» Site Navigation |
|
|
 |
|
11-22-2003, 02:44 PM
|
#1681
|
Serenity Now
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Survivor Island
Posts: 7,007
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ltl/fb
And I don't see why "commie" is automatically an insult. I know that Slave means it pejoratively, but then, people call other people gay and mean it pejoratively.
|
You wouldn't. Commie is an insult to the same extent fascist is an insult. In a purely theoretical world, communism is a wonderful idea. A whole society living in perfect harmony, where everyone produces for the good of everyone else, and no one takes more than they need. But in practice, it has horrific consequences, mainly because man is programmed to survive and therefore is ultimately selfish, rather than selfless.
|
|
|
11-22-2003, 02:53 PM
|
#1682
|
Serenity Now
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Survivor Island
Posts: 7,007
|
Troubling
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031121/D7UVA59G1.html
[Article alleging police brutality in Miami trade protests]
This is troubling to me. I am 100% behind the right PEACEFULLY demonstrate. But based on what has happended in other cities, many of the WTO protestors have not shown themselves to be the peaceful sort, and from the reports I've read, many are either members of or affiliated with various anarchist groups. So what can be done to balance the right to demonstrate peacefully versus public safety concerns?
|
|
|
11-22-2003, 03:24 PM
|
#1683
|
Theo rests his case
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: who's askin?
Posts: 1,632
|
Troubling
Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031121/D7UVA59G1.html
[Article alleging police brutality in Miami trade protests]
This is troubling to me. I am 100% behind the right PEACEFULLY demonstrate. But based on what has happended in other cities, many of the WTO protestors have not shown themselves to be the peaceful sort, and from the reports I've read, many are either members of or affiliated with various anarchist groups. So what can be done to balance the right to demonstrate peacefully versus public safety concerns?
|
From the article:
>>On Thursday, as trade ministers from 34 countries drafted a blueprint for free trade in the Western Hemisphere, demonstrators threw water bottles and other objects at officers, set fires in the street and used slingshots against police. Riot police responded with tear gas, rubber bullets, batons, concussion grenades and stun guns.
...At least three officers and about 140 demonstrators were treated for injuries in Miami.
...Police Chief John Timoney said officers acted with restraint, giving protesters ample warnings before using force. "If we didn't act when we did, it would have been worse," he said.
Cory Fischer-Hoffman, 20, said she was on the front line of a standoff with police when officers advanced on the crowd. She said she was hit in the face with a club but was not seriously hurt.
"We were just standing there, totally peacefully," she said. "I was honestly looking this guy in the eye with a peace sign, and then all of a sudden, boom. There was no provocation."<<
I note that I selectively edited the text, but added nothing to it. From experience, peaceable assemly in this context means that the right to assemble, block streets, conduct one's self disruptively etc... should be worked out before hand in a permit-like process. The government should willingly hand out the permits without bias, so long as the permitees promise not to endorse or advocate violent actions or any other actions outside of the permit. Then, the demonstrators should have independent uninvolved witnesses, especially lawyers, but also people from the Justice department, the media etc....
What should be permitted? Prearranged marches, blocking of streets (except during rush hour) etc....
To address the text I'm quoting... throwing "water bottles and other objects at officers" and setting "fires in the street" and using "slingshots against police" should never be the subject of permits. And if a permitted march or assembly results in such, the assembled protesters should expect the protest to be shut down.
Which leads to Timoney noting that they gave protesters "ample warnings before using force". That is fair to the peacefully assembled who no longer are entitled to their space on the streets or parks once their membership has conducted themselves outside the scope of the permit.
Finally, kids will be kids and all, and I'm not in favor of clubbing someone who isn't threatening to club me, but the youngster who "was on the front line of a standoff with police when officers advanced on the crowd" should have expected some action on the part of the officers. Perhaps a clubbing was a bit much, but we're just taking her word for it that it was not specifically provoked by her. If you are told to disperse, it is presumably a lawful order. At the very least, failure to comply with a lawful order should lead to arrest.
However, failure by government to grant a permit or allow reasonable latitude to protesters, is something we should all be concerned about. Nobody screws that up more than the Democrats in Chicago and DC. Nobody.
Anyway, if any protest group ever wants me to independently witness a protest, I will if I can. The right to protest, including the right to violate misdemeanor and traffic laws by, standing on roadways, is important and should not be unreasonably restrained.
I'm just not troubled by what I'm reading about Miami (yet).
Hello
__________________
Man, back in the day, you used to love getting flushed, you'd be all like 'Flush me J! Flush me!' And I'd be like 'Nawww'
|
|
|
11-22-2003, 05:43 PM
|
#1684
|
Moderasaurus Rex
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 33,076
|
I don't know anything about what happened in Miami, but frequently at such protests there are large numbers of people who want to protest peacefully, and a small number of anarcho-types who want to cause property damage, etc. The latter provoke a response, and the former get swept in, in part because it's hard for the cops to tell them apart.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
|
|
11-22-2003, 06:03 PM
|
#1685
|
Consigliere
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Pelosi Land!
Posts: 9,477
|
Anarchy in the US
Quote:
Tyrone_Slothrop
...there are large numbers of people who want to protest peacefully, and a small number of anarcho-types who want to cause property damage, etc. The latter provoke a response, and the former get swept in...
|
If the peaceniks can't keep a lid on their own ilk, too fucking bad.
s4("May I suggest using your nightstick officer"?)e
|
|
|
11-22-2003, 06:03 PM
|
#1686
|
Theo rests his case
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: who's askin?
Posts: 1,632
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I don't know anything about what happened in Miami, but frequently at such protests there are large numbers of people who want to protest peacefully, and a small number of anarcho-types who want to cause property damage, etc. The latter provoke a response, and the former get swept in, in part because it's hard for the cops to tell them apart.
|
Exactly. Although, I note that I've heard there are sometimes widespread mutterings in the ranks when officers hear an order to conduct an unjustified advance on truly peaceable protesters who've done nothing wrong.
As you note, i.e., "provoke a response", it will take little more than a bloody nose on one uniform before the rank and file are ready to start swinging.
But, as was noted in the media regarding last year's DC park round-up, at least one senior U.S. Park Police commander, in charge of a large contingent, told the senior DC supervisor that what he was doing was almost certainly illegal, and that his people would have nothing to do with the round up. I'm still waiting for a far-right legal group to salute the man.
There are a lot of things to look for in making someone a senior police boss, but this is almost certainly one question that should be asked on a pass-or-fail basis during the interviews.
Hello
__________________
Man, back in the day, you used to love getting flushed, you'd be all like 'Flush me J! Flush me!' And I'd be like 'Nawww'
|
|
|
11-23-2003, 12:58 AM
|
#1687
|
World Ruler
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,057
|
Marriage
Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Please don't let me burn in hell.
|
Stop pirating satellite tv and you should be okay.
__________________
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming out any other way."
|
|
|
11-23-2003, 09:58 AM
|
#1688
|
Theo rests his case
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: who's askin?
Posts: 1,632
|
Marriage
Quote:
Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Stop pirating satellite tv and you should be okay.
|
I should be okay now then. Uhm, as noted several times already.
There is an interesting article on the very topic in today's Chicago Tribune.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...i-business-hed
(Registration req'd).
A few things to note. A.) If you are doing this, don't ever tell anyone who you are by, e.g., providing credit card information for payment. Cash only. B.) It appears that most people settle for $3500 rather than pay large attorneys fees in civil cases. However, of those that do go to trial, there is a bit of a problem with the evidence etc..., such that the only cases noted which have gone before a court have been, uhm, thrown out. C.) It doesn't matter, something like 100,000 cases have been filed by DirectTV, and those are bad odds. Really bad odds. So don't do anything sketchy by credit card payment. Just in case you (you know, all of you) didn't know that already.
Back on topic for this thread, yesterday's NYT had an article about the whole marriage thingie. They say it started about 5000 years ago in Mesopotamia. They also said that the force of today's backlash on the issue it to making the term "marriage", exclusively religious or something. Everyone else gets a "civil union". Or something like that. That sounds totally fucked up. Two heterosexual atheists that want to procreate like rabbits can't get married? That said, they also explained why its a federal issue in a way that made sense. Specifically, if MA allowed gay couples to be "married", then every other state would conceptually have to recognize the act.
Anyone read "Opus" in today's paper?
Hello
__________________
Man, back in the day, you used to love getting flushed, you'd be all like 'Flush me J! Flush me!' And I'd be like 'Nawww'
|
|
|
11-23-2003, 10:52 AM
|
#1689
|
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,146
|
le Francais, aimez le juene filles (especiallmente garcon de petit)
Worldwide Yeah Mikey protest:
Hopefully to no one's surprise, twice as many protesters turn out in france as any other place. Fucking froggys. Frenchies are only happy if Saddam is abusing kurds and Michael's abusing kids. Isn't France where polanski's hiding out?
http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story...igh&sec=latest

Last edited by Hank Chinaski; 11-23-2003 at 11:03 PM..
|
|
|
11-24-2003, 10:36 AM
|
#1690
|
In my dreams ...
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,955
|
Troubling
Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
However, failure by government to grant a permit or allow reasonable latitude to protesters, is something we should all be concerned about. Nobody screws that up more than the Democrats in Chicago and DC. Nobody.
|
I dunno about DC or Chi, but I've actually been very impressed with the crowd/protest control I've seen here in NYC. Big (impropomptu march to the UN the night Bush I started bombing in Gulf War I - closed Broadway through most of Manhattan for hours - definitely no permits) or small (your 5 local grocers in a union picketing your deli), I've never seen anything but mutual cooperation and respect between protestors and police. Maybe it's just being in NYC - too big and crowded and ornery for anyone to think it is in their interests for anything to get out of hand. I didn't check out the anti-globalization protests that were here not long ago first hand, but my understanding was it was much the same, and a world of difference from Seattle/Italy/etc.
Gotta say, I'm pretty iffy on letting protestors block roads or otherwise disrupting normal-traffic/life/access, it's just not necessary to make people aware of your message. But I also get extremely pissed when I hear of protests being shunted off to distant places so no one can see them. I also acknowledge I get very, very pissy about the uncivil exercise of civil rights (PETA rants passim).
BR("Lady, I'm gonna have to ask you to chant "Death to the Fascist Police Pigs!" over on that other corner behind the blockade, thanks")C
__________________
- Life is too short to wear cheap shoes.
|
|
|
11-24-2003, 10:59 AM
|
#1691
|
Theo rests his case
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: who's askin?
Posts: 1,632
|
Troubling
Quote:
Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
[1] ...I've actually been very impressed with the crowd/protest control I've seen here in NYC. Big (impropomptu march to the UN the night Bush I started bombing in Gulf War I - closed Broadway through most of Manhattan for hours - definitely no permits...
[2] Gotta say, I'm pretty iffy on letting protestors block roads or otherwise disrupting normal-traffic/life/access, it's just not necessary to make people aware of your message.
|
Closing Broadway through most of Manhattan is sorta what I'm talking about. If someone wants to block traffic at rush hour just for the sake of blocking traffic at rush hour, they deserve to have their head smashed in (back off Mr. Google, figure of speech). But marching, such that streets need to be blocked off, even for hours at a time, is entirely reasonable (in contrast to blocking streets for the sake of blocking streets). Additionally, if you just have a massive crowd (rare), why not let them have a street or two on a saturday, even downtown?
In the example you note, I'd guess the police really have no choice. When you get the rare massive impromptu populist demonstrations, the permit per-se shouldn't be critical, insasmuch as you have to work out reasonable terms with the leadership in the crowd anyway.
But how far south can things go when 50K New Yorkers show up on a street to protest violence and war?
Hello
__________________
Man, back in the day, you used to love getting flushed, you'd be all like 'Flush me J! Flush me!' And I'd be like 'Nawww'
|
|
|
11-24-2003, 11:31 AM
|
#1692
|
I didn't do it.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,371
|
Troubling
Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
But how far south can things go when 50K New Yorkers show up on a street to protest violence and war?
Hello
|
I'm normally present at things people are protesting as opposed to being a protestor.
In our case the protestors are saying everything they possibly can to provoke a response, preferably a violent one so they can (a) get someone arrested and (b) sue them. (They video tape everything.) There is some blocking, some getting in faces, some "accidentally" bumping people.
It is absolutely amazing there isn't violence, we have had some very close calls. I myself have physically pulled people away from the protestors to avoid a confrontation.
We have small crowds, at our biggest event under 10k. The protestors normally amount to 10 or 20 people. Given the tension that develops in that small a crowd and the fact we manage to avoid violence, just, I bet a 50k crowd can get out of control right quick. All you need is one hot head to turn a crowd of peaceful protestors into a riot.
If you have never been at a real protest where people are truly into what they are talking about, you have no idea how the air literally becomes enveloped with animosity between the two groups. It is an unbelievable energy and you can feel it. That much feeling has to go somewhere.
|
|
|
11-24-2003, 11:49 AM
|
#1693
|
Theo rests his case
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: who's askin?
Posts: 1,632
|
Troubling
Quote:
Originally posted by leagleaze
[Confrontational protests?]
|
Now that you mention it, I guess its safe to say I'm describing large political protests that are more like rallies or marches on City Hall or the DNC or the National Mall or a park. Not confrontations between groups of citizens.
Do your naborhood coppers go in heavy for the most strident and virulent provocateurs? I can't imagine waiting for something to happen first, given the likelihood that it would in what you describe.
Hello
__________________
Man, back in the day, you used to love getting flushed, you'd be all like 'Flush me J! Flush me!' And I'd be like 'Nawww'
|
|
|
11-24-2003, 12:16 PM
|
#1694
|
I didn't do it.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,371
|
Troubling
Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Now that you mention it, I guess its safe to say I'm describing large political protests that are more like rallies or marches on City Hall or the DNC or the National Mall or a park. Not confrontations between groups of citizens.
Do your naborhood coppers go in heavy for the most strident and virulent provocateurs? I can't imagine waiting for something to happen first, given the likelihood that it would in what you describe.
Hello
|
Whenever you have any kind of protest, rally, march, you normally have counterprotests going on. Not always but normally.
The cops want to react pretty quickly. I work pretty closely with them, because in my personal experience they can want to arrrest a little too quickly, and I worry about the first amendment rights of the protestors.
The cops are often very very frustrated, they feel that they wouldn't warn someone twice if it weren't a first amendment issue, why do they have to warn them 2, 3, 4 times before they act when they are protestors.
|
|
|
11-24-2003, 01:20 PM
|
#1695
|
Theo rests his case
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: who's askin?
Posts: 1,632
|
Troubling
Quote:
Originally posted by leagleaze
Whenever you have any kind of protest, rally, march, you normally have counterprotests going on. Not always but normally.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally posted by leagleaze
I worry about the first amendment rights of the protestors.
|
I'm think I'm missing something here. The protestors who are protesting you?
__________________
Man, back in the day, you used to love getting flushed, you'd be all like 'Flush me J! Flush me!' And I'd be like 'Nawww'
|
|
|
 |
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|