Those who make peaceful protest impossible - Page 5

Divide Et Impera · November 26th, 2011, 05:41 PM

Oh, now this is too far....

And now we know the REAL reason:

Divide Et Impera · November 29th, 2011, 11:18 AM

This is a GREAT move by Gov. Brown in California:

http://www.dailycal.org/2011/11/28/g...ce-guidelines/

Quote:

Dear Mr. Cappitelli:

As I indicated to you in our conversation today, I am seriously concerned that the rules governing the use of force, in particular the use of pepper spray, are not well understood in the context of civil disobedience and various forms of public protest. The recent "occupation" protests in cities throughout California and on campuses of the University of California underscore the urgency of articulating guidelines that are crystal clear and comport with constitutional requirements.

In view of widespread public concern, I am requesting that POST carefully review it's 2003 Crowd Management and Civil Disobedience Guidelines and, without delay, make whatever changes are necessary to ensure compliance with First and Fourth Amendment protections against excessive force.

Sincerely,
Edmund G. Brown Jr.

Bravo!

Southpaw · November 30th, 2011, 03:18 AM

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/...ace_indefinite

"So we’re talking about indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens, of lawful U.S. residents, as well as of people abroad.”

Suspending Posse Comitatus?

Quote:

Battlefield America: U.S. Citizens Face Indefinite Military Detention in Defense Bill Before Senate

The Senate is set to vote this week on a Pentagon spending bill that could usher in a radical expansion of indefinite detention under the U.S. government. A provision in the National Defense Authorization Act would authorize the military to jail anyone it considers a terrorism suspect — anywhere in the world — without charge or trial. The measure would effectively extend the definition of what is considered the military’s "battlefield" to anywhere in the world, even within the United States. Its authors, Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan and Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, have been campaigning for its passage in a bipartisan effort. But the White House has issued a veto threat, with backing from top officials including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and FBI Director Robert Mueller. “This would be the first time since the McCarthy era that the United States Congress has tried to do this,” says our guest, Daphne Eviatar of Human Rights First, which has gathered signatures from 26 retired military leaders urging the Senate to vote against the measure, as well as against a separate provision that would repeal the executive order banning torture. “In this case, we’ve seen the administration very eagerly hold people without trial for 10-plus years in military detention, so there’s no reason to believe they would not continue to do that here. So we’re talking about indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens, of lawful U.S. residents, as well as of people abroad.”

conraddobler · November 30th, 2011, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wallyburger

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/...ace_indefinite

"So we’re talking about indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens, of lawful U.S. residents, as well as of people abroad.”

Suspending Posse Comitatus?

I think our overlords are none to happy about either the tea party or ows, seems they want to make sure that if anyone is unhappy, well they want to be able to drag you off as an example.

Pretty brazen, I hope people make the right connection here.

Linderbee · November 30th, 2011, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wallyburger

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/...ace_indefinite

"So we’re talking about indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens, of lawful U.S. residents, as well as of people abroad.”

Suspending Posse Comitatus?

Crazy tinfoil hat guy in my office behind me says it passed already today. Looking to confirm.

edit: I see we already have a massive thread on this.

MigratingOsprey · November 30th, 2011, 11:03 AM

pst - we have a whole thread on this right here @ ASFN (btw - it has passed and apparently has done so without the Udall Amendment)

LVG · November 30th, 2011, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linderbee

Crazy tinfoil hat guy in my office behind me says it passed already today. Looking to confirm.

edit: I see we already have a massive thread on this.

Confirmed. Passed the House in a veto proof majority. Passed the Senate without a veto proof majority - 6 short. I don't think reconciliation is necessary at this point - so it goes to the President for signature or veto.

Linderbee · November 30th, 2011, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MigratingOsprey

pst - we have a whole thread on this right here @ ASFN (btw - it has passed and apparently has done so without the Udall Amendment)

Yeah, I had edited my post. Crazy. Will be starting a thread (if there isn't one already) about TSA VIPR.

Folster · December 4th, 2011, 06:58 AM

UC Davis: the whole story:

conraddobler · December 4th, 2011, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Folster

UC Davis: the whole story:

So if you warn me you're going to rape me and I don't run away then you can rape me?

Pepper spraying a non-violent bunch of protestors is WRONG!

GET IT?

Were the protestors violent first or at all?

The answer is no, and no.

Divide Et Impera · December 4th, 2011, 08:49 AM

At least we're in good company:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/0...at-protesters/

Bangladesh. Good job, USA!

Folster · December 4th, 2011, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by conraddobler

So if you warn me you're going to rape me and I don't run away then you can rape me?

Pepper spraying a non-violent bunch of protestors is WRONG!

GET IT?

Were the protestors violent first or at all?

The answer is no, and no.

They set up a blockade of people preventing the police from leaving, and were even chanting that they were not going to allow the police to leave. The police ordered them to move so they could leave. They could have simply parted and allowed them to leave, and then reformed, but they chose not to follow orders and suffered the consequences.

Yes they were non-violent, but they were rebelliously not following orders. We see non-combative, non-violent people get tazed, peppersprayed, and tackled all the time by police when they resist arrest or don't follow orders.

LVG · December 4th, 2011, 01:51 PM

Here's a quick summary of the video.

The cops were there to clear out the occupy camp. There were other protesters off to the side. It appears that the cops made a number of arrests, and then the protesters outside of the camp decided to march to the detention area to demand the release of those arrested. When the march happened, either through accident or design, a group of cops found themselves surrounded by protesters. The protesters realized this and set themselves up around the cut off cops to prevent them from moving. After a period of time, the protesters offered to let the cops leave if they released those arrested. The cops refused. The cops then pepper strayed a section of protesters to "break out" from the encirclment of protesters. The cops then withdrew, ceding the grounds to the protesters.

There's more details, but that's the basic summary.

I'm not an expert on riots or crowd control. I'm using some common sense, so if I'm wrong on the below, please correct me.

The problem was the cops being encircled. At that point, the cops are put in a very difficult and dangerous position. If the protesters choose to get violent or charge (something they did not indicate they would do in the video), the cops will be quickly overwhelmed. That's why the cops pepper sprayed protesters: to out of there.

The proboem was that the cops should have never allowed themselves to be encircled in the first place. I could see and understand if the cops had employed pepper spray when that situation was developing. However, the cops had already been encircled, and at that point, the situation was stable, though not to the cops advantage. Was it a dangerous situation? No, but it could have developed into one very fast.

The ultimate fault lays with the officer in charge - he didn't react fast enough or failed to realize the situation until his group was encircled. After that, he really only had the choice to pepper spray, because there was no way the protesters were going to move. This is because the protesters had, at that moment, the upper hand over the cops. And the cops realized this.

It may be possible that the chief is also at fault for not sending in enough officers. I'd have to know more about the overall situation to make that decision.

At the end of the day though, the protest was peaceful, and only through the failure of the officer in charge did it develop into something that culminated in the pepper spray incident. This was still a failure by the campus police.

Typing on a cell phone so sorry for misspelled and missing words.

RedStorm · December 4th, 2011, 02:41 PM

So I was right. There was more to the story than was told by those initial pictures and videos.

On a second note, has anyone found anything to the accusation of Mr Brown that the police "forced" open people's mouths and sprayed pepper spray down their throats?

O · December 4th, 2011, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Folster

UC Davis: the whole story:

To think this has not been edted, and quite frankly a poor job of editing, is niave to say the least.

Youtube is full of videos that will contradict this.

It's all a matter of what you want to believe.