Forums » Off-Topic
It's cute how you stand on your rights to carry guns, and at the same time entirely dismiss any notion of the police ever behaving wrongly out of hand, Lecter. Some people just want to protest peacefully, and as I see it it is their right to do so (freedom of speech). Perhaps the police should work at apprehending the instigators of violence in marches, not just use broadband riot control tactics.
Inconsistent, much?
Inconsistent, much?
Yep.
And their armor is made to protect them in those types of situations.
Also, unless the protesters are firing guns at them or throwing molotovs, the use of deadly force is not appropriate. I mean, they are just a bunch of youngsters ffs.
Btw, am I the only one who thought the huge moving line of armored cops looked badass?
And their armor is made to protect them in those types of situations.
Also, unless the protesters are firing guns at them or throwing molotovs, the use of deadly force is not appropriate. I mean, they are just a bunch of youngsters ffs.
Btw, am I the only one who thought the huge moving line of armored cops looked badass?
I didn't say I don't think they never behave wrongly, Tosh -- they do, and with greater frequency than most of the civilian population.
What I said is that it doesn't matter that they behave wrongly, because they will never be meaningfully checked from doing so, whether by democratic processes or by video of their excesses, and that any grandstanding about civil rights, police brutality, human rights, unjustified killing, etc. ad nauseam is rank naïveté.
Though I dispute what the above post says: no state authority has to stand there and accept rocks and bottles from an unlawful assembly. Their armor is meant to allow them to function and to reduce the chance of injury or death -- it doesn't necessarily prevent those things from happening 100% of the time. Throwing a potentially deadly weapon (rock, brick, or bottle) at someone, even an armored riot cop, does justify the use of deadly force after you've been warned to stop. Both legally (at least here) and morally (something I argue applies universally).
And no, Tosh, freedom of speech and assembly don't protect a protest once the authorities on the scene declare it to be in breach of the peace and order those assembled to disperse -- if they're doing so in bad faith (and they usually are), you can sue them after you go home. But once the order is given, even if it's an unconstitutional order, it must be obeyed. Violation of an illegal order by a citizen is, itself, illegal and is properly addressed by force. Throw a brick at the officer trying to force you to leave, and and it's perfectly justifiable for you to be killed in the process as they defend themselves against your assault with a deadly weapon.
I mean, they are just a bunch of youngsters ffs.
No, they're a bunch of snot-nosed brats who have been sent to school on Daddy's (and frequently the taxpayers') dime so they can spend 4 or 5 years doing whatever the fuck they want. The bunch of youngsters is the crowd of high school grad riot cops who are wondering what the fuck is going on and whether their face is about to get disfigured by some stoner who thinks he understands how global economics actually work and decided to get a rush by throwing shit at cops.
Shooting that sad excuse for a human being isn't going to get my blood boiling, no matter what First Amendment rights he has. Or had, before a 5.56mm round keyholed through his chest. Of course, when that happens a lot of relatively innocent people standing around him may get shot and killed, too. But they probably shouldn't have been standing in a crowd that was throwing heavy objects at armed men. Again, not going to move me much, regardless of the legalities involved. Even in this progressive age of enlightenment about human rights and civil liberties, doing really stupid shit can still result in your untimely demise. Who knew?
What I said is that it doesn't matter that they behave wrongly, because they will never be meaningfully checked from doing so, whether by democratic processes or by video of their excesses, and that any grandstanding about civil rights, police brutality, human rights, unjustified killing, etc. ad nauseam is rank naïveté.
Though I dispute what the above post says: no state authority has to stand there and accept rocks and bottles from an unlawful assembly. Their armor is meant to allow them to function and to reduce the chance of injury or death -- it doesn't necessarily prevent those things from happening 100% of the time. Throwing a potentially deadly weapon (rock, brick, or bottle) at someone, even an armored riot cop, does justify the use of deadly force after you've been warned to stop. Both legally (at least here) and morally (something I argue applies universally).
And no, Tosh, freedom of speech and assembly don't protect a protest once the authorities on the scene declare it to be in breach of the peace and order those assembled to disperse -- if they're doing so in bad faith (and they usually are), you can sue them after you go home. But once the order is given, even if it's an unconstitutional order, it must be obeyed. Violation of an illegal order by a citizen is, itself, illegal and is properly addressed by force. Throw a brick at the officer trying to force you to leave, and and it's perfectly justifiable for you to be killed in the process as they defend themselves against your assault with a deadly weapon.
I mean, they are just a bunch of youngsters ffs.
No, they're a bunch of snot-nosed brats who have been sent to school on Daddy's (and frequently the taxpayers') dime so they can spend 4 or 5 years doing whatever the fuck they want. The bunch of youngsters is the crowd of high school grad riot cops who are wondering what the fuck is going on and whether their face is about to get disfigured by some stoner who thinks he understands how global economics actually work and decided to get a rush by throwing shit at cops.
Shooting that sad excuse for a human being isn't going to get my blood boiling, no matter what First Amendment rights he has. Or had, before a 5.56mm round keyholed through his chest. Of course, when that happens a lot of relatively innocent people standing around him may get shot and killed, too. But they probably shouldn't have been standing in a crowd that was throwing heavy objects at armed men. Again, not going to move me much, regardless of the legalities involved. Even in this progressive age of enlightenment about human rights and civil liberties, doing really stupid shit can still result in your untimely demise. Who knew?
I do not think the police will never be checked from the use of excessive force; it's happening from time to time. I do see your point, of course.
I agree that the police force should not accept violence from protesters. But they should finally wise up and get to the core of the (imminent) problem of instigators among the protesters, bent on escalating the event. That would mean more work, I suppose.
I am fully aware that it will never be so, and there's nothing I can do to make it so; however, it is one thing to accept and resign to the state the world is in and another to perceive and accept it for the time being with an idea of a better way (naturally, that latter 'way' is a very personal thing).
I agree that the police force should not accept violence from protesters. But they should finally wise up and get to the core of the (imminent) problem of instigators among the protesters, bent on escalating the event. That would mean more work, I suppose.
I am fully aware that it will never be so, and there's nothing I can do to make it so; however, it is one thing to accept and resign to the state the world is in and another to perceive and accept it for the time being with an idea of a better way (naturally, that latter 'way' is a very personal thing).
"What I said is that it doesn't matter that they behave wrongly, because they will never be meaningfully checked from doing so, whether by democratic processes or by video of their excesses, and that any grandstanding about civil rights, police brutality, human rights, unjustified killing, etc. ad nauseam is rank naïveté."
Police will never stop abusing the law, but there is always room for improvement. They can currently get away with shooting dead an unarmed person because they "resembled a terrorist".
Once shit starts getting thrown the person throwing shit is no longer protesting but is throwing shit, by doing which they endanger actual protesters more so than the police present and should not be tolerated by either party. Deploying widespread anti-crowd tactics against hundreds of thousands of people attempting to exercise free speech because perhaps a tenth of a percent turned up to cause trouble is not justifiable.
A problem we get that you don't is football hooligans. Now those people are not there to express their views peacefully (for they have none), they are just there to break shit and fight police and other football hooligans.
One "interesting" recent development is the English Defence League, which is in theory a fairly sensible protest group that protests against Muslim extremism in UK. Their website and forums go out of their way to stress that they are not anti-Muslim in general, but the people they ended up attracting are largely football hooligans and racists who attempt to use "protest" as an excuse to wave racist slogans around and then try to break shit/beat up non-white looking people/have fights with police and some odd anti-racism group whose name escapes my memory who for some reason also turn up to EDL "protests" for fight the "racists". *sigh*
"...a lot of relatively innocent people standing around him may get shot and killed, too. But they probably shouldn't have been standing in a crowd..."
So... if you head to work and there is a group of people outside your workplace protesting, and as you try to squeeze past them to get to work a policeman pulls out a gun and shoots you in the head that is relatively OK because you should have known better than work somewhere that may gather protesters?
Police will never stop abusing the law, but there is always room for improvement. They can currently get away with shooting dead an unarmed person because they "resembled a terrorist".
Once shit starts getting thrown the person throwing shit is no longer protesting but is throwing shit, by doing which they endanger actual protesters more so than the police present and should not be tolerated by either party. Deploying widespread anti-crowd tactics against hundreds of thousands of people attempting to exercise free speech because perhaps a tenth of a percent turned up to cause trouble is not justifiable.
A problem we get that you don't is football hooligans. Now those people are not there to express their views peacefully (for they have none), they are just there to break shit and fight police and other football hooligans.
One "interesting" recent development is the English Defence League, which is in theory a fairly sensible protest group that protests against Muslim extremism in UK. Their website and forums go out of their way to stress that they are not anti-Muslim in general, but the people they ended up attracting are largely football hooligans and racists who attempt to use "protest" as an excuse to wave racist slogans around and then try to break shit/beat up non-white looking people/have fights with police and some odd anti-racism group whose name escapes my memory who for some reason also turn up to EDL "protests" for fight the "racists". *sigh*
"...a lot of relatively innocent people standing around him may get shot and killed, too. But they probably shouldn't have been standing in a crowd..."
So... if you head to work and there is a group of people outside your workplace protesting, and as you try to squeeze past them to get to work a policeman pulls out a gun and shoots you in the head that is relatively OK because you should have known better than work somewhere that may gather protesters?
What would you say, Lecter, to the fact that at a lot of recent demonstrations turned less than peaceful it has been shown that the people starting the violence were in fact police provocateurs? That the police themselves started throwing shit at the police to try to get the crowd into a violent mood so they could be dispersed with force? I'm not saying it completely invalidates your argument (I happen to not agree with your argument but can understand the position from which it comes), I'm honestly interested in your response.
Citation: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/10/g20-policing-agent-provacateurs
This is just the first example I came across from a Google search, there are more.
Citation: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/10/g20-policing-agent-provacateurs
This is just the first example I came across from a Google search, there are more.
it is one thing to accept and resign to the state the world is in and another to perceive and accept it for the time being with an idea of a better way
And it's yet another thing to revel in the knowledge that the world we live in is rotten, has always been rotten, and will always be, to more or less the exact same extent, rotten. Guess which one delights me most?
So... if you head to work and there is a group of people outside your workplace protesting, and as you try to squeeze past them to get to work a policeman pulls out a gun and shoots you in the head that is relatively OK because you should have known better than work somewhere that may gather protesters?
Of course it's not OK, but there's nothing much going to be done about it, and less to be done about the same thing happening again. It's also a good argument for thinking a bit harder about trying to "squeeze past" what you know -- or should know -- is quite literally a war zone.
What would you say, Lecter, to the fact that at a lot of recent demonstrations turned less than peaceful it has been shown that the people starting the violence were in fact police provocateurs?
Nothing at all, though I'd smile a bit, diq.
And it's yet another thing to revel in the knowledge that the world we live in is rotten, has always been rotten, and will always be, to more or less the exact same extent, rotten. Guess which one delights me most?
So... if you head to work and there is a group of people outside your workplace protesting, and as you try to squeeze past them to get to work a policeman pulls out a gun and shoots you in the head that is relatively OK because you should have known better than work somewhere that may gather protesters?
Of course it's not OK, but there's nothing much going to be done about it, and less to be done about the same thing happening again. It's also a good argument for thinking a bit harder about trying to "squeeze past" what you know -- or should know -- is quite literally a war zone.
What would you say, Lecter, to the fact that at a lot of recent demonstrations turned less than peaceful it has been shown that the people starting the violence were in fact police provocateurs?
Nothing at all, though I'd smile a bit, diq.
yea the world we live in is is rotten, it always has been rotten, but now the maggot population is getting really out of hand, wheres a can of raid when you need one.
reminds me of this from the watchmen
"The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout "Save us!"... and I'll look down and whisper "No." They had a choice, all of them. They could have followed in the footsteps of good men like my father or President Truman. Decent men who believed in a day's work for a day's pay. Instead they followed the droppings of lechers and communists and didn't realize that the trail led over a precipice until it was too late. Don't tell me they didn't have a choice. Now the whole world stands on the brink, staring down into bloodly Hell, all those liberals and intellectuals and smooth-talkers... and all of a sudden nobody can think of anything to say."
honestly i cant say i disagree with his assesment
"The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout "Save us!"... and I'll look down and whisper "No." They had a choice, all of them. They could have followed in the footsteps of good men like my father or President Truman. Decent men who believed in a day's work for a day's pay. Instead they followed the droppings of lechers and communists and didn't realize that the trail led over a precipice until it was too late. Don't tell me they didn't have a choice. Now the whole world stands on the brink, staring down into bloodly Hell, all those liberals and intellectuals and smooth-talkers... and all of a sudden nobody can think of anything to say."
honestly i cant say i disagree with his assesment
To think of society in the respects of the civilian masses and the government masses, a duality so to speak, as separate and in 100% opposition of each other with no common connection almost sounds or is insane.
To think of corruption and ignorance as the primary causes of unrest within society with no regards to what causes and maintains these symptoms almost sounds or is insane.
To think that you are completely separate from another human being as to what happens to them, no matter what their location is, when they live in the same or similar society as you live in sounds or is insane.
But don't take my word for it, make your own observations if need be and see what really causes it all.
To think of corruption and ignorance as the primary causes of unrest within society with no regards to what causes and maintains these symptoms almost sounds or is insane.
To think that you are completely separate from another human being as to what happens to them, no matter what their location is, when they live in the same or similar society as you live in sounds or is insane.
But don't take my word for it, make your own observations if need be and see what really causes it all.
"To think that you are completely separate from another human being as to what happens to them, no matter what their location is, when they live in the same or similar society as you live in sounds or is insane."
you aint talking about that whole butteryfly farts on the other side of the world crap are you?
you aint talking about that whole butteryfly farts on the other side of the world crap are you?
/me thinks someone needs to read the world is flat
What. You don't think so, peytros?
Also, yawn @lnh. Cynicism and defeatism is the easy way out.
Also, yawn @lnh. Cynicism and defeatism is the easy way out.
As opposed to making mountains out of molehills, Tosh, which is a retarded waste of scarce resources.
you call it cynicism, i call it realism. I see no point in getting my hopes up unreasonably high looking through rose colored glasses. And I'm not defeatist, i know I will be alright, i have my doubts about many people though.
Of course you call it realism. I would, too. Also, you missed my point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow
and this.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/08/23/police-montebello.html
and this.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/08/23/police-montebello.html
well toshiro, rather than simply stating that i missed your point, why not try to restate it so i may get it.
Why not just read what I wrote more closely. Nothing gets better if you say it twice.
From the law enforcement perspective I've heard discussed both in my department, and in circles in which I regularly communicate:
Pitt's police handled the situation as was necessary to maintain control of the city. In times of riot/mass protest of that nature, police are required to step up actions to maintain the public order.
Pitt's police have been criticized for deploying the LRAD (Long-Range Acoustic Device) system, as well as next-gen technologies such as XREP rounds (Taser's from a Shotgun) as well as their deployment of Bear-type Armored Vehicles. These were deployed for both the safety of the officer's involved in the situation, as well as for the safety of the civilian population.
As time has shown repeatedly, once a situation deteriorates to conflict, the situation can then only be resolved through use of force, including deadly force. The deployment of Less-Lethal munitions caused individuals that were turning hostile to disperse rather than need to be arrested or dealt with in a more violent manner.
Overall, G20 meeting was, as all G8/G20 meetings go, a hotbed for protesters of all walks of life and belief, but the good deployment tactics of Pitt's Police, Deputized Police (out-of-state officers brought in to reinforce Pitt's Police), and Federal Agencies/US DoD probably prevented casualties that would have been incurred in violent protests. (Look at campus/major protests of the 70's for reference points on this, before the deployment of LRAD/Tasers).
PS:
Also note, the grenade canister that the student supposedly recovered from the police read as being "OC". OC is a standard tear-gas that has no lasting effects, and is really only a mild irritant. No major use of force was ever deployed, and only in extenuating circumstances did you see police go "hands on".
Pitt's police handled the situation as was necessary to maintain control of the city. In times of riot/mass protest of that nature, police are required to step up actions to maintain the public order.
Pitt's police have been criticized for deploying the LRAD (Long-Range Acoustic Device) system, as well as next-gen technologies such as XREP rounds (Taser's from a Shotgun) as well as their deployment of Bear-type Armored Vehicles. These were deployed for both the safety of the officer's involved in the situation, as well as for the safety of the civilian population.
As time has shown repeatedly, once a situation deteriorates to conflict, the situation can then only be resolved through use of force, including deadly force. The deployment of Less-Lethal munitions caused individuals that were turning hostile to disperse rather than need to be arrested or dealt with in a more violent manner.
Overall, G20 meeting was, as all G8/G20 meetings go, a hotbed for protesters of all walks of life and belief, but the good deployment tactics of Pitt's Police, Deputized Police (out-of-state officers brought in to reinforce Pitt's Police), and Federal Agencies/US DoD probably prevented casualties that would have been incurred in violent protests. (Look at campus/major protests of the 70's for reference points on this, before the deployment of LRAD/Tasers).
PS:
Also note, the grenade canister that the student supposedly recovered from the police read as being "OC". OC is a standard tear-gas that has no lasting effects, and is really only a mild irritant. No major use of force was ever deployed, and only in extenuating circumstances did you see police go "hands on".