Politics: A new beginning

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
You are in an entirely different world from me thn. Where I'm from, there are political, religious, labor etc... protests just about every day. And its a rare day where a counterprotest is ever held.

In fact, the only two common examples of protest/counterprotest (all in one) I can remember are abortion and hate/anti-hate (KKK/Phelps etc). And even abortion protests aren't that common.

Could well be. I've never seen a protest without a counterprotest happening. Even if the counter protest is very small. The press might not film it mind you.

I'm think I'm missing something here. The protestors who are protesting you?

Yes.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by leagleaze

Yes.

From the viewpoint of someone who is being publicly protested, what offer of tolerance do you give the police?

For example, do you offer to allow the protesters an area closer than the police would like? Is it more like informing the officer in command that you are used to the hateful rage and can tolerate it without needing aggresive police protection from people "merely" screaming insults?

I'm not trying to bait you with this one, and the answer seems soooo apparent, but would you ever offer to tolerate an illegal act of a threatening or violent nature by the protesters?

From the viewpoint of, say, the SFPD, I'd imagine the issue is more that they have 500 officers on duty citywide that day, and 480 of them have other things to do so they'd rather not have to call them in. So they try to keep the potential for violence etc. to a minimum. Which brings the thread full circle to Miami if/when someone throws that first bottle at the police or a bank window. They'd rather it not happen in Miami, but when it does, the protest is over. How much do your police tolerate?


Hello

[Tyrone Slothrop]

If we really want to try to piss off our allies, we're going to have to work harder to keep with with the Australians.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If we really want to try to piss off our allies, we're going to have to work harder to keep with with the Australians.

New Zealand's Prime minister flies commercial?

Accompanied by a New Zealand security officer and her senior press officer, Clark said she was pulled from a queue and scanned with a new explosives detection device.

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
questions....

I tolerate the protestors as long as they obey the law. I will never tolerate lawlessness, violence, threats, what have you.

If I feel a law is unfair I'll tell the city I think it is so and tell them why, and then offer suggestions on how to redraft it. I want people to be able to protest, I want people to be able to attend events, and I want the police to be able to keep control. It is a constant balancing of these interests that I have when I am involved with an event. And I worry about every one of them.

Now, my interpretation of the law might perhaps be more lenient than that of the police. If the law says you must be 30 feet away and someone comes too close, but he is not violent or threatening, and the police ask me, should we arrest this man, I will say has he already been warned? If they say no, I say warn him first. If they say yes, I say have at it.

If a man shows up with a bullhorn and the police go to arrest him and bother to ask my opinion, I will say, has he been warned in the past? And if they say he was arrested last year for the same exact thing. I say have at it.

Our police never tolerate violence, and at the first sign of it or its potential they interfere. This might mean an arrest or it might simply mean a few words. It has never meant a shutting down of the entire protest. It has never gotten that out of hand.


If one person throws something, if one person is violent, if one person walks within 30 feet I don't think the entire protest should be over. How do you know it wasn't someone trying to stop the protest in the first place who threw the bottle? You can almost guarantee if you have one person throw a bottle and things aren't getting out of control, if cops try to stop the protest it will get out of control.

If however someone throws a bottle and it looks like things are going to get out of control, then yes, the protest needs to be over. And when you try to stop the protest, as above, it will probably get out of control, at least a little.

You can normally tell pretty quickly when things are getting out of hand. The energy changes.

Either way these aren't people out for a walk in the park. Their energy is high, they have strong feelings about their views. They are often on the verge. You have to be very very careful. It is a hard situation under the best of circumstances.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/...kkk/index.html

[at KKK rally, bullet fired in air hits another rally participant.]

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by leagleaze
...It has never meant a shutting down of the entire protest. It has never gotten that out of hand.

Different worlds

Originally posted by leagleaze
If one person throws something, if one person is violent... I don't think the entire protest should be over.... You can almost guarantee if you have one person throw a bottle and things aren't getting out of control, if cops try to stop the protest it will get out of control.

If however someone throws a bottle and it looks like things are going to get out of control, then yes, the protest needs to be over.

This is all foreign to me. Where I've been, I can't even conceive of witnessing someone in a crowd toss a bottle at the police and not thinking things are already out of control. I'd pay to be able to think that way again. I've said too much.

Hello

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Different worlds



This is all foreign to me. Where I've been, I can't even conceive of witnessing someone in a crowd toss a bottle at the police and not thinking things are already out of control. I'd pay to be able to think that way again. I've said too much.

Hello

Different parts of the country are very different in how people behave. What is out of control here is quite different from what is out of control in Miami. I would bet the police in Miami would consider things out of control a lot further along than the police here. Here they aren't used to much comparatively speaking. The numbers are smaller and the protestors aren't known to be violent.

This is shown by the reaction that the police had when Phelps decided to come here. They had bomb sniffing dogs, snipers, you name it. They recognized it was a different level of protest than they were used to and they prepared accordingly.

I still live in a place where if I leave myself locked out of my apartment I can call my landlord, ask him to open it and just leave it that way until I get home.

I've seen more than enough as well. It is just when you are in the middle of it, your perspective is a bit different. You have a better sense of what is going on.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Where I've been, I can't even conceive of witnessing someone in a crowd toss a bottle at the police and not thinking things are already out of control. I'd pay to be able to think that way again. I've said too much.

So you've been to a Raiders game. Don't be such a drama queen.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
So you've been to a Raiders game. Don't be such a drama queen.

Yes, thats it. The Raiders won.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Nov23.html

As Congress rushes to conclude its 2003 session, Republican leaders are trying to garner votes for controversial legislation by loading the bills with billions of dollars in added costs that analysts said would expand the budget deficit for years to come. The year-end binge has alarmed analysts in Washington and on Wall Street, coming as it does after three years of presidential and congressional initiatives that have both substantially boosted government spending and shrunk its tax base.

So, have we reached the point where we all can laugh at the notion that Bush's tax cuts are a method of starving the bloated federal spending monster? Just curious.

If I were a fiscal conservative I'd be pretty appalled at my party's budgetary record over the past few years. But then again, if I were a fiscal conservative my moniker would probably be the Warren Rudman Experience.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Nov23.html



So, have we reached the point where we all can laugh at the notion that Bush's tax cuts are a method of starving the bloated federal spending monster? Just curious.

If I were a fiscal conservative I'd be pretty appalled at my party's budgetary record over the past few years. But then again, if I were a fiscal conservative my moniker would probably be the Warren Rudman Experience.

My personal favorite little bit of that article was this:

"Even conservatives who support tax cuts have begun to note the imbalance. Government spending now totals $20,000 per household, a level not seen since World War II, said Brian Reidl, a federal budget analyst with the Heritage Foundation. Meanwhile, taxes total $17,000 per household. "

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
If I were a fiscal conservative I'd be pretty appalled at my party's budgetary record over the past few years. But then again, if I were a fiscal conservative my moniker would probably be the Warren Rudman Experience.

It's as if Bush looked around and decided that the Dems weren't offering any real viable fight for thr 2004 vote, and, being a sportsman and all, decided to even the game up.

This truly sucks. We might as well have a Dem Prez.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
It's as if Bush looked around and decided that the Dems weren't offering any real viable fight for thr 2004 vote, and, being a sportsman and all, decided to even the game up.

This truly sucks. We might as well have a Dem Prez.

If we had a Dem president, and the current Congress, spending would have been lower. No way would Congress have pushed through spending on this stuff with a Democrat in the Oval Office. I think everything gets royally fucked up when House, Senate and President are all the same party.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
If we had a Dem president, and the current Congress, spending would have been lower. No way would Congress have pushed through spending on this stuff with a Democrat in the Oval Office. I think everything gets royally fucked up when House, Senate and President are all the same party.

Totally agree, and only add that having all three branches in the hands of the spending liberals right now sucks. (In my mind, this would be a desirable outcome if the people involved were acting true to their professed ideologies.)

Now, just wait until 2005 when there's not even the sea anchor of a filibuster available. This could be grim.