dedication they definitely need to work to keep their own spirits up and to be proud of what they do. It's always been a tricky line to walk for them, and a challenge to balance pride and professionalism with avoiding a superior or disdainful attitude toward "civilians". I don't envy them their challenges, but their responsibility, as trained, and trusted professionals, as people we arm and who give their oaths to serve and protect their communities, to see themselves as part of that community and keep "serve" as high in their minds as "protect". If I'm and cop, even if me community, or at least some people in it, treat me badly and with disrespect, that does not excuse me doing the same in return even to those jerks, much less the community in general. This is something I used to have to train basic customer service people on all the time- even if the customer is rude to you, you cannot be rude to the customer. You must remain polite and professional and treat them well, even if abused and provoked. That principle holds equally true for PD. Moreso; they're a lot better paid and hold positions of a lot more trust, authority, and responsibility than any of the customer service people I've trained. Even my folks doing emergency response and coordinating medical evacuations weren't armed.
Indeed, it most defintaely is complicted and I agree with almost everything you wrote, other than the "trusted professionals" bit anyway.
Its the number one reason I dont think armed police is a good thing, and I much prefer British police to American ones.
Namely, as an arrogant green beret, we used to mock regular soldiers and sailors and say things like "sailors with rifles are more likely to shoot us than the Taliban are!" and it was only half in jest. I think many members of the armed forces aren't professional enough to be trusted with their firearms, and military training is clearly longer and more exhaustive than Police training, so I certainly don't think the police are!
I don't believe that they train hard enough, or long enough, and I don't think that the police ARE very professional. If Ive interacted with say 50 cops in my lifetime, I reckon only half of them struck me as professional and intelligent. As a result I certainly wouldn't like to see them all walking the streets of the UK with guns. I just don't trust them enough.
YMMV of course, but I have little respect for the police. I think they should be ran more like the Navy SEALs or something!
Whilst I was in New York I noticed that none of the policemen had protective vests. In the UK all police wear protective vests, all the time. They did have guns though, so I suppose their knife fights are few and far between.
Oh, and my ferry was 'pursued' by a coast guard vessel with a machine gun. One of the locals suggested it was under gunned and should have "a .50 cal with depleted uranium ammo (that go straight to hell)". Maybe your seagull problem is worse than ours.
Kanluwen wrote:Machine guns aren't part of everyday law enforcement in a free society. Anyone who thinks they are needs a swift kick to the logic center.
Submachineguns aren't needed for 99% of law enforcement activities in my city either, so why have I seen them in the streets of my city?
What city?
And let's make sure your definition of submchinegun is accurate. You do mean fully automatic weapons in pistol caliber, right?
I guess I'm doubting the accuracy of your statement. US LE forces don't patrol with weapons out, keep any long arms (shotguns/rifles/carbines) in patrol vehicles or armories at the station, unless they are in the process of responding to a sitution that warrants the use of those weapons.
Jihadin wrote:
1.Who are the leaders of the Occupy Wall Street Movement?
2.Are the goals of the Occupy Wall Street clearly focused?
3.What does Occupy Wall Street want the government and business leaders to do, and when should it be done?
Anyone can be a leader of this movement. The goals are clearly focused: economic and social justice. OWS wants government and business leaders to work with the rest of society to create a system of economic and social justice, starting right now.
Monster Rain wrote:Is there any other way to compel compliance in someone who has stated that they refuse to, well, comply?
It's the context that is important. We aren't talking about someone who is waving a gun around, or blocking police from stopping a violent crime. We are talking about people sitting on a path, or standing in the streets, or setting up a tent. Words and patience are what is required, not weapons and violence.
You be suprised what some law enforcement have in their trunk.
We are talking about people sitting on a path, or standing in the streets, or setting up a tent.
Hence breaking the law by blocking a path and/or street. I'm sure Law Enforcement gives plenty of warning to them. Like Lt. Pike on one youtube video going down the line of the students and informing them to comply to law. Tents are not a form of protest. Its squatting and there are laws against squatting.
Manchester, NH. I know an H&K MP5 or UMP when I see one.
And I don't see them regularly; but have seen them on multiple occasions in the worse neighborhoods of my city. IMO, if the situation calls for an MP5, it probably also calls for a helmet. If the situation has been contained and you're not wearing a helmet, you probably don't need to be standing casually on the street corner cradling an MP5.
Mannahnin wrote:
Submachineguns aren't needed for 99% of law enforcement activities in my city either, so why have I seen them in the streets of my city?
As you know, I'm from a town very near where Adepticon is hosted. This is the train station about a 10 minute walk from my house:
Monster Rain wrote:Of course, people don't mind the "militarization" of the fire department when service members are mobilized to fight fires in Southern California and elsewhere.
Probably because instead of pepper spraying the residents they sprayed water on their burning houses.
Kanluwen wrote:Machine guns aren't part of everyday law enforcement in a free society. Anyone who thinks they are needs a swift kick to the logic center.
.
Police as seen every day of the year at Heathrow Airport.
Kanluwen wrote:
First of all, those aren't plate carrying vests. Those are load distributing vests--also referred to as "tactical" vests.
If you're going to argue that's paramilitary, then hunters and fishermen are wannabes as many commercially available vests have the same build.
Gosh they are called tactical vests aren't they? I must have forgotten what tactical means; WEBSTER!
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary wrote:tac·ti·cal
adj \ˈtak-ti-kəl\
Definition of TACTICAL
1
: of or relating to combat tactics
I believe hunters and fishers wear what are called "hunting vests" and "fishing vests"
Oh wait, I guess "first of all" I might have mentioned that they are outer carriers, or would you like to opine that all three of them left their $1100 ballistic vests at home?
This Phoenix PD officer must have just returned from his DEA raid when he was called in for this photo op.
Kanluwen wrote:Considering it's a photo op and I don't have the context, I'd say it was purposely staged for a reason. It's very possible that the officer is a member of a SRT or SWAT team, and not actually a "patrol officer". It's also possible that the photo is used for recruitment brochures distributed within the Phoenix PD for SWAT or SRT.
Kanluwen wrote:Public perception of law enforcement does affect how they're equipped, but I can tell you don't really care about that. You're just interested in saying that they're "paramilitarized" and insisting that it is a "new thing", when in fact since the late 1800s police agencies HAVE been paramilitary based organizations in terms of rank and dress.
keep circling back to this as many times as you'd like. Fire fighters have ranks and wear uniforms and I havent heard any argument that firefighters are paramilitary organizations, but go on.
In 1930, they started adding "training" to that list as well. People tend to feel safer when they know that their police agencies are equipped for any potential situation.
Oh I see what you are driving at, what is it called when non-military agencies use military training? Oh I remember now:paramilitary.
Kanluwen wrote:Tactical vests mean nothing, as I said before. I can buy a tactical vest as a civilian.
Because people wearing tactical vests walking around the mall are such a common occurrence, I mean every time I see this guy I just think to myself, "My what a well adjusted, normal member of society"
Kanluwen wrote:I can't buy a Kevlar vest or plate inserts for a tac vest(legally) though.
That's odd, I can. You must live in a different United States or Connecticut.
Kanluwen wrote:All a tactical vest means is that the officer has a fairly relaxed dress code. A "tac" vest is far more comfortable in many cases than all the trimmings you used to see on officers' belts.
It also means that instead of choosing a uniform style external carrier that the department deliberately choose a tactical style carrier.
Kanluwen wrote:Context is important.
Why are they at Mesa City Hall?
From the look, it appears that they are going to a briefing of some kind or potentially providing security for a meeting at City Hall.
60 deputies and posse members armed with search warrants stormed City Hall and the public library in the middle of the night in a hunt for illegal workers.
City hall: den of thieves, harbor of illegal immigrants, and all around danger to society.
Kanluwen wrote:
AustonT wrote:Remember this one?
If you're going to argue militarization, you picked one of the worst possible examples.
The uniform has nothing military associated with it. The only "military" item one could associate with Pike is the helmet and lapel insignia. He's not wearing combat boots, he's not wearing a BDU, etc. He's wearing a button-up dress shirt with a rank insignia and badge on it and what looks like dress slacks and dress shoes.
He's wearing a helmet with a visor on it. He's wearing a belt with very little in the way of stuff on it: seemingly four small clips for a service issue pistol, likely a Beretta M9 which means around 32(8 shots per clip) shots total, and the pistol firmly secured in his holster.
The gloves he's wearing are likely puncture proof nitrile or leather, mostly worn when potentially dealing with searching individuals or taking them into custody.
I'm glad you pointed all that out, he's in "Riot Gear" and noticably less militarized in appearance than say...any picture I've posted vice the DPS officers. Point made for me; thank you.
Monster Rain wrote:Just saying that "militarization" isn't always a bad thing.
Sure, but militarization of the police is potentially dangerous and as a trend is a cause of reasonable concern. It can result in engendering attitudes in officers which are contrary to their best performance of their jobs in the community, and exacerbating tensions between them and the citizenry. Up-arming them can result in more fearful citizens, and risk greater danger if that force is misused due to bad judgment.
Monster Rain wrote:Also, no one from the military has pepper sprayed any OWS protesters AFAIK.
I don't think anyone here is demonizing the military. We're wargamers; most of us admire the military.
Kanluwen wrote:Machine guns aren't part of everyday law enforcement in a free society. Anyone who thinks they are needs a swift kick to the logic center.
.
Police as seen every day of the year at Heathrow Airport.
A depressing sight indeed.
I remember being a lad and getting on a plane to Spain was as easy as getting on the train.
Alas.. 9/11 really did change the world in more ways than one.
Monster Rain wrote:Just saying that "militarization" isn't always a bad thing.
Sure, but militarization of the police is potentially dangerous and as a trend is a cause of reasonable concern. It can result in engendering attitudes in officers which are contrary to their best performance of their jobs in the community, and exacerbating tensions between them and the citizenry. Up-arming them can result in more fearful citizens, and risk greater danger if that force is misused due to bad judgment.
Surely they have reason to be making the changes that they are making?
I doubt they'd be able to get the city to spend money on submachine guns if they just wanted them in order to frighten law-abiding citizens.
Jihadin wrote:Damn..they gave him a bad rifle. Army tried the collapsing buttstock on the M16's but constant use breaks the buttstock...wait...constant use...
Did they? I thought there was just a warning to make a conversion from parts in the TM because the buffer and spring assembly from the M4 aren't tuned to the gas tube of an M16. Cant remeber if it's too fast for too slow but it messes with lock time, prety sure it causes failure to eject.
If use on an M16 caused breakage would it reasonably have the same problem on M4s?
edit
Nice shotgun though...beanbag rounds are fun to see on impact
you saw that too?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Why do both of those cops at Heatrow look like neandertards?
Monster Rain wrote:
I doubt they'd be able to get the city to spend money on submachine guns if they just wanted them in order to frighten law-abiding citizens.
City politicians benefit from the "tough on crime" stance just as much as national ones.
Kanluwen wrote:And I suggest you read my statement again.
Comparing this movement to the Civil Rights movement is downright asinine.
No it's not. That's an insulting and I think deeply misguided statement. Both are nonviolent protest movements seeking to cause social change in response to social injustice.
The difference is that one was in fact a known, proven social injustice while the other is the realm of conspiracy theorists for the most part.
I don't think that characterization is at all accurate. It is not a conspiracy theory to observe that the banks (on and symbolized by Wall Street) were given bailouts with taxpayer money, and the people actually directly responsible for the financial crash of 2008 and its continuing aftereffects have not been held responsible. Neither criminally nor fiscally. They have been insulated from the consequences of reckless and dishonest acts, and the American middle class and poor are the ones continuing to suffer for it. Neither is it a conspiracy theory to observe the Citizens United ruling and see that is paves the way for more money and financial influence on elections from corporate and moneyed interests. Neither is it a conspiracy theory to observe that the majority of people in Congress are millionaires, and to be concerned that the way they represent the interests of their constituents is insufficiently taking into account the needs and interests of the people who have less money; which is the vast majority of us.
"Known, proven social injustice" I think is another misguided statement. The authorities and the white electorate in the South evidently did not think Jim Crow laws were unjust. Those laws had to be protested against to make the point that they were unjust and to force social change.
Kanluwen wrote:Is the government a bit more receptive to the economic quarter's problems than society at large? Of course. But you don't solve that by "occupying" Wall Street. You solve that by trying to push for more transparency in the ties between the political quarter and economic quarter's links, and then pushing to sever those ties ensuring that business does not get a toehold in politics again.
Want to tell that to MLK's son? Let's paraphrase that: "You don't change Jim Crow laws by marching in the streets or assembling in crowds on the National Mall. You do it by trying to push for more justice in the courts and in the legislature, then pushing to sever the ties of racists to politics." Do you see how that sounds? If the racists were entrenched (and they were) or the moneyed interests entrenched (and they are), then protesting publicly is a critical tool. How else do you push for those changes? Could a black man in Georgia in 1960 realistically run for office and have a chance at changing the system from the inside? Can the average middle-class American afford to run for Congress and have a prayer of winning a seat and making changes from within?
If I don't have money, but I have time, I can go out and protest. I don't personally have the time available to go protest, but I do have enough time to write letters to my representatives, and I have a few minutes this weekend to write comments like this to try to change the minds of guys like you and Monster Rain, who I think are reasonable and intelligent human beings, and whose opinions on this I honestly find misguided and disappointing.
Okay. Once again I think you've missed the point I'm getting across.
The Civil Rights movement knew what they were doing was illegal. They knew they would be facing the reactions they would be especially in Georgia, Arkansas, and Alabama.
The "Occupy Wall Street" movement is acting as though the reactions by the police [b]in enforcing the law of these areas which does not allow establishment of "settlements" without permits" are violating their Constitutional rights.
That's why I think comparing the two is asinine. Any reaction by the police is complained about as being completely and utterly unnecessary, even though in this case it's now established that what the officers said (their statement of "they were surrounded and being impeded from leaving") is in fact the truth and they behaved in good faith.
Kanluwen wrote:Another thing that irks me with the Civil Rights movement comparison is that these protesters are purposely provoking a reaction that is acceptable within any and all police department procedures for dispersing groups of people and then acting as if their Constitutional rights are being violated afterwards.
You're painting with an excessively-broad brush here, Kan. SOME of the protestors are undoubtedly provoking reactions they deserve. Others are undeniably peacefully protesting and getting inappropriately violent responses from trained professionals who should know better. In some cases they are undoubtedly breaking laws (like trespassing at Zucotti Park) in the belief that they are doing so as their best way of expressing their First Amendment rights to protest and to peacefully assemble. When the city allowed them to do so for an extended period, it seemed to grand tacit acknowledgment that this was a legitimate assembly under the First Amendment. Some lawyers, including ones part of or supportive of OWS, believe this to be a legitimate and legal protest. If a given protestor, in light of legal opinion or the city's tacit having allowed the overnight protests for an extended period, sees that seemingly granted/acknowledged right taken away suddenly, are they really out of line to complain that their Constitutional rights have been violated? Now, they may well be WRONG. But to pretend that they don't have any reason for thinking their protest/occupation was legal or legitimate is, I think, ill-considered at best and disingenuous at worst.
OF COURSE lawyers "part of or supportive of OWS" are saying that it's a legitimate or legal protest.
Kanluwen wrote:
You could make an argument that the things the Civil Rights movement were trying to change are worse, of course. You could absolutely make the point that the responses to them were frequently more brutal, but if I (as an example) stand up and nonviolently protest something, and a police officer responds by either pepper-spraying me or sicking a dog on me, it's still an inappropriate and violent response. The dog or the bullet is certainly worse than pepper spray or a punch, but that doesn't make the less-violent but still violent response okay or appropriate.
To continually equate pepper spray to actual violence is silly. Does it involve potentially injuring someone?
Yes, it does. Would you like me to pepper spray you for fun? To try to pretend that it's not "actual violence" is offensive and absurd. Sure it's less dangerous and less injurious. That doesn't mean it's not painful. Or do you think pain doesn't count as violence if it doesn't cause lasting injury? You can't really believe that.
So would you rather they used their fists or batons?
The reason pepper spray is utilized is it's a "measurable force". We know what is being applied. We know how it affects individuals based on the quantities used.
Punches and batons can't reasonably measured when used in the field. It comes down to eyewitness and "expert" testimony.
And for the record, I've been sprayed with pepper spray. A few times actually when doing volunteer stuff with the RPD's training sessions to get extra credit for some of my law enforcement certification courses.
It's not that bad. It's uncomfortable, but for the most part it feels like a bad sunburn when you do not irritate it. People being people though, immediately start rubbing at their eyes, trying to use water to wash it out, etc. That makes it worse.
Kanluwen wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:And no one is being killed for their beliefs.
Sure. As I said, the situation was certainly WORSE in the 60s. That doesn't mean the two movements are totally dissimilar.
Thinking they're similar does not necessarily mean they are, Mannahnin. That's what I've been trying to get across for quite awhile now.
Of course not. But you've also opined that they're not comparable, and gone further than that by claiming that any comparison is being "asinine". I disagree, and I take exception to your discourtesy. They are both nonviolent, public protest movements attempting to make social change by the means of creating a visible spectacle and demonstrate people's personal commitment to put themselves outside, exposed to the risk of arrest and potential violent response, in the pursuit of that change.
Once again.
It's the behavior of the OWS crowd that makes this so silly. You're right, maybe asinine is too discourteous or strong--but let's face it. There's a crowd of people violating the law and protesting, at this point, the fact that they were arrested for breaking laws when they first started protesting.
Machine guns aren't part of everyday law enforcement in a free society. Anyone who thinks they are needs a swift kick to the logic center.
I'm going with regular police officers on their normal duty day in public enforcing laws on this.
Airport Security is a different animal.
Tactical vest is a load bearing vest and does not protect vitals so is not "body armor" vest...btw..ebay has a nice selection of tactical body armor. Unless your looking for military specific
M16 with the M4 buttstock. It was the spring from the M16 cracking the M4 buttstock I was told. I asked this question to on one of our many "NCOPD" trining moment around the barrel fire
Why do both of those cops at Heatrow look like neandertards?
One looks like Bull from Night Court.....think its the hats...look how far the brims are down to their nose
Monster Rain wrote:Yeah, but that's more from a standpoint of sentencing though isn't it?
I know that in New Hampshire, particularly, the populace would have a dim view of spending tax money unnecessarily.
I've only very rarely heard a politician criticized for spending too much on law enforcement, and the most conservative state I've lived in is Minnesota (where there's a a viable labor party). This is further borne out by national surveys, which generally show law enforcement and crime prevention as issues with 70% or greater approval, especially at the local level.
Basically, if you want to get into politics, a safe bet for a platform is "tough on crime", which means that money for law enforcement is relatively easy to secure (so long as it doesn't involve raising taxes).
dogma wrote:I've only very rarely heard a politician criticized for spending too much on law enforcement, and the most conservative state I've lived in is Minnesota (where there's a a viable labor party). This is further borne out by national surveys, which generally show law enforcement and crime prevention as issues with 70% or greater approval, especially at the local level.
Basically, if you want to get into politics, a safe bet for a platform is "tough on crime", which means that money for law enforcement is relatively easy to secure (so long as it doesn't involve raising taxes).
Putting more 'bobbies on the beat' is always popular. Campaigning as being 'tough on crime' helps separate you from the other politicians who campaign as being 'soft on crime'.
dogma wrote:I've only very rarely heard a politician criticized for spending too much on law enforcement, and the most conservative state I've lived in is Minnesota (where there's a a viable labor party).
New Hampshah is a pretty different place.
I have heard people rant, quite vocally, about the amount spent on the police.
Kanluwen wrote:The Civil Rights movement knew what they were doing was illegal. They knew they would be facing the reactions they would be especially in Georgia, Arkansas, and Alabama.
The "Occupy Wall Street" movement is acting as though the reactions by the police [b]in enforcing the law of these areas which does not allow establishment of "settlements" without permits" are violating their Constitutional rights.
That's why I think comparing the two is asinine. Any reaction by the police is complained about as being completely and utterly unnecessary, even though in this case it's now established that what the officers said (their statement of "they were surrounded and being impeded from leaving") is in fact the truth and they behaved in good faith.
You can non-violently allow yourself to be arrested and still complain that the law under which you have been arrested is unjust and unconstitutional. That's part of the darn point of getting arrested. That people see on the news that nice, reasonable, everyday people like themselves are being arrested and prosecuted unjustly, which hopefully serves as motivation to change the laws.
I certainly agree that the focus of the OWS movement shouldn't be focused on the laws regarding public spaces and trespassing. Absolutely that distracts from the more important points. But the right of ordinary people to peacefully and publicly assemble and petition the government (and the public) for redress of grievances is not a trivial thing. Again, I'm not a millionaire; I don't have the money to make my voice heard the way a millionaire can. But if I'm passionate enough about an issue I can expend my time and put my body and my face in that crowd, and hopefully draw attention to a problem which needs fixing. OWS people being willing to camp on the site of their protest and devote weeks on end to the cause is a demonstration of their commitment to it. It's absolutely akin to people in the Civil Rights Movement traveling to march in protests down the streets of Southern cities.
Am I glad that today's protestors aren't being met with dogs, water hoses, and truncheons? Absolutely. I think today's cops are (by and large) better people and better trained than the scumbags who were enforcers for racist laws and policies. But that doesn't mean that we should dismiss or disregard the comparison if and when today's officers do make inappropriate use of force.
Kanluwen wrote:Another thing that irks me with the Civil Rights movement comparison is that these protesters are purposely provoking a reaction that is acceptable within any and all police department procedures for dispersing groups of people and then acting as if their Constitutional rights are being violated afterwards.
You're painting with an excessively-broad brush here, Kan. SOME of the protestors are undoubtedly provoking reactions they deserve. Others are undeniably peacefully protesting and getting inappropriately violent responses from trained professionals who should know better. In some cases they are undoubtedly breaking laws (like trespassing at Zucotti Park) in the belief that they are doing so as their best way of expressing their First Amendment rights to protest and to peacefully assemble. When the city allowed them to do so for an extended period, it seemed to grand tacit acknowledgment that this was a legitimate assembly under the First Amendment. Some lawyers, including ones part of or supportive of OWS, believe this to be a legitimate and legal protest. If a given protestor, in light of legal opinion or the city's tacit having allowed the overnight protests for an extended period, sees that seemingly granted/acknowledged right taken away suddenly, are they really out of line to complain that their Constitutional rights have been violated? Now, they may well be WRONG. But to pretend that they don't have any reason for thinking their protest/occupation was legal or legitimate is, I think, ill-considered at best and disingenuous at worst.
OF COURSE lawyers "part of or supportive of OWS" are saying that it's a legitimate or legal protest.
Okay, so if you are engaged in a questionably-legal protest, and your lawyer tells you that the law which forbids your form of protest is unconstitutional (at least in this application), and the police and city of New York for several weeks or months let you do it, do you not have reasonable grounds to believe that what you are doing is legal and Constitutionally-protected? Are you crazy and unreasonable to complain when one day your sit-in style protest is permitted, and the next suddenly it's not?
Kanluwen wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
You could absolutely make the point that the responses to them were frequently more brutal, but if I (as an example) stand up and nonviolently protest something, and a police officer responds by either pepper-spraying me or sicking a dog on me, it's still an inappropriate and violent response. The dog or the bullet is certainly worse than pepper spray or a punch, but that doesn't make the less-violent but still violent response okay or appropriate.
To continually equate pepper spray to actual violence is silly. Does it involve potentially injuring someone?
Yes, it does. Would you like me to pepper spray you for fun? To try to pretend that it's not "actual violence" is offensive and absurd. Sure it's less dangerous and less injurious. That doesn't mean it's not painful. Or do you think pain doesn't count as violence if it doesn't cause lasting injury? You can't really believe that.
So would you rather they used their fists or batons?
The reason pepper spray is utilized is it's a "measurable force". We know what is being applied. We know how it affects individuals based on the quantities used.
You're dodging the point. I know exactly why it's supposed to be used and I'm glad it's an available tool. The point is that it can be and has been used inappropriately. Look at the photo of the officer just spraying down the row of people sitting peacefully on the ground (well; one's not sitting; that one's lying bleeding and injured on the ground). That guy should lose his badge. He has foresworn his oath of service.
Kanluwen wrote:
Mannahnin wrote: They are both nonviolent, public protest movements attempting to make social change by the means of creating a visible spectacle and demonstrate people's personal commitment to put themselves outside, exposed to the risk of arrest and potential violent response, in the pursuit of that change.
Once again.
It's the behavior of the OWS crowd that makes this so silly. You're right, maybe asinine is too discourteous or strong--but let's face it. There's a crowd of people violating the law and protesting, at this point, the fact that they were arrested for breaking laws when they first started protesting.
Again, most of them had reasonably convincing evidence to believe that their protest was legal, or constituted a legitimate exception to the law in question on Free Speech grounds. In my opinion the behavior of most of the protestors has not been particularly objectionable or unreasonable. Do you think the Tea Party guys who held up signs equating Obama to Hitler or declaring that his plans included "white slavery" were representative of the entire movement? The most extreme nutjobs in both movements get the most screentime and news coverage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:Yeah, but that's more from a standpoint of sentencing though isn't it?
I know that in New Hampshire, particularly, the populace would have a dim view of spending tax money unnecessarily.
Among some segments of the NH populace, but Libertarians are in the minority even here. "Get tough on crime" works fine here too. The reason we have such strict DWI laws is that one of our former Attorneys General made his career on making those laws stricter and more punitive. The Manchester PD is well-equipped.
Mannahnin wrote:
You can non-violently allow yourself to be arrested and still complain that the law under which you have been arrested is unjust and unconstitutional. That's part of the darn point of getting arrested. That people see on the news that nice, reasonable, everyday people like themselves are being arrested and prosecuted unjustly, which hopefully serves as motivation to change the laws.
Except they're not being arrested or prosecuted unjustly. They're being arrested (I haven't seen much in the way of prosecutions though) for doing something illegal.
I certainly agree that the focus of the OWS movement shouldn't be focused on the laws regarding public spaces and trespassing. Absolutely that distracts from the more important points. But the right of ordinary people to peacefully and publicly assemble and petition the government (and the public) for redress of grievances is not a trivial thing. Again, I'm not a millionaire; I don't have the money to make my voice heard the way a millionaire can. But if I'm passionate enough about an issue I can expend my time and put my body and my face in that crowd, and hopefully draw attention to a problem which needs fixing. OWS people being willing to camp on the site of their protest and devote weeks on end to the cause is a demonstration of their commitment to it.
Then why didn't they get the permits to do it? If they're so organized--they can do it.
They likely didn't get the permits simply because they knew there's no way any city would agree to people freaking camping out in public parks. It's not a question of squashing resistance or whatever ridiculousness gets spread about it. They present problems for sanitation, law enforcement (look at the reports of crime at some of these camps. We've got reports of rapes and more), and the community in question housing the protests.
It's absolutely akin to people in the Civil Rights Movement traveling to march in protests down the streets of Southern cities.
We're going to have to disagree on this point I guess. This really is sticking in my craw.
Am I glad that today's protestors aren't being met with dogs, water hoses, and truncheons? Absolutely. I think today's cops are (by and large) better people and better trained than the scumbags who were enforcers for racist laws and policies. But that doesn't mean that we should dismiss or disregard the comparison if and when today's officers do make inappropriate use of force.
You have yet to show that pepper spray's an "inappropriate use of force".
I know. You consider it to be, but that's not really an acceptable way to go.
OF COURSE lawyers "part of or supportive of OWS" are saying that it's a legitimate or legal protest.
Okay, so if you are engaged in a questionably-legal protest, and your lawyer tells you that the law which forbids your form of protest is unconstitutional (at least in this application), and the police and city of New York for several weeks or months let you do it, do you not have reasonable grounds to believe that what you are doing is legal and Constitutionally-protected? Are you crazy and unreasonable to complain when one day your sit-in style protest is permitted, and the next suddenly it's not?
Yep. Most likely because as we saw in the case of Zucatti Park, they were given a set of conditions to maintain in order to retain their "campout". When things went past that--police and city government are obligated to step in.
Your potential "freedom of speech" does not override the safety or well-being and convenience of everyone else.
Kanluwen wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
You could absolutely make the point that the responses to them were frequently more brutal, but if I (as an example) stand up and nonviolently protest something, and a police officer responds by either pepper-spraying me or sicking a dog on me, it's still an inappropriate and violent response. The dog or the bullet is certainly worse than pepper spray or a punch, but that doesn't make the less-violent but still violent response okay or appropriate.
To continually equate pepper spray to actual violence is silly. Does it involve potentially injuring someone?
Yes, it does. Would you like me to pepper spray you for fun? To try to pretend that it's not "actual violence" is offensive and absurd. Sure it's less dangerous and less injurious. That doesn't mean it's not painful. Or do you think pain doesn't count as violence if it doesn't cause lasting injury? You can't really believe that.
So would you rather they used their fists or batons?
The reason pepper spray is utilized is it's a "measurable force". We know what is being applied. We know how it affects individuals based on the quantities used.
You're dodging the point. I know exactly why it's supposed to be used and I'm glad it's an available tool. The point is that it can be and has been used inappropriately. Look at the photo of the officer just spraying down the row of people sitting peacefully on the ground (well; one's not sitting; that one's lying bleeding and injured on the ground). That guy should lose his badge. He has foresworn his oath of service.
...
I really hope you're not referring to this photo:
That's red paint, Mannahnin. If you ever see someone bleeding that bright a shade of red--they're an alien. Not to mention that if someone was bleeding that badly from the start, there'd likely be a big issue on the part of a death.
And without knowing what kind of pepper spray that is, I can't say exactly how strong it is. Given that it appears to be an aerosol rather than liquid (like most pepper sprays are), I'd say it's fairly weak.
Jihadin wrote:Tactical vest is a load bearing vest and does not protect vitals so is not "body armor" vest...btw..ebay has a nice selection of tactical body armor. Unless your looking for military specific
We think of a full on OTV as the only way to fly. Some officer and god forbid probably some NCO thought side plates, and water wings were good ideas too. Don't be fooled into thinking that if it doesn't look like OUR duck that it isn't one. There are plate carriers that look like uniform shirts without close inspection.
M16 with the M4 buttstock. It was the spring from the M16 cracking the M4 buttstock I was told. I asked this question to on one of our many "NCOPD" trining moment around the barrel fire
I remember running into a specific warning in either the -23 or -40 NOT to try a conversion. Its been a day or two, I'll bet that cop has a working conversion, maybe a longer buffer tube and a proper buffer and spring. If I remember those style rifles are called "dissipators"
The only real question is "why." the answer is actually pretty easy M4's don't work quite as smoothly as Colt would like you to believe. Something for another thread.
Mannahnin wrote: Look at the photo of the officer just spraying down the row of people sitting peacefully on the ground (well; one's not sitting; that one's lying bleeding and injured on the ground). That guy should lose his badge. He has foresworn his oath of service.
Eh, I don't know. He didn't look like he was doing that out of malice, he looked like he was doing that out of obligation. That's tenuous, but my guess is that there was an order to remove the protesters, and the the guy with the extra-strength Raid followed it. He's under some sort of moral hazard, but probably not enough to deserve being fired. I mean, he did what he was told with the least possible force, at least if my interpretation is correct and we're talking about the guy spraying the protesters obstructing the sidewalk.
Mannahnin wrote:
The reason we have such strict DWI laws is that one of our former Attorneys General made his career on making those laws stricter and more punitive. The Manchester PD is well-equipped.
If only I weren't a young long-hair, I too could have a political career.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:
And without knowing what kind of pepper spray that is, I can't say exactly how strong it is. Given that it appears to be an aerosol rather than liquid (like most pepper sprays are), I'd say it's fairly weak.
The only distinction between aerosol and non-aerosol pepper spray is pressurization, there is no reason to assume its a weak formula on that basis.
Monster Rain wrote:Yeah, but that's more from a standpoint of sentencing though isn't it?
I know that in New Hampshire, particularly, the populace would have a dim view of spending tax money unnecessarily.
No, sub-machine guns give the impression that you are serious about enforcement. Perception is reality to voters.
Edit: For the record, I don't think Lt. Pike should be fired. I do think, a serious review of the chain of command, and perhaps the Chancellor of the school being fired is much more warranted. The problem is not the officer, it is the person or groups of people who initially gave him the orders to clear the protesters.
If Pike gets fired the Police Union will sue his employer (State of California or University of California guess it depends on who pays the bill) and he'll have a ridiculous multi-million dollar pension. You can 't fire public workers for executing thier duties inside the framework you provide them with, otherwise teachers stop teaching and firefighters stop going into burning buildings for fear of losing thier job whilst doing it.
Kilkrazy wrote:There is also a discussion to be had around the use of pepper spray for physical coercion of non-violent, unmoving suspects.
Unmoving, but breaking the law. Pepper spray is very low on the escalation of force scale. What do you propose, should the police not do their jobs unless the perps are violent? If they should do their jobs, what tool do you want them to use that limits harm to the perp and does not expose the cop to undue risk?
The video is interesting. First lieutenant pike, the brave soul, pepper sprays the students, then the other police move in and cuff them and remove them. The police could have just skipped the pepper-spray. The kafka-esque part of this is that lying prone is considered "active resistance" according to the police "matrix of force" and thus justifies the application of pepper-spray. Surreal.
We think of a full on OTV as the only way to fly. Some officer and god forbid probably some NCO thought side plates, and water wings were good ideas too. Don't be fooled into thinking that if it doesn't look like OUR duck that it isn't one. There are plate carriers that look like uniform shirts without close inspection.
Damn a mind set. Thanks for the correction. Guess we're all a product of our environment
AustonT wrote:If Pike gets fired the Police Union will sue his employer (State of California or University of California guess it depends on who pays the bill) and he'll have a ridiculous multi-million dollar pension. You can 't fire public workers for executing thier duties inside the framework you provide them with, otherwise teachers stop teaching and firefighters stop going into burning buildings for fear of losing thier job whilst doing it.
The person running the campus states that she gave instructions to the police prior to the raid not to use any force. If that is truly the case and the Chief of Police as well as Pike were informed of that mandate, then they have really nothing to sue over.
Of course we are now in the "cover your a**" phase of the incident, so who knows what will happen.
If someone was smart they have written/documented a timeline up to the event. The standard operating procedure going to be scrutinized against the action of Lt. Pike ie did Lt. Pike follow all the steps that lead up to the event. One thing will go his way and not many people seen it. Was he did in fact go right down the line and informed each individual student.
Don't think of it as a correction, just free information. I met a guy going to ROTC while working as a full time Phoenix PD officer, dedicated man. Anyway I saw him once coming off duty and poked fun at his "tactical vest" which on him looked thinner and less substantial than ACU Molle. Then he showed me his ballistic inserts. I were surprised. Some of the police gear is hot stuff, we wont ever see it because it would be popular opinion suicide to reduce body armor below rifle protection. You know like making a high mobility all terrain vehicle without encumbering it with armor and then bending to the public will to bolt armor plating onto it making it into a low mobility road terrain vehicle instead of procuring mraps in the first place. /deep breath...
olympia wrote:The video is interesting. First lieutenant pike, the brave soul, pepper sprays the students, then the other police move in and cuff them and remove them. The police could have just skipped the pepper-spray. The kafka-esque part of this is that lying prone is considered "active resistance" according to the police "matrix of force" and thus justifies the application of pepper-spray. Surreal.
As I said, its a tough one for me. I dont generally support protester types, and if they full on refused to move despite being asked I can see why the rozzers would get annoyed. But at the same time, the pepper spray did just seem to be totally needless.
I think I would have handled it better. Surely an aggressive warning would have been enough? Something light hearted to break the ice, maybe like..
"Ok folks, the missus has got dinner on the table and if I'm late Ill never hear the end of it. As a result if your still here in 30 seconds I'm afraid I may have to start caving some heads in!"
olympia wrote:The video is interesting. First lieutenant pike, the brave soul, pepper sprays the students, then the other police move in and cuff them and remove them. The police could have just skipped the pepper-spray. The kafka-esque part of this is that lying prone is considered "active resistance" according to the police "matrix of force" and thus justifies the application of pepper-spray. Surreal.
As I said, its a tough one for me. I dont generally support protester types, and if they full on refused to move despite being asked I can see why the rozzers would get annoyed. But at the same time, the pepper spray did just seem to be totally needless.
I think I would have handled it better. Surely an aggressive warning would have been enough? Something light hearted to break the ice, maybe like..
"Ok folks, the missus has got dinner on the table and if I'm late Ill never hear the end of it. As a result if your still here in 30 seconds I'm afraid I may have to start caving some heads in!"
And after 30 seconds, when they haven't moved and don't show signs of doing so, what do you do?
Skip the pepper spray and go right to the nightsticks? That would have looked even better on video.
Better to explain what the next step is (which it appears is what was done) and then carry it out vice empty threats or skipping steps.
olympia wrote:The video is interesting. First lieutenant pike, the brave soul, pepper sprays the students, then the other police move in and cuff them and remove them. The police could have just skipped the pepper-spray. The kafka-esque part of this is that lying prone is considered "active resistance" according to the police "matrix of force" and thus justifies the application of pepper-spray. Surreal.
As I said, its a tough one for me. I dont generally support protester types, and if they full on refused to move despite being asked I can see why the rozzers would get annoyed. But at the same time, the pepper spray did just seem to be totally needless.
I think I would have handled it better. Surely an aggressive warning would have been enough? Something light hearted to break the ice, maybe like..
"Ok folks, the missus has got dinner on the table and if I'm late Ill never hear the end of it. As a result if your still here in 30 seconds I'm afraid I may have to start caving some heads in!"
I can't hear the what he says, but it appeared that the intrepid lieutenant tried that more than once.
resisting arrest n. the crime of using physical force (no matter how slight in the eyes of most law enforcement officers) to prevent arrest, handcuffing and/or taking the accused to jail. It is also called "resisting an officer" (but that can include interfering with a peace officer's attempt to keep the peace) and is sometimes referred to merely as "resisting."
Jihadin wrote:Mattyrm....is this you in the video?
resisting arrest n. the crime of using physical force (no matter how slight in the eyes of most law enforcement officers) to prevent arrest, handcuffing and/or taking the accused to jail. It is also called "resisting an officer" (but that can include interfering with a peace officer's attempt to keep the peace) and is sometimes referred to merely as "resisting."
Not me mate, Im light on my feet!
Regards the thread, I suppose pepper spray IS preferable to wading in with a truncheon..
Arresting requires some physical contact with the perp.
When that perp, either actively fights or passively refuses to be arrested (by linking arms with others, sitting, etc..) the arresting officer must use some level of force to coerce the person/people not willingly standinf up and holding out their hands for the cuffs.
At that point the officers must decide what level of force to use which will allow the arrest to be made without exposing the officer to undue risk and at the same time causing the least amount of harm to the perp being arrested.
Kilkrazy wrote:There is also a discussion to be had around the use of pepper spray for physical coercion of non-violent, unmoving suspects.
Unmoving, but breaking the law. Pepper spray is very low on the escalation of force scale. What do you propose, should the police not do their jobs unless the perps are violent? If they should do their jobs, what tool do you want them to use that limits harm to the perp and does not expose the cop to undue risk?
Yes, that is what I would advocate.
The police should act with discretion and caution, responding to violence with appropriate measures. It isn't acceptable to gas people for sitting across a pavement.
In this case the best course of action would have been to wait for the protestors to get tired and go away of their own accord.
Kilkrazy wrote:There is also a discussion to be had around the use of pepper spray for physical coercion of non-violent, unmoving suspects.
Unmoving, but breaking the law. Pepper spray is very low on the escalation of force scale. What do you propose, should the police not do their jobs unless the perps are violent? If they should do their jobs, what tool do you want them to use that limits harm to the perp and does not expose the cop to undue risk?
Yes, that is what I would advocate.
The police should act with discretion and caution, responding to violence with appropriate measures. It isn't acceptable to gas people for sitting across a pavement.
In this case the best course of action would have been to wait for the protestors to get tired and go away of their own accord.
Why have police if you are not going to have them enforce laws, if they can be defeated by just not actively commiting acts of violence? Sorry, that ends up not working well.
Remember, the cops HAD been patient and had asked nicely and had waited...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote:Indeed. Is the obstruction of a footpath worth pepper spraying people over? I don't really think so.
Obviously the kids felt obstructing the police from performing their duties was worth getting sprayed over... Remember, it was not just a handful of kids blocking the walk way, it was a bunch more surrounding the cops in an attempt to prevent them from carrying out their jobs...
The police decision to gas the crowd was perverse. The protesters were hog-tied after being gassed same as if they had not been gassed. Indeed cuffing someone writhing in pain is more difficult to than cuffing someone who is just lying there. So the police "matrix of force" looked something like this:
Is someone breaking the law? Yes---> Ask them to stop. Did they refuse? Yes---> Gas them ---> arrest them. You can take the "gas them" action out and you end up with the same result, and that paunchy feth Pike would not be on desk duty eating taco bell getting further away from ever completing that police mini-marathon for charity.
I'll ask again, more plainly since you didn't catch the question the first time.
How do you propose the police should have arrested the bunch of folks with joined arms and refusing to move?
How do you physically unlink their arms and move their bodies as they resist without hurting them?
What would your method have been?
As one of the protesters put it:
Well we were protesting together and the riot cops came at us and we linked arms and sat down peacefully to protest their presence on our campus. And then at one point they were – we had encircled them and they were trying to leave and they were trying to clear a path. And so we sat down, linked arms and said that if they wanted to clear the path they would have to go through us. But we were on the ground, you know, heads down and all I could see was people telling me to cover my head, protect myself and put my head down. And the next thing I know we were pepper-sprayed
I've watched the video a few times and the answer to your question, cptjake, is obvious. They would have been arrested the same way with or without gassing. Even after being gassed by Lieutenant Pike many of the protesters are still linking arms. Look at the video, striker. So the gassing did not, in fact, cause some of the protesters to unlink their arms. I'm sure the 'matrix of force' dictates that after gassing you start clubbing them but thankfully brave Pike showed some discretion and choose just to unlink the protesters the old-fashioned way and arrest them.
Yes, out of the blue. With no warning or the students laughing in thier face and chanting. Maybe this protester is an idiot, or deaf. The shrill scream of "protect your eyes, cover your mouth" apparently went unnoticed. Or perhaps the commenting protester thought a girls gone wild money shot was about to occur for the Occupy UC Davis GGW video...
AustonT wrote:funny they don't sound English...is that just my ears?
Hah!
Have you spent much time with the Limeys?
The medic has a broad Geordie accent, he's an Englishman alright.
Having spent a couple of years in the US, I would say that on a first meeting with an American, 50% think i'm Irish, then it's either Australian or Scottish, but very very few say England. The broad accents we have really confuses our American cousins. Indeed, the first two years of my relationship with my missus (Californian) she was constantly asking me to repeat myself to the point that it genuinely became annoying. And her parents are still constantly going "excuse me!?" They say that I speak too fast and I never pronounce Ts. Like we say "Caroons" instead of Cartoons, and once a girl in a restaurant said to me "er... what is a pu-ate-a?" (Potatoe)
Depending on where you are from in England, your voice sounds very different, Geordies are some of the hardest to understand though, they sound like Scottish people with brain damage!
You can learn them easily though, and several times I have been "pinged" when ive been in the States. Once I was at the zoo in Santa Barbara and I was trying to get the parrot to swear at me. This lady tapped me on the shoulder and said to me "Excuse me, is that a North-East England accent?" and I said "Bang on! How did you know?" "my daughter married a chap from Darlington and he sounds identical to you"
olympia wrote:I've watched the video a few times and the answer to your question, cptjake, is obvious. They would have been arrested the same way with or without gassing. Even after being gassed by Lieutenant Pike many of the protesters are still linking arms. Look at the video, striker. So the gassing did not, in fact, cause some of the protesters to unlink their arms. I'm sure the 'matrix of force' dictates that after gassing you start clubbing them but thankfully brave Pike showed some discretion and choose just to unlink the protesters the old-fashioned way and arrest them.
I guess I have to disagree with you. Without the pepper spray I assume (based on the words of the protesters) that they would not have been as easy to peel apart and arrest. Without the temporary incapacitaion from the spray they would not have been as easy to handle, and that could very well have resulted in physical damage/harm to either the folks protesting or the cops, well beyond the extent of what harm the spray caused.
Kilkrazy wrote:There is also a discussion to be had around the use of pepper spray for physical coercion of non-violent, unmoving suspects.
Unmoving, but breaking the law. Pepper spray is very low on the escalation of force scale. What do you propose, should the police not do their jobs unless the perps are violent? If they should do their jobs, what tool do you want them to use that limits harm to the perp and does not expose the cop to undue risk?
Yes, that is what I would advocate.
The police should act with discretion and caution, responding to violence with appropriate measures. It isn't acceptable to gas people for sitting across a pavement.
In this case the best course of action would have been to wait for the protestors to get tired and go away of their own accord.
Why have police if you are not going to have them enforce laws, if they can be defeated by just not actively commiting acts of violence? Sorry, that ends up not working well.
Remember, the cops HAD been patient and had asked nicely and had waited...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote:Indeed. Is the obstruction of a footpath worth pepper spraying people over? I don't really think so.
Obviously the kids felt obstructing the police from performing their duties was worth getting sprayed over... Remember, it was not just a handful of kids blocking the walk way, it was a bunch more surrounding the cops in an attempt to prevent them from carrying out their jobs...
I think there are more worthwhile crimes for the police to investigate than sitting on the pavement when asked to move on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote:
olympia wrote:I've watched the video a few times and the answer to your question, cptjake, is obvious. They would have been arrested the same way with or without gassing. Even after being gassed by Lieutenant Pike many of the protesters are still linking arms. Look at the video, striker. So the gassing did not, in fact, cause some of the protesters to unlink their arms. I'm sure the 'matrix of force' dictates that after gassing you start clubbing them but thankfully brave Pike showed some discretion and choose just to unlink the protesters the old-fashioned way and arrest them.
I guess I have to disagree with you. Without the pepper spray I assume (based on the words of the protesters) that they would not have been as easy to peel apart and arrest. Without the temporary incapacitaion from the spray they would not have been as easy to handle, and that could very well have resulted in physical damage/harm to either the folks protesting or the cops, well beyond the extent of what harm the spray caused.
You are starting from the idea that the demonstrators had to be moved.
If instead you decide to let them be, the whole situation would defuse itself.
The purpose of that kind of protest is to get itself violently opposed by the authorities.
Ahh, it's that droll to it that makes me think he was a Scot. I'm not afraid to admit I haven't spent much time around Brits at all, ran into more Aussies and Georgians than anything else non American in the box.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I did watch your intrepid RAF put a brand new C130 into the ground the hard way, and set it on fire by deploying flares just above the ground. Must have been a fantastic ride for the poor donkey-caves in side.
Ah, I take it you'd be alright with the police bopping you (or, say, your mother) on the head for minor infractions? Like, you're walking home drunk, and they just smack you in the head with a baton?Or an open handed smack in the face. Teach you not to do it again, it would!
Da Boss wrote:Ah, I take it you'd be alright with the police bopping you (or, say, your mother) on the head for minor infractions? Like, you're walking home drunk, and they just smack you in the head with a baton?Or an open handed smack in the face. Teach you not to do it again, it would!
It's a shame good old fashioned policing is a thing of the past.
Da Boss wrote:Ah, I take it you'd be alright with the police bopping you (or, say, your mother) on the head for minor infractions? Like, you're walking home drunk, and they just smack you in the head with a baton?Or an open handed smack in the face. Teach you not to do it again, it would!
Well, in all honesty, if good ol' Mom did not do what the cop asked, I would expect him to use the minimum force to get her to comply. Chances are that would be pepper spray or tazing vice a bop on the head. In the case of me personally, I would do what the cop asked...
Do what the cop asked or be willing to accept the consequences. What a concept.
corpsesarefun wrote:If I'm walking along being drunk and disorderly then yes I probably deserve a whack round the head...
Hey I am drunk and disorderly on a regular basis and I will have you know that I am a fine upstanding gentleman and a pillar of the communitaaaarrrrhhhh lend us ten pence.. forra.. cup o tea... yer ...yer me best mate.
My dad is an ex policeman, and he'd be shaking his head at these responses. There's ways and means lads, and you don't have to whack someone to get them to comply. The police are their to protect the peace, not enforce the government's will on you. The idea that you have to comply with every instruction given by a cop without question is...well, it's a bit Big Government for you lads, isn't it?
I mean, my dad has had to whack people, sure, but only ever to defend himself/someone else. He was in the riots in the seventies and fairly had to lay into the mob to protect himself and his colleagues, but that's orders of magnitude away from a load of students being silly buggers.
CptJake wrote:
Obviously the kids felt obstructing the police from performing their duties was worth getting sprayed over... Remember, it was not just a handful of kids blocking the walk way, it was a bunch more surrounding the cops in an attempt to prevent them from carrying out their jobs...
I think there are more worthwhile crimes for the police to investigate than sitting on the pavement when asked to move on.
Except these were cops specifically hired to police the campus, and at this specific time dealing with the protesters was what they were supposed to be doing...
Kilkrazy wrote:You are starting from the idea that the demonstrators had to be moved.
If instead you decide to let them be, the whole situation would defuse itself.
The purpose of that kind of protest is to get itself violently opposed by the authorities.
Except, in the words of the protester I quoted above, the cops were being surrounded and blocked from leaving, pretty much ensuring they had to do something other than stand there ineffectively. The cops had been told to get rid of the protesters. They had legal justification for doing so. The prptesters did not want to be left alone, if they did they would have left an out for the cops vice blocking their way. They would have unassed the path when asked to and continued their protest without being sprayed or arrested. Freedom of choice (to disobey the cops and block their route) but no freedom from consequences.
Except all the evidence at this time does not back up the "we were surrounded" argument. And if there is a group that is doing nothing but sitting, and a second larger group that is surrounding you and placing you in danger, why spray the peaceful passive group?
Did they even try to make a single arrest before Pike hit everyone with the spray? There was no aggressive posturing, no sign of active resistance from any of the protesters. Talking to the cops that I know the recommended procedure would have been this:
Go to the last person in line, and try to arrest them. Tell that person that he is under arrest, and have two officers take his/her arms, place cuffs, and remove from the line. Repeat the process until everyone is arrested.
If the person resists, then you spray. If the whole crowd acts up, then you spray the whole crowd.
Preemptive use of force to ensure compliance later is not justified.
Da Boss wrote:The police are their to protect the peace, not enforce the government's will on you. The idea that you have to comply with every instruction given by a cop without question is...well, it's a bit Big Government for you lads, isn't it?
That so many in this thread seem to not only approve, but also very much cheer for the latter is rather... unsettling.
Da Boss wrote:My dad is an ex policeman, and he'd be shaking his head at these responses. There's ways and means lads, and you don't have to whack someone to get them to comply. The police are their to protect the peace, not enforce the government's will on you. The idea that you have to comply with every instruction given by a cop without question is...well, it's a bit Big Government for you lads, isn't it?
They're not "enforcing the government's will on you".
Protecting the peace is not simply stepping in against violent crimes. If it was, then why would police ever investigate non-violent crimes?
And yes. You do have to "comply with every instruction given by a cop without question" when you're not wanting to be arrested.
I mean, my dad has had to whack people, sure, but only ever to defend himself/someone else. He was in the riots in the seventies and fairly had to lay into the mob to protect himself and his colleagues, but that's orders of magnitude away from a load of students being silly buggers.
And again we get to the meat of it.
When it's someone we can readily associate to(students or regular folk), it's a "great injustice" and the police are "out of line". The students were told to leave the UC Davis plaza. Police came in to remove them, and had students sitting down in front of them obstructing them from performing the job they were there to do(remove the students who refused to leave and were still camping there). When those students saw the police leaving, they hemmed them in and sat down--provoking the response.
Unless, of course, you're suggesting the police should have ran them over with the patrol car or laid into them with the riot batons. Pepper spray was the only acceptable, reasonable means of resolving the situation. As more video has been released, it's become clear that Pike(the officer doing the spraying) told the students to move so that he and his men could either do their job or leave three times. The students refused to do that--so rather than make a violent and potentially permanent response, they opted for the short-term response which causes the least amount of force to be utilized and does nothing more than inconvenience someone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:Except all the evidence at this time does not back up the "we were surrounded" argument. And if there is a group that is doing nothing but sitting, and a second larger group that is surrounding you and placing you in danger, why spray the peaceful passive group?
Did they even try to make a single arrest before Pike hit everyone with the spray? There was no aggressive posturing, no sign of active resistance from any of the protesters. Talking to the cops that I know the recommended procedure would have been this:
Go to the last person in line, and try to arrest them. Tell that person that he is under arrest, and have two officers take his/her arms, place cuffs, and remove from the line. Repeat the process until everyone is arrested.
If the person resists, then you spray. If the whole crowd acts up, then you spray the whole crowd.
Preemptive use of force to ensure compliance later is not justified.
And we now have one of the students themselves saying that they DID in fact surround the officers. AustonT posted the link to Democracynow.org earlier.
Kan, I know it's not just stepping in on violent crimes. At the same time, there's a world of subtlety between pepper spray and the other options. I don't think we're really going to agree readily on this one though.
It's not true that I must comply with every instruction given to me by a cop without question. In my own country, at least, I am allowed to question the Gardaí. Some of them might not like it of course, but it is not illegal to do so.
I'd completely disagree with your second point too- I think you took what I said and put your own spin on it in your post, which is aggravating, but perhaps that is what you took from what I said. It is my belief that effective policing stems from the respect of the populace. This respect is earned through always holding yourself to a high standard and acting with restraint and understanding. You CAN go all out, but it's poor policing in my view.
I do think however there is a disconnect between my experience of the police, growing up in a village in Ireland and later moving to Dublin, and the experience of policing in the states where violent crimes are much more common and police get shot at with regularity. It's still a rare enough thing here that it will always make the evening news, and it is a major news item whenever a policeman gets shot. So they perhaps don't have the same siege mentality I can imagine creeping in in the states.
(Is it just me or are all public service jobs in the States just hell? I'd hate to be a teacher in a lot of states there, too)
Da Boss wrote:
I do think however there is a disconnect between my experience of the police, growing up in a village in Ireland and later moving to Dublin, and the experience of policing in the states where violent crimes are much more common and police get shot at with regularity. It's still a rare enough thing here that it will always make the evening news, and it is a major news item whenever a policeman gets shot. So they perhaps don't have the same siege mentality I can imagine creeping in in the states.
Of course, we also have to remember that police forfeit their right to defend themselves to the fullest extent of their own reason upon becoming police. They serve, and place themselves at hazard, at the discretion of the state. Or, they're supposed to anyway, in practice there is oversight only in exceptional circumstances.
Da Boss wrote:
(Is it just me or are all public service jobs in the States just hell? I'd hate to be a teacher in a lot of states there, too)
I imagine its connected to the general dislike of government we have over here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:Gaining "the respect of the populace" is impossible when the "populace" in this case alters every 4-6 years.
That's also false. Institutions earn general respect all over the world. Its harder for the police because they enforce laws, but not impossible by way of circumstance.
Kanluwen wrote:
This is a college. The populace does not stay the same, and there are various subcultures present to begin with.
Generally colleges maintain consistent demographics over time. The specific people change, but the type of people do not, not rapidly anyway.
Of course, college kids generally have a largely adversarial relationship with police, which is why many campuses employ security guards in order to handle minor incidents; preventing students from suffering major consequences.
Mannahnin wrote:Am I glad that today's protestors aren't being met with dogs, water hoses, and truncheons? Absolutely. I think today's cops are (by and large) better people and better trained than the scumbags who were enforcers for racist laws and policies. But that doesn't mean that we should dismiss or disregard the comparison if and when today's officers do make inappropriate use of force.
You have yet to show that pepper spray's an "inappropriate use of force".
If used on a person who's peaceably sitting on the ground and committing no violent act, it's an inappropriate use of force.
Kanluwen wrote:Your potential "freedom of speech" does not override the safety or well-being and convenience of everyone else.
There is a dangerous and undemocratic line you're treading here. You are muddling two different things. Certainly my right to Free Speech does not override people's right to safety. It absolutely does override their convenience. If your right to save a couple of minutes by being able to walk through the protest area instead of around is more important than my right to assemble in protest, than we're not in America anymore. If my right to the convenience of eating at the lunch counter without black people around making a scene and blocking the counter trumps the right of said black people to protest a racist establishment, then we're not upholding our principles.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
CptJake wrote:
How do you propose the police should have arrested the bunch of folks with joined arms and refusing to move?
I believe the summary response is "They should not have been arrested."
Alternately, if they really HAD to remove them, as was pointed out before, you can skip the whole spraying step if the people aren't violently resisting. Put the kid's hands behind his back, cuff him, lift him up by his arms and walk him away. You can put his hands behind his back without hurting him; there are really basic Aikido and Jujitsu locks and maneuvers you can do to manipulate a person's arms into the necessary positions without pain or injury. If the person violently resists, then you can make use of the minimum necessary force (which might be pepper spray).
When my mother was director of training at the local youth detention/ juvenile residential correctional facility here in the 80s, the staff were all trained in what was called "Management of Aggressive Behavior". It was a set of basic maneuvers derived from Aikido and Judo, to restrain and move a kid who was flipping out and irrational, without injuring said kid. It was almost all two-person techniques, but if the protestors aren't being violent, you can easily have two cops restrain and arrest each one.
Is it just me but just by the pictures posted and video's. The adults on the cement blocking walkway with link arms were sprayed and the adults lining the side on grass with arms interlink were left alone? 5 ft speration from the one's on the grass to sidwalk...anyone else notice that?
Anyone want to take Lt. Pike/Law enforcement point of view? Anyone? No one willing?
Between June 1942 and March 1943, student protests were calling for an end to the Nazi regime. These included the non-violent resistance of Hans and Sophie Scholl, two leaders of the White Rose student group. However, resistance groups and those who were in moral or political opposition to the Nazis were stalled by the fear of reprisals from the Gestapo. In fact, reprisals did come in response to the protests. Fearful of an internal overthrow, the forces of Himmler and the Gestapo were unleashed on the opposition. The first five months of 1943 witnessed thousands of arrests and executions as the Gestapo exercised their powers over the German public. Student opposition leaders were executed in late February, and a major opposition organization, the Oster Circle, was destroyed in April, 1943.
Stop comparing current day law enforcement to Nazism/Facist nations from WWII
Between June 1942 and March 1943, student protests were calling for an end to the Nazi regime. These included the non-violent resistance of Hans and Sophie Scholl, two leaders of the White Rose student group. However, resistance groups and those who were in moral or political opposition to the Nazis were stalled by the fear of reprisals from the Gestapo. In fact, reprisals did come in response to the protests. Fearful of an internal overthrow, the forces of Himmler and the Gestapo were unleashed on the opposition. The first five months of 1943 witnessed thousands of arrests and executions as the Gestapo exercised their powers over the German public. Student opposition leaders were executed in late February, and a major opposition organization, the Oster Circle, was destroyed in April, 1943.
Stop comparing current day law enforcement to Nazism/Facist nations from WWII
Stop trying to not see the larger point.
One should not blindly obey or fail to question institutions like police forces as the person I quoted suggested, because in fact history and even present day news accounts show us that often people do indeed suffer mistreatment and preudice from insitutions like police when they have done nothing wrong.
Law Enforcement asking a question of me is no issue and hopefully no one else to.
If the police Officer ask me to comply with the law then I comply and do as he asked. I know I face consequences if I choose to disobey him and wrap myself around a telephone pole. Either I'm peppersprayed...tazer maybe..but more likely peppersprayed but I faced the consequences for my actions.
Throwing words like Nazi's and Gestapo's out as a point is not good.
Do what the cop asked or be willing to accept the consequences.
What am I missing? I'm not taking it literally at all as "Do it or impale myself on my sword" answer. Its a common sense look within yourself answer. Piss off the cop or not piff off the cop. Treat with respect and be treated with respect. Ignore the cop or not ignore the cop. Obey or disobey a officer. First though since I think this is the gist of it. Do you know what it means by a lawful order and a unlawful order if giving to by a Law Enforcement officer.
Jihadin wrote:If the police Officer ask me to comply with the law then I comply and do as he asked. I know I face consequences if I choose to disobey him and wrap myself around a telephone pole. .
The person CT Gamer was responding to seemed to be saying, on a blanket basis, "Do whatever a policeman tells you or suffer the consequences." That's not the law, and it's perilously close to what we see in fascist countries. Yes, you have to obey a police officer's lawful commands, but he doesn't have unlimited authority in terms of what commands he can legitimately give. I don't think that's honestly what Jake meant, but it came off a bit disturbing.
Jihadin wrote:If the police Officer ask me to comply with the law then I comply and do as he asked. I know I face consequences if I choose to disobey him and wrap myself around a telephone pole. .
The person CT Gamer was responding to seemed to be saying, on a blanket basis, "Do whatever a policeman tells you or suffer the consequences." That's not the law, and it's perilously close to what we see in fascist countries. Yes, you have to obey a police officer's lawful commands, but he doesn't have unlimited authority in terms of what commands he can legitimately give. I don't think that's honestly what Jake meant, but it came off a bit disturbing.
Exactly.
The implication was as you describe.
We as citizens should indeed obey lawful commands.
The problem comes when police are used to enforce injustice or when they themselves attempt to use their own power in an abusive/prejudicial/unconstitutional way.
The line is not always clear, and those police that abuse power count on that fact...
So yes we should obey the law, but at the same time we should not do so blindly and with the assumption that those empowered with enforcing it are infallible...
Airsoft guns wouldn't work for crowd control, they only hit hard enough to let you know you were hit. I have A LOT of experience with airsoft and play with high FPS limits, sleeveless. They might deter children, but they really don't do the required amount of damage for crown control.
Mannahnin wrote:Am I glad that today's protestors aren't being met with dogs, water hoses, and truncheons? Absolutely. I think today's cops are (by and large) better people and better trained than the scumbags who were enforcers for racist laws and policies. But that doesn't mean that we should dismiss or disregard the comparison if and when today's officers do make inappropriate use of force.
You have yet to show that pepper spray's an "inappropriate use of force".
If used on a person who's peaceably sitting on the ground and committing no violent act, it's an inappropriate use of force.
You're leaving out that the person in question has had two days worth of warning, and three personal warnings by the officer in question to not block the police from executing their duty(in this case, removal of protesters still sleeping on the premises without the proper permits and/or procedure in place).
You're still focusing on the fact that the protesters are "committing no violent act" and that they are "in pain" from pepper spray. You're completely ignoring the fact that they're refusing to comply and actively obstructing police operations, and you're completely ignoring the fact that pepper spray, by itself, is COMPLETELY harmless aside from as a temporary irritant used for incapacitating indivudals--which is exactly what Pike used it as here. It incapacitated the protesters long enough for them to either:
A) Be flexcuffed and put in the back of the patrol car.
or
B) Be removed from the pathway of the officers long enough for them to execute their job.
or
C) As we saw in this case, the officers to leave rather than execute their job and having to actually utilize force.
Kanluwen wrote:Your potential "freedom of speech" does not override the safety or well-being and convenience of everyone else.
There is a dangerous and undemocratic line you're treading here. You are muddling two different things. Certainly my right to Free Speech does not override people's right to safety. It absolutely does override their convenience. If your right to save a couple of minutes by being able to walk through the protest area instead of around is more important than my right to assemble in protest, than we're not in America anymore. If my right to the convenience of eating at the lunch counter without black people around making a scene and blocking the counter trumps the right of said black people to protest a racist establishment, then we're not upholding our principles.
I'm not muddling "two different things". Your right to free speech does not override people's expectation to be in a public park or plaza that does not have people camping out in it and essentially starting a shantytown.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CT GAMER wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Do what the cop asked or be willing to accept the consequences.
Wasn't that the Gestapo's philosophy as well?
No. It was not. To suggest is ridiculous. The Gestapo's philosophy was do what you're told or you get labeled as a malcontent, degenerate, or partisan sympathizers...which in turn ends up with you disappearing into a "reeducation camp" or simply being shot.
I know how people love to equate police to the Gestapo. Until the police start committing purges of ethnic, philosophical, or religious groups--there's no comparison.
Kan, I think you're wrong on multiple counts, but this discussion is starting to feel a bit circular and I'm losing my taste for it. I hope you won't be offended it I decline to continue.
Jihadin wrote:I got you Manna. I still dink a coffee with you CTlol
Hey, I'd have a coffee with either or both of you!
Jihadin wrote:Jut gets under my skin when anything of the Nazi's from WWII starts getting reference, added in, and insinuated
Absolutely. No need to stink up the thread worse by anyone going Godwin.
I think we all made our point, explained why we think it was an acceptable or unacceptable use of force, and we are probably not going to change each others views on this. Probably a good point to call the thread done.
I think pepper spray tastes great with nachos... Either pepper spray or just ghost peppers, I can never really remember.
As to the topic at hand, I personally think the spray down was a little overboard, but I'm a pansy to begin with, and know nothing of police procedure.
Perhaps we could have had a touching moment, with Officer Pike kneeling on the ground and talking with these people like well, people. I think that might be an issue here. Occupy Protesters are being treated (for the most part) as hippies and law breakers (not saying they aren't, and not saying they are), but treating me like a person would get me to move. Also cheeseburgers with bacon... that too would get me to move.
Kanluwen wrote:It comes down to a point of semantics I guess.
You believe that pepper spray is an "unacceptable use of force", I don't.
I believe that the use of pepper spray can be an "unacceptable use of force", and that it was so in this instance. I do not believe it is always unacceptable, nor do I believe (as you have appeared at some points to have argued) that it is totally harmless.
I also maintain that the basic principles behind OWS and Civil Rights movement protests are not dissimilar. That the cause behind OWS is a worthwhile and respectable one. And that people are being inappropriately dismissive and contemptuous of OWS and the people involved in it, based in part on taking the worst fringe elements as representative of the whole.
Mannahnin wrote:..I also maintain that the basic principles behind OWS and Civil Rights movement protests are not dissimilar. That the cause behind OWS is a worthwhile and respectable one. And that people are being inappropriately dismissive and contemptuous of OWS and the people involved in it, based in part on taking the worst fringe elements as representative of the whole.
Agreed, to an extent. I really took issue with the people who dismissed the tea party using the same tactics we're seeing now against OWS. But they need to crystalize into one message. I'd like that to be the reintroduction of glass-steagall. Someone else wants it to be a $20.00 an hour wage for everyone. Another wants to emilinate campaign contributions from corporations. And so on.
You can project your own ideas and opinions onto what's happening with OWS. You could try to pretend they're losers with self entitlement issues or heroic citizens saving the modern world. But odds are no matter what you think you'd be wrong. Because that focus just isn't there. Lately it appears they have shifted to anti-consumerism. Who knows? Not me. That's why I don't support them.
CptJake wrote: Do what the cop asked or be willing to accept the consequences.
Wasn't that the Gestapo's philosophy as well?
I sure as heck didn't think that comment could be taken that way.
One of my PSGs used to say, "We all have freedom of choice, none of us has freedom from consequences". Pretty true words.
Piss off a guy with a nightstick or a can of pepper spray, you face consequences which may involve the use of those items. That in of itself does not make their use right or wrong, but when you square off against a cop, even if you are right, you face consequences... Of course the cops actions will generate consequences as well, and if he/she was wrong he/she may not like them.
Even my 9 year old daughter understands there are consequences for actions, some good, some bad, some delayed, some immediate. My oldest son is relearning that concept in a less than fun way right now. It ain't that hard a concept, though many people refuse to accept it.
Again, as SFC B used to say:
We all have freedom of choice, none of us has freedom from consequences
Kilkrazy wrote:Of course you can define militarism by tools and tactics.
One only needs to compare the old style "rugby scrum" police with the modern force to see the clear change.
It arise from the desire to use the police as a para-military force.
No. You are redefining words. You don't get to redefine "paramilitary" to mean "having big guns and tanks". Police have literally always been a paramilitary force since day one.
Kilkrazy wrote:There's ranks and a chain of command on the Isle of Wight ferry. It doesn't make it para-military.
Clearly the Isle of Wight Ferry is a paramilitary organization. Jeez KK try to keep up, ranks and uniforms=paramilitary, there are no other criteria. Like the IRA those guys can't be para military because they didn't (don't?) have ranks or wear uniforms. Don't mind that they use military training and weapons, that doesn't pass the litmus test for paramilitary on Dakka.
Scrabb wrote:Agreed, to an extent. I really took issue with the people who dismissed the tea party using the same tactics we're seeing now against OWS.
Actually, one of my favorite aspects of this is people who dismissed the tea party that are so protective of OWS, despite some significant similarities in goals. ie not caring much for the federal reserve, government not looking out for the best interests of the people, etc.
They aren't quite so similar in regard to public defecation and law breaking, however.
Quick question: If the cop had simply pulle dout his night stick and started wacking kids to disperse them would that have been acceptable?
What is the line between the use of pepper spray, tasers, or night sticks? Are some considered violent assaults and others aren't? If a civilian used pepper spray, batons, or tasers on another civilian, would it be a crime?
I honestly don't know the answers to these questions and want to know more. I have a feeling some of you have experience with law enforcement first hand. Outside of speeding tickets and security pat downs, I don't.
Jihadin wrote:They wear standard uniforms to....do they not stand in formations? Do they have a rank structure? How similiar are the fire arms they carry?
Yeah I have to weigh in and say that police are clearly paramilitary. By dictionary definition and by common sense.
They have ranks, wear uniforms, they even train for aggressive actions. Not wars perhaps, but they do proper training for riot situations, they even have similar criteria tests to the military when it comes to POT. (Public order training)
I did some in Northern Ireland and they teach them how to form up in ranks, use the 4 and 6 foot shields, they do baton training, correct use of the HK baton gun, how to deal with molotov cocktails and correct arrest techniques. Add to the fact that some of them DO use firearms, the ones that wield sub machine guns wear the same uniforms don't they? They don't get forced to leave the Police and join the Army if they want to use a gun, they just do a bit more training.
Also, a great many people join the police after they leave the military, it is extremely common. I think that pretty much nothing else in civilian employment is as much like the professional military as the Police force is. Uniformed, trained, organised, ranked, equipped, disciplined. If the police arent paramilitary, then the West Side Boys arent are they!? Who looks the most like the actual military?
Here are some Royal Tongan Marines..
Heres some London coppers.
Here are some West Side Boys!
I mean, I know that the two Sierra Leone paramilitaries are both wearing the same type of string vest, but I would have to say that the police look more like the professional soldiers.
If a civilian used pepper spray or a taser on another civilian, without provocation or cause, it would be a crime. If a civilian used a nightstick or collapsible baton on another civilian, it would be a crime as well.
Pepper spray and tasers in the hands of civilians are considered to be for "self defense". Unless you're actually being attacked and your health is in immediate danger, you're likely going to get a stern talking to about them. Feasibly, you're not even supposed to use them if someone picks your pocket and runs off with your wallet--but that generally gets overlooked by police.
Pepper spray in the hands of police is considered to be a "compliance tool". Before going too far down this road:
It's not allowed to be used during interrogations or to obtain confessions. It is supposed to be used during arrests or the execution of search warrants when a potentially violent or volatile situation is underway. The whole point of pepper spray in police hands is that it's the "least lethal" option, and has a measurable effect on individuals and we understand how said effects work. Hitting someone with your hands or a baton can potentially cause more damage than you intend; simply because of factors like your stance when swinging, how the blow hits the individual, etc.
Pepper spray lasts 5-7 minutes normally, and while it stings like a motherfether it won't generally cause permanent damage. There's a potential for it if the individual has respiratory issues or an allergy, but in situations like the one we saw at UC Davis there is usually at least one officer who has trained as an EMT and the patrol car usually has the solution they use to cleanse pepper spray from the eyes and respiratory system. You don't want to use water as it actually can make it worse.
Tasers are a different story entirely. They're meant to be used as a "last resort" if the officer is being assaulted by an individual who does not pose a life threatening risk but potentially could. Biggest problem with tasers is that if an individual has a heart condition or pacemaker, it can cause serious damage. They're also not too smart to use on juveniles(as in under 16 years old) as they could have an adverse reaction.
Nightsticks fall into that same category, but are generally just ignored by officers as I mentioned because the force used isn't really "measurable". You could make what appears to be a leisurely swing on video, but in reality were applying enough force to crack someone's skull because of the impact site.
At least...well...damn...sometimes its bad to be a professional....a strap of fething cloth to hold 2 clips together...wonder if the RPGer knows there's a pin to pull to arm......
Jihadin wrote:They wear standard uniforms to....do they not stand in formations? Do they have a rank structure? How similiar are the fire arms they carry?
Firemen wear uniforms and stand in formations, as do school pupils.
What makes an organisation paramilitary is possession of weapons and tactical training while not being the official military (Army, etc.)
By that measure the British Police have been made more paramilitary over the past 30 years. They have more armed units, more armour and armoured vans, etc than they did.
Trafalgar Square 1980
London Fire (Southwark Brigade)
London Fire 2011 (Tottenham)
WHERE ARE THE SUB MACHINE GUNS?! I thought uniforms and ranks meant that they were paramilitary and clearly demonstrated that the police have not been militarized in recent years.
Kilkrazy wrote:
By that measure the British Police have been made more paramilitary over the past 30 years. They have more armed units, more armour and armoured vans, etc than they did.
If THIS is your criteria for becoming more paramilitary, then literally everything ever is more paramilitary than it was at any time in the past.
Cops EVERYWHERE didn't even used to HAVE guns. They used to have swords.
Just having more advanced weapons does not mean some deep dark slide into despotism is occuring.
Kilkrazy wrote:The guys in the bottom pic are firemen.
so are the guys above them. Fire helmets, in formation in front of ladder trucks, came up in a google image search for "London Fire 1980" and then lifted from flickr.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
By that measure the British Police have been made more paramilitary over the past 30 years. They have more armed units, more armour and armoured vans, etc than they did.
If THIS is your criteria for becoming more paramilitary, then literally everything ever is more paramilitary than it was at any time in the past.
Cops EVERYWHERE didn't even used to HAVE guns. They used to have swords.
Just having more advanced weapons does not mean some deep dark slide into despotism is occuring.
DOD defines paramilitary forces as “forces or groups distinct from the regular armed
forces of any country, but resembling them in organization, equipment, training or
mission.”
http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS22017.pdf
Kilkrazy wrote:
By that measure the British Police have been made more paramilitary over the past 30 years. They have more armed units, more armour and armoured vans, etc than they did.
If THIS is your criteria for becoming more paramilitary, then literally everything ever is more paramilitary than it was at any time in the past.
Cops EVERYWHERE didn't even used to HAVE guns. They used to have swords.
Just having more advanced weapons does not mean some deep dark slide into despotism is occuring.
You're right. Everything is more paramilitary than it was before.
Kilkrazy wrote:
By that measure the British Police have been made more paramilitary over the past 30 years. They have more armed units, more armour and armoured vans, etc than they did.
If THIS is your criteria for becoming more paramilitary, then literally everything ever is more paramilitary than it was at any time in the past.
Cops EVERYWHERE didn't even used to HAVE guns. They used to have swords.
Just having more advanced weapons does not mean some deep dark slide into despotism is occuring.
You're right. Everything is more paramilitary than it was before.
It explains the length of wait in the queue at the Post Office.
Kanluwen wrote:It comes down to a point of semantics I guess.
You believe that pepper spray is an "unacceptable use of force", I don't.
Personal opinion and whats been ruled in court are often two different things.
Example: use of pepperspray on peaceful protests was ruled illegal based on the 4th ammendment to our constitution in a 2002 case:
Headwaters forest defense Vs county of Humboldt
