Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

etv8YEqaWgA

Little to no mention of this in the mainstream media. I find it more than a little disturbing, though there are conflicting reports, some claiming that there were protesters who refused to leave after being requested, and that those assaulted were not innocent bystanders. Discuss.

Gotta say, I'm a bit suspicious of people who start with "Democracy 101" and aren't teaching a course on it. We also only get to see one side (and this is clearly filmed by the protesters so I doubt it's unbiased). I would like to know the reasoning for it being an unlawful protest, aren't the police required to mention that?

I love these videos.

Police tell people to leave the area, people refuse to leave and stand in the way of police line, people get beat and arrested.

Then they go on camera and wonder why it happened and state that they did nothing wrong.

"I'm just a student"

There's your reason. Everybody hates students.

Gotta love when the ghostbusters arrive though and one of them starts shouting "GET BACK"...Of course they cut off the bit when he says "Or i'll blast you with my proton pack"

I like the back-lit smoke and face-concealing helmets. Very dystopian.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I like the back-lit smoke and face-concealing helmets. Very dystopian.

I noticed that too.

I found the whole thing kinda interesting, but yeah, if there really was wrongdoing on the police's part, the media would be all over it. So to pretend that it was just students sitting on a lawn somewhere is a bit naive. Still not sure I agree with the tactics they employed, because it didn't appear like the protesters were violent, but meh.

3:16 - looks like a scene from The Two Towers

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I like the back-lit smoke and face-concealing helmets. Very dystopian.

I thought it looked like a scene from "Outpost" with the Nazi zombies being lit from the back in the mist.

I laughed.

Originally posted by KidRock
I love these videos.

Police tell people to leave the area, people refuse to leave and stand in the way of police line, people get beat and arrested.

Then they go on camera and wonder why it happened and state that they did nothing wrong. Yup. Cops are all bad, same old shit.

Looks like V for Vendetta to me, or some other dystopian setting.

I wonder why the protest was 'unlawful'? Do you need to apply for a permit to protest there? Because police don't over react that much to a simple sit in somewhere.

What were they even protesting?

Most likely the protesters were "Disturbing the peace."

Originally posted by Omgu8mynewt
What were they even protesting?

The G-20 summit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-20_major_economies

Some people think that's where the secret masters of the world meet.

good for pittsburgh.

i cant stand college protesters.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Some people think that's where the secret masters of the world meet.
That's true except for the "secret" part of it.

He Man?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
He Man?

You effin' newb. That's Master's of the Universe, not world.

Originally posted by KidRock
Police tell people to leave the area, people refuse to leave and stand in the way of police line, people get beat and arrested.

the constitution be damned, eh?

Freedom of Assembly, eh? I'm all for that.

Question: What about when the Assembly gets out of hand? Let's say a group of people are blocking the entrance to an abortion clinic, or a group of striking employees are blocking the entrance to a factory, what then?

Not saying that happened here, just a general question.

Originally posted by inimalist
the constitution be damned, eh?

IIRC, the Constitution's protection of the right to assembly only applies to petitioning Congress. It was later that the Supreme Court expanded it.

But as far as I can see that was an over reaction by the police.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Not saying that happened here, just a general question.

is the answer that the state has the right to beat those people?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But as far as I can see that was an over reaction by the police.

http://i.current.com/images/asset/893/557/40/i3zYnG.jpg

T-shirt printed by the Denver Police Union after widespread allegations of violence and illegal detention by protesters at the DNC demonstrations.

not saying that happened here, just a general comment...

Gee...this only happens when Bush is president. Godamn republicans.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
IIRC, the Constitution's protection of the right to assembly only applies to petitioning Congress. It was later that the Supreme Court expanded it.

Yeah, that was the Hague vs. CIO case back in the 30s. But, no, assembling for the purpose of petitioning congress was the original intent. So, protesting WITH a petition as part of the cause would technicially be within original intent. I could be wrong as it's been a summer and 5 weeks since I took American Government.

just for the record, my initial point, with reference to the constitution, was regarding your right to not have a police officer needlessly beat you.

Just for the recor..

iiirrrrrraa ii week-it ira ira


HEY! STOP SCATCHING MY RECORD!

Originally posted by inimalist
just for the record, my initial point, with reference to the constitution, was regarding your right to not have a police officer needlessly beat you.

Dont resist arrest and it wont happen.

Originally posted by KidRock
Dont resist arrest and it wont happen.
For someone who is oh-so-scared of government control, i'm surprised to see you taking this position.

So why are they using military grade Sonic Cannons against protesters? If police were actually doing their duty in protecting the public trust, they would all make a simultaneous 180 degree turn and open fire with live ammunition.

Originally posted by inimalist
is the answer that the state has the right to beat those people?



http://i.current.com/images/asset/893/557/40/i3zYnG.jpg

T-shirt printed by the Denver Police Union after widespread allegations of violence and illegal detention by protesters at the DNC demonstrations.

not saying that happened here, just a general comment... I asked you what your answer is.

Yay, more excessive use of force.

They were probably hispanic, they deserved it.

There's at least one very threatening 115 pound white girl that gets slammed into the ground by 2-3 cops, can't be too careful, even when wearing armor and shields.

Yeah, I had to take that 115 pound girl to the hospital with friends during the 2004 boulder halloween police riot after a pig slammed her to the ground, grabbed her throat, and started spraying pepper spray directly in her mouth till her tongue swelled up. What was her crime? Walking to her front porch to see what was going on. I'm not sure the legal settlement quite covers the fact that the pig that did it is still on the force and not in jail (commuted to time served) after arguing down assault and battery, assault with a deadly weapon, violation of constitutional rights, and breaking and entering to second degree assault and mayhem in exchange for turning in one of his buddies who shot a tear gas grenade through a residential home's window, crushing a 6 year old girl's orbital socket in the process or the fact that she's on oxygen for the rest of her life.

As stated above: "don't resist and it won't happen", duh.

Sometimes I think the only way to stop police brutality and corruption is to have it be classified as a form of treason, punishable with a bullet to the head.

Holy shit.

Just saw the vid. That's f***ed up. Shit like that makes me realize why the second amendment allowed militias. Have the G20 by a college probably a stupid move, anyway.


When our generation makes up the primary voting demographic, I wonder what we are going to do?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Yup. Cops are all bad, same old shit. And in comes RJ, to educate us with a good old "Respect all authority blindly"

Originally posted by dadudemon



When our generation makes up the primary voting demographic, I wonder what we are going to do?

Become police officers and beat students probably. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly the student militancy disappears upon graduation. Standing against authority will forever be deemed as something you have to do as a student. Most of them don't really give a shit about the causes they turn out for. They do to say they were there in case it does kick off.

Originally posted by jaden101
Become police officers and beat students probably. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly the student militancy disappears upon graduation. Standing against authority will forever be deemed as something you have to do as a student. Most of them don't really give a shit about the causes they turn out for. They do to say they were there in case it does kick off. You really think that's true?

I was a student for 7 years. I've seen friends of mine attend rallies and protests....The same friends were in the riot squads wading in and beating protesters at the G8 at Gleneagles a few years ago.

So yes.

I'm aware this doesn't make it the rule but i'm also aware of how many students apply for the police force after graduation.

There is very little real student political participation that is genuine and continues after university. Very disturbing given that most of today's politicians were heavily involved in student politics and continued this interest after graduation.

Originally posted by jaden101
I was a student for 7 years. I've seen friends of mine attend rallies and protests....The same friends were in the riot squads wading in and beating protesters at the G8 at Gleneagles a few years ago.

So yes.

I'm aware this doesn't make it the rule but i'm also aware of how many students apply for the police force after graduation.

There is very little real student political participation that is genuine and continues after university. Very disturbing given that most of today's politicians were heavily involved in student politics and continued this interest after graduation.


The first and second seem to be two different points, but do you base that assumption on anything else but a few personal anecdotes?

Originally posted by Bardock42
And in comes RJ, to educate us with a good old "Respect all authority blindly" No, but when a Cop tells someone to cease and desist or he'll taze them/arrest them/whatever, and they don't, it's their own fault when they get jacked up.

Let's say a Cop approaches a protester and orders them to disperse, that they are disturbing the peace (That's strike one), and the protester refuses. The Cop then tries to physically remove them, and they resist. That's resisting arrest, strike two. At that point, the Cop is free to restrain them by any means necessary.

The Police in the vid warned them, they were told to leave. Obviously someone called in and reported it as a disturbance. Then the Cops fired tear gas at them, trying to make them disperse without getting physical with them. They didn't leave. So yeah, any protester who, after the tear gas was fired, did not disperse, they are idiots. They KNEW what would happen, yet they stayed.

If the Police violated their civil rights by ordering them to leave, which is likely, then just leave and handle it legally. Get a lawyer and sue the city.




But hey, maybe I'm full of shit.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
No, but when a Cop tells someone to cease and desist or he'll taze them/arrest them/whatever, and they don't, it's their own fault when they get jacked up.

Let's say a Cop approaches a protester and orders them to disperse, that they are disturbing the peace (That's strike one), and the protester refuses. The Cop then tries to physically remove them, and they resist. That's resisting arrest, strike two. At that point, the Cop is free to restrain them by any means necessary.

The Police in the vid warned them, they were told to leave. Obviously someone called in and reported it as a disturbance. Then the Cops fired tear gas at them, trying to make them disperse without getting physical with them. They didn't leave. So yeah, any protester who, after the tear gas was fired, did not disperse, they are idiots. They KNEW what would happen, yet they stayed.

If the Police violated their civil rights by ordering them to leave, which is likely, then just leave and handle it legally. Get a lawyer and sue the city.




But hey, maybe I'm full of shit.

So you think that even if they actually had their civil rights violated you think it is their fault and not the people that violated them?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Holy shit.

Just saw the vid. That's f***ed up. Shit like that makes me realize why the second amendment allowed militias. Have the G20 by a college probably a stupid move, anyway.

Because the one thing that would have defused that scene would be if the protesters tried to blow them away with uzis

Originally posted by Digi

I found the whole thing kinda interesting, but yeah, if there really was wrongdoing on the police's part, the media would be all over it.

Sarcasm?

Originally posted by KidRock
Dont resist arrest and it wont happen.

from the video, those people weren't resisting arrest

also, I didn't realize resisting arrest in your country gave the police carte blanche to beat people up...

So, if you were chilling in the park, and the police told you to leave, and you asked why, then they beat the shit out of you, is that your fault?

"well, if we blame the victim then we never have to address real social problems facing our nation"

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I asked you what your answer is.

the police can use their years of training and their above average intellect, because we all know cops aren't just testosterone junkies jacked up on their own authority, to, and I know this is going to sound astounding, not beat the shit out of people.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
No, but when a Cop tells someone to cease and desist or he'll taze them/arrest them/whatever, and they don't, it's their own fault when they get jacked up.

Let's say a Cop approaches a protester and orders them to disperse, that they are disturbing the peace (That's strike one), and the protester refuses. The Cop then tries to physically remove them, and they resist. That's resisting arrest, strike two. At that point, the Cop is free to restrain them by any means necessary.

The Police in the vid warned them, they were told to leave. Obviously someone called in and reported it as a disturbance. Then the Cops fired tear gas at them, trying to make them disperse without getting physical with them. They didn't leave. So yeah, any protester who, after the tear gas was fired, did not disperse, they are idiots. They KNEW what would happen, yet they stayed.

If the Police violated their civil rights by ordering them to leave, which is likely, then just leave and handle it legally. Get a lawyer and sue the city.




But hey, maybe I'm full of shit.

so, at strike 2, the police are allowed to beat up non-violent people?

lol, I really don't want to get into it. So, cool, you are right, the police can do what they want, America is quickly becoming a police state and there is nothing the average person can do. But hey, if you don't do anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about, right? Because, you know, thats not fascism or anything, right? am i right?

Just out of curiiousity, is anyone else not able to go to espn.com , cnn.com, foxnews.com , or any other major media website in the U.S.?

Originally posted by chithappens
Just out of curiiousity, is anyone else not able to go to espn.com , cnn.com, foxnews.com , or any other major media website in the U.S.?

sounds like you have a software issue

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, I really don't want to get into it. So, cool, you are right, the police can do what they want, America is quickly becoming a police state and there is nothing the average person can do. But hey, if you don't do anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about, right? Because, you know, thats not fascism or anything, right? am i right?

I love this notion of America as a police state. What would Europe be then? Full of brain controlling aliens?

Originally posted by Bardock42
The first and second seem to be two different points, but do you base that assumption on anything else but a few personal anecdotes?

How about voting patterns in the 18-24 demographic. It's a good indicator of the most basic of political interest. Typically that age group votes in far lesser numbers than any other.

I'd say that's pretty indicitive of the fact that any real political interest comes a distant 2nd when the majority of these students are involved the protests. The main reason being that they can simply say they were there.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/35/Uk_general_election_2005_by_age.png

The different colours representing different parties.

Originally posted by jaden101
How about voting patterns in the 18-24 demographic. It's a good indicator of the most basic of political interest. Typically that age group votes in far lesser numbers than any other.

I'd say that's pretty indicitive of the fact that any real political interest comes a distant 2nd when the majority of these students are involved the protests. The main reason being that they can simply say they were there.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/35/Uk_general_election_2005_by_age.png

The different colours representing different parties.

That is only indicative if we assume that this voting apathy applies similarly to the students that are involved in political protests, no?

That doesn't seem to be certain though.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I love this notion of America as a police state. What would Europe be then? Full of brain controlling aliens?

Are you saying that police presence, power and brutality are vastly more prevalent in Europe? Cause I am not sure what that would be based on.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I love this notion of America as a police state. What would Europe be then? Full of brain controlling aliens?

By police state, I'm referring to the presence and use of police, and the general constitutionality of their tactics.

So, because there might be worse places than America, it can't be becoming a police state?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Are you saying that police presence, power and brutality are vastly more prevalent in Europe? Cause I am not sure what that would be based on.

If it exists at all then it's "fast becoming a police state" add in the increased presence of government influence and I can only imagine that every single person in Europe has been enslaved by aliens. Otherwise we'd have to dial back a little bit and say that America isn't really anything like a police state.

Originally posted by inimalist
from the video, those people weren't resisting arrest

also, I didn't realize resisting arrest in your country gave the police carte blanche to beat people up...

So, if you were chilling in the park, and the police told you to leave, and you asked why, then they beat the shit out of you, is that your fault?

"well, if we blame the victim then we never have to address real social problems facing our nation"


They were causing a riot and disturbance a block away from the location where the leaders of the world were meeting. They were also screaming and wearing bandanas around their face. If you're innocent and doing nothing wrong, why hide your identity?

If the police tell people to leave an area and they refuse..what should the police do? Ask you again politely? If you keep refusing to leave they will remove you by force. Then of course the morons like in this video start to fight back and then they get beat and wonder why it happened.

Also more lol @ the liberals actually crying out that constitutional rights are being violated.

Originally posted by KidRock
If you're innocent and doing nothing wrong, why hide your identity?

The cops were wearing face concealing gear too.

Originally posted by KidRock
Also more lol @ the liberals actually crying out that constitutional rights are being violated.

Yeah, how dare people be outraged by the police over reacting and breaking up a riot with little justification.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The cops were wearing face concealing gear too.



Yeah, how dare people be outraged by the police over reacting and breaking up a riot with little justification.

They were wearing standard riot gear, like a helmet to protect their face from the students who might throw shit at them.

If you're wearing a bandanna it's to protect your identity or to protect yourself from tear gas. If you go in their with the notion that you will be tear gassed then you're going in their knowing you're about to do something wrong that will cause it to happen.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos


Yeah, how dare people be outraged by the police over reacting and breaking up a riot with little justification.

Breaking up a riot with little justification? It's a RIOT, a public act of violence by an unruly mob, that is the justification right there genius.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That is only indicative if we assume that this voting apathy applies similarly to the students that are involved in political protests, no?

That doesn't seem to be certain though.

Higher %'s of students in an area where there is something to protest such as the G8 turn out to those protests than turn out to vote in elections.

Pretty indicative really of my point.

Originally posted by KidRock
Breaking up a riot with little justification? It's a RIOT, a public act of violence by an unruly mob, that is the justification right there genius.

Typo.

A protest. They weren't rioting, they were standing oppossing something they dislike when the cops said "this is an unlawful protest". The students weren't even told why it was unlawful.

Originally posted by KidRock
If you're wearing a bandanna it's to protect your identity or to protect yourself from tear gas. If you go in their with the notion that you will be tear gassed then you're going in their knowing you're about to do something wrong that will cause it to happen.
So if you go out with a concealed gun, when you get attacked, it's your fault?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Typo.

A protest. They weren't rioting, they were standing oppossing something they dislike when the cops said "this is an unlawful protest". The students weren't even told why it was unlawful.

Yeah, because we can get a great idea of what is going on in a 4 minute video filmed and edited so that we see whatever the protester wanted us to see.


Instead of giving the police and chief of police of Pittsburgh the benefit of the doubt that the assembly was unlawful (no permit, rioting, violence), we should believe a 4 minute video filmed by a protester. Because as we all know, police are evil and college protesters are never violent.

What is this chief thinking? There is nothing wrong with large groups of people in bandannas and ski masks marching towards the location where the 20 leaders of the world are meeting.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
So if you go out with a concealed gun, when you get attacked, it's your fault?

Not my fault at all.

Now if the police come and ask to see my permit for that weapon and I refuse to show it to them, then resist when they try to arrest me, it is my fault.

Originally posted by jaden101
Higher %'s of students in an area where there is something to protest such as the G8 turn out to those protests than turn out to vote in elections.

Pretty indicative really of my point.

I understand that that is your point, I jsut don't think you gave evidence for it.

Originally posted by KidRock
Yeah, because we can get a great idea of what is going on in a 4 minute video filmed and edited so that we see whatever the protester wanted us to see.

No no, I agree with you here. The video could hardly be a more biased source. However, if there had been violence or people bringing weapons that could destroy the building or cut down cops with riot shields I'd really be shocked if not a single person thought that might make a good story.

Originally posted by KidRock
They were causing a riot and disturbance a block away from the location where the leaders of the world were meeting. They were also screaming and wearing bandanas around their face. If you're innocent and doing nothing wrong, why hide your identity?

I actually used a variation of that last line in a mocking sense in the post you quoted

at the very least, it isn't congruent with the ideals you seem to espouse in other threads

Originally posted by KidRock
If the police tell people to leave an area and they refuse..what should the police do? Ask you again politely? If you keep refusing to leave they will remove you by force. Then of course the morons like in this video start to fight back and then they get beat and wonder why it happened.

right, because police have at their disposal only two options. do nothing or be violent. There is no middle ground

Originally posted by KidRock
Also more lol @ the liberals actually crying out that constitutional rights are being violated.

ya, who needs that suicide pact, huh?

not the gestapo

Originally posted by KidRock
Not my fault at all.

Now if the police come and ask to see my permit for that weapon and I refuse to show it to them, then resist when they try to arrest me, it is my fault.
Just like having a bandana doesn't make it your fault if a cop beats you.

The cops aren't asking for a permit. Their telling them it's unlawful with no real evidence as such.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Just like having a bandana doesn't make it your fault if a cop beats you.

The cops aren't asking for a permit. Their telling them it's unlawful with no real evidence as such.

You need a permit to lawfully assemble in a public place as far as I know.

Just like the Democrats were whining and crying about the teabaggers carrying guns to protests, having a bandanna wrapped around your face is equally as threatening to police.

If there is no evidence, you take the police to court..you don't fight with them and resist in the streets.

Police have to be given the benefit of the doubt in our society that they're doing the right thing or our entire law enforcement system just wouldn't work.

Originally posted by KidRock
Police have to be given the benefit of the doubt in our society that they're doing the right thing or our entire law enforcement system just wouldn't work.

is that where innocent until proven guilty comes from?

Originally posted by KidRock
Just like the Democrats were whining and crying about the teabaggers carrying guns to protests, having a bandanna wrapped around your face is equally as threatening to police.

People who find banana's as threatening as guns shouldn't be allowed out of mental asylums.

Originally posted by KidRock
Police have to be given the benefit of the doubt in our society that they're doing the right thing or our entire law enforcement system just wouldn't work.

So what kind of tattoo would you like to symbolize what you stand for, Fasces, a lightning bolt, or a swastika? Is internal affairs an unnecessary function of government?

The reason to hide your face is because certain police forces such as the Denver PD keep files specifically on protesters they define as liberal (i.e. pro choice counter demonstrations, gay pride, anti-war, 4/20-despite the fact the marijuana is decriminalized in the city of denver, even people who volunteer for the AIDS walk or run vegetarian food stands at a taste of colorado) and then forward all information they can gather to the FBI, violating those peoples' rights and swamping the FBI with so much useless information that it makes their jobs harder.

So the abridged version of that argument is that people at the G20 demos are covering their faces to make the FBI's job easier?

Originally posted by inimalist
is that where innocent until proven guilty comes from?

If you have a problem with a decision the police make, take it to court or IA..don't fight with them in the streets about it like these stupid college students tried to do.

It's the courts position to decide if the police lacked evidence or not.

Originally posted by KidRock
If you have a problem with a decision the police make, take it to court or IA..don't fight with them in the streets about it like these stupid college students tried to do.

It's the courts position to decide if the police lacked evidence or not.

would you advise the same to all victims?

"women, don't fight with the rapist, a court of law is where these matters are dealt with"

Originally posted by inimalist
would you advise the same to all victims?

"women, don't fight with the rapist, a court of law is where these matters are dealt with"

So you're comparing someone raping a woman to a police officer breaking up a riot?

Originally posted by KidRock
If you have a problem with a decision the police make, take it to court or IA..don't fight with them in the streets about it like these stupid college students tried to do.

It's the courts position to decide if the police lacked evidence or not.

If a cop is beating me or using deadly force against me, I'm fighting back. It's not worth being crippled or dead. Especially in a state where you can't even be sure because we have the highest rate of police impersonation in the country.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
If a cop is beating me or using deadly force against me, I'm fighting back. It's not worth being crippled or dead. Especially in a state where you can't even be sure because we have the highest rate of police impersonation in the country.

how does that work? you realize that if you just go limp and/or slacken theyll stop beating you, as opposed to "fighting back" and requiring them to use more force?

its really hard for me to understand this picture painted of cops as these ultimate knee jerking killers, too be honest.

Originally posted by KidRock
So you're comparing someone raping a woman to a police officer breaking up a riot?

indeed, in each instance a victim is having their rights violated by an attacker who is breaking the law.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
how does that work? you realize that if you just go limp and/or slacken theyll stop beating you, as opposed to "fighting back" and requiring them to use more force?

its really hard for me to understand this picture painted of cops as these ultimate knee jerking killers, too be honest.

when they are already using force well in excess of what the situation calls for, why would you suppose they are going to stop?

not to mention, there are numerous examples of cases where police beat suspects who were in handcuffs or subdued.

further, the issue is the beating of non-violent individuals in the first place.

I've seen things first hand. I also have the benefit of having my best male friend being a police officer so stuff gets around to me. Their starting to take measures in a lot of local police departments where new recruits have to take multiple psych batteries because of how many diagnosed psychopaths they've had to fire off of police forces. Which by the way I'm facing myself due to a better job that opened up with a sheriff's department as a 911 dispatcher. So many people apply for officer positions simply because authority and violence gives them a rush and it's insane how many get through the screening.

As for police impersonation...in Colorado it's legal to buy anything at a police auction except for a badge. go figure...

Originally posted by inimalist
indeed, in each instance a victim is having their rights violated by an attacker who is breaking the law.

The police have every right to break up a riot.

You don't have the right to rape people though.

Originally posted by KidRock
The police have every right to break up a riot.

You don't have the right to rape people though.

lol, sure, you win

its right when the cops do it, because what the cops do is right

The police have the responsibility to serve and defend the public trust. Once they start oppressing the public trust they are fundamentally committing treason. The same is true of all public officials.

no, see, the police are the good guys! they get to beat people up because the government says so, and they are NEVER wrong. I mean, who ever heard of the government using its power to oppress people?

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, sure, you win

its right when the cops do it, because what the cops do is right

It's right when cops do what? Break up a riot? Of course, it's their job..

Cops don't always do the right thing. We have internal affairs and a court to decide that, not a protesting college student and a 4 minute video.

Originally posted by inimalist
when they are already using force well in excess of what the situation calls for, why would you suppose they are going to stop?

not to mention, there are numerous examples of cases where police beat suspects who were in handcuffs or subdued.

further, the issue is the beating of non-violent individuals in the first place.

why do you suppose theyre going to stop if you fight back? that makes even less sense.

and i honestly dont understand where you're coming from here. what did the police do here that was wrong?

Would you agree that crimes committed by public officials against the American people within their capacity as public officials should be treated much harsher with much more severe penalties and far more liberal use of capital punishment?

so, using that exact same logic, a rape victim doesn't have the authority to deem that she is having her rights violated, and thus cannot defend herself.

the police are not above the law

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
why do you suppose theyre going to stop if you fight back? that makes even less sense.

and i honestly dont understand where you're coming from here. what did the police do here that was wrong? Perhaps the idea is to overpower them and run away, not sure though.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
why do you suppose theyre going to stop if you fight back? that makes even less sense.

and i honestly dont understand where you're coming from here. what did the police do here that was wrong?

beat up people who posed no threat to them

EDIT: no, the issue isn't how to defend yourself against a cop who is beating you, the issue is that the cops had no right to beat people

Originally posted by inimalist
no, see, the police are the good guys! they get to beat people up because the government says so, and they are NEVER wrong. I mean, who ever heard of the government using its power to oppress people?

You and your fellow liberals on this board should be in love with this.

Ya know, because you guys believe the government knows better and can take care of us better then we can take care of ourselves.

Originally posted by inimalist
so, using that exact same logic, a rape victim doesn't have the authority to deem that she is having her rights violated, and thus cannot defend herself.

the police are not above the law

A rapist was not given the authority by the government to enforce the law like the police are.

Originally posted by inimalist
so, using that exact same logic, a rape victim doesn't have the authority to deem that she is having her rights violated, and thus cannot defend herself.

Well, if the rapist is a police officer, he must have reasonable suspicion. And it's not rape, he's just performing a cavity search against a resisting suspect with the most sensitive part of his body for finding contraband and tagging her with a genetic marker for later and making an example to any other women who may leave the house looking that sexy.

Originally posted by KidRock
You and your fellow liberals on this board should be in love with this.

Ya know, because you guys believe the government knows better and can take care of us better then we can take care of ourselves.

I'm an anarchist...

I'm a Social Democrat, so by the exact definition of the word, inimalist and I are radicals not liberals. (that's radicals using in the Poly Sci definition, not the pejorative) I have no problem with police when they're actually doing their jobs and not engineering riots, looting, pillaging and raping. They're police, not knights and vassals.

Originally posted by KidRock
A rapist was not given the authority by the government to enforce the law like the police are.

the government does not give the police the right to beat non-violent individuals. Once they do, they are breaking the law and violating the rights of another in the very same way that a rapist is. Beating people is NOT part of the job of a police officer, and being a police officer does not make assaulting someone any less illegal.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I'm a Social Democrat, so by the exact definition of the word, inimalist and I are radicals not liberals. (that's radicals using in the Poly Sci definition, not the pejorative) I have no problem with police when they're actually doing their jobs and not engineering riots, looting, pillaging and raping. They're police, not knights and vassals.

Oh then you might not like that from an international standpoint, the stupid Social Democrats in Germany just lost way, way hard in today's election.


Also, inimalist a liberal in the US sense, lol

Seems this thread has gone from discussing the incident to discussing completely pointless, unrelated, hyperbolic rhetoric.

Originally posted by jaden101
Become police officers and beat students probably. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly the student militancy disappears upon graduation. Standing against authority will forever be deemed as something you have to do as a student. Most of them don't really give a shit about the causes they turn out for. They do to say they were there in case it does kick off.

This is exactly my point.



Didn't OUR parents and those 35-45 year old cops do similar things? ...what happened?


Didn't people protest in the 70s....ALOT?

So, this makes me think....what the hell happened?

I sure hope my generation doesn't end up hypocritical. Hope we actually remain about freedom, rights, etc.

Originally posted by inimalist
the government does not give the police the right to beat non-violent individuals. Once they do, they are breaking the law and violating the rights of another in the very same way that a rapist is. Beating people is NOT part of the job of a police officer, and being a police officer does not make assaulting someone any less illegal.

If someone is resisting arrest the police have every right to use their baton/club to take people down with it and use it until they comply with the officer.

They're given these batons for a reason, not just looks.

Charging a police officer with assault for using his club on someone so they comply and stop resisting would be like charging a soldier in the military with murder for killing a hostile.

Originally posted by KidRock
If someone is resisting arrest the police have every right to use their baton/club to take people down with it and use it until they comply with the officer.

They're given these batons for a reason, not just looks.

Charging a police officer with assault for using his club on someone so they comply and stop resisting would be like charging a soldier in the military with murder for killing a hostile.

If the arrest was unjustified and the force used excessive the officer will obviously have to be held accountable.

There's actually an official answer in my local police force that a police officer must use when asked in court why he hit someone a certain number of times...say 6.

Judge: Why did you hit the defendant 6 times?

Officer: Because 5 wasn't enough to subdue the suspect and 7 would've been too many.

Originally posted by KidRock
Charging a police officer with assault for using his club on someone so they comply and stop resisting would be like charging a soldier in the military with murder for killing a hostile. Not true at all man...I think you're in for a rude awakening when you go to law school, if its still in your future plans.

Originally posted by Bardock42
So you think that even if they actually had their civil rights violated you think it is their fault and not the people that violated them? No.

IF the cops violated their civil rights, they are not at fault, the cops are. The protesters should have dispersed and sought justice through legal channels.

The protesters are at fault for getting their asses kicked. They knew the cops were gonna do what they were gonna do, yet they persisted.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If the arrest was unjustified and the force used excessive the officer will obviously have to be held accountable.

Sure..if it was unjustified and excessive.

I guess we will wait and see what the courts and IA say about this.

Originally posted by KidRock
Sure..if it was unjustified and excessive.

I guess we will wait and see what the courts and IA say about this. Yeah...no, I'll probably have forgotten about it tomorrow.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
No, but when a Cop tells someone to cease and desist or he'll taze them/arrest them/whatever, and they don't, it's their own fault when they get jacked up.

Let's say a Cop approaches a protester and orders them to disperse, that they are disturbing the peace (That's strike one), and the protester refuses. The Cop then tries to physically remove them, and they resist. That's resisting arrest, strike two. At that point, the Cop is free to restrain them by any means necessary.

The Police in the vid warned them, they were told to leave. Obviously someone called in and reported it as a disturbance. Then the Cops fired tear gas at them, trying to make them disperse without getting physical with them. They didn't leave. So yeah, any protester who, after the tear gas was fired, did not disperse, they are idiots. They KNEW what would happen, yet they stayed.

If the Police violated their civil rights by ordering them to leave, which is likely, then just leave and handle it legally. Get a lawyer and sue the city.




But hey, maybe I'm full of shit.

I agree with everything in this post. If there is not militia of the people for the people, they have no way to adequately defend themselves. The best thing to do is leave and fight it in court....and take video of the things that happened.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because the one thing that would have defused that scene would be if the protesters tried to blow them away with uzis

You jest, but that was sort of my point.

If the armed Militia lets the governer and or federal authorities know that their local police are violating their first amendments and that they are going to exercise their 2nd amendment to restore the peace, that's fully protected in the constitution. The militia would just have to contact the cheif of police and say, "we are taking over law enforcement from here until this time. Call all your men off and we will ensure no crimes against the G20 are comitted." If they refuse, it is FULLY within the militia's constitutional rights to blow those mother f****** away. That was really the point of that pesky ammendment: a way for the people to rise up against tyranny, even in their own country.


If you had 1000 fully armed militia men, fully trained, armored, and educated nicely on their rights and local law, that scenario is perfectly legal. Blow them away of wiht uzi's is really the point of it. The Cheif of Police overstepped his rights by dispersing. I don't see why they couldn't protest a block away from the building while people were checked for gusn, etc. If the militia allowed that, while ensuring no guns or other types of devices were in the crowd, don't you think the protestors would be a taaaaaad bit happier about their "sichiation"?

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
how does that work? you realize that if you just go limp and/or slacken theyll stop beating you, as opposed to "fighting back" and requiring them to use more force?

its really hard for me to understand this picture painted of cops as these ultimate knee jerking killers, too be honest.

I guess your ebony ass is too young to remember Rodney King...

Originally posted by KidRock
Charging a police officer with assault for using his club on someone so they comply and stop resisting would be like charging a soldier in the military with murder for killing a hostile.

Protesters are not enemy combatants.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You jest, but that was sort of my point.

If the armed Militia lets the governer and or federal authorities know that their local police are violating their first amendments and that they are going to exercise their 2nd amendment to restore the peace, that's fully protected in the constitution. The militia would just have to contact the cheif of police and say, "we are taking over law enforcement from here until this time. Call all your men off and we will ensure no crimes against the G20 are comitted." If they refuse, it is FULLY within the militia's constitutional rights to blow those mother f****** away. That was really the point of that pesky ammendment: a way for the people to rise up against tyranny, even in their own country.


If you had 1000 fully armed militia men, fully trained, armored, and educated nicely on their rights and local law, that scenario is perfectly legal. Blow them away of wiht uzi's is really the point of it. The Cheif of Police overstepped his rights by dispersing. I don't see why they couldn't protest a block away from the building while people were checked for gusn, etc. If the militia allowed that, while ensuring no guns or other types of devices were in the crowd, don't you think the protestors would be a taaaaaad bit happier about their "sichiation"?

And if the militia try to kill the cops it's completely within their rights to not want to die. You get a nice little shooting war in Denver and absolutely nobody is happy about the "sichiation".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Protesters are not enemy combatants.

Which is exactly why police used military grade sonic cannons that have been linked to permanent brain injury and were meant to prevent uprisings and terrorist attacks in Iraq against American citizens at the G20 protests.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Protesters are not enemy combatants.

that was not the point at all..

Some of them were resisting arrest though.

Originally posted by KidRock
that was not the point at all..

You compared cops to soldiers. A soldier's actions are based on the idea that they are acting during a time of war and the people they harm are the enemy, even then harming a person who is not any danger to you is something that they do (and should) get in trouble for.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And if the militia try to kill the cops it's completely within their rights to not want to die. You get a nice little shooting war in Denver and absolutely nobody is happy about the "sichiation".

1. The militia would act on the will of the people.

2. The Chief of Police would have to be an idiot to actually go to war.

3. That's the whole damn point of the second amendment: to overthrow tyranny. Death is going to happen when an overthrow occurs.





Some people, like it appears you do, think the second amendment is antiquated. It is not. It is still valid. Do you think the Chief of Police would have made the decision he did if there was a larger, better armed, Pittsburgh militia, ready to enforce the people's first amendment right? Do you see why the 2nd amendment is still valid, as well?

Originally posted by jaden101
There's actually an official answer in my local police force that a police officer must use when asked in court why he hit someone a certain number of times...say 6.

Judge: Why did you hit the defendant 6 times?

Officer: Because 5 wasn't enough to subdue the suspect and 7 would've been too many.

That has a very Monty Python-esque feel to it.

Originally posted by Robtard
That has a very Monty Python-esque feel to it.

Odd.

I was thinking the same thing. I usually keep those thoughts to myself for fear of ridicule by Bardock. Seriously.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Protesters are not enemy combatants. You are 100% correct. They are, however, criminals after they disturb the peace and resist arrest.

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. The militia would act on the will of the people.

Why would a militia be any more likely to do that than the police?

Originally posted by dadudemon
2. The Chief of Police would have to be an idiot to actually go to war.

If they started killing his people I don't think it would require him to do anything at all to start a war between the cops and the militia.

Originally posted by dadudemon
3. That's the whole damn point of the second amendment: to overthrow tyranny. Death is going to happen when an overthrow occurs.

I think you mean: overthrow tyranny and replace it with a military junta.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Odd.

I was thinking the same thing. I usually keep those thoughts to myself for fear of ridicule by Bardock. Seriously.

You fear Bardock?

You really have gotten soft in your old age.

Originally posted by jaden101
You fear Bardock?

You really have gotten soft in your old age.

Ever since his wife started 'pegging' him late last year, his macho-aggression has disappeared.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why would a militia be any more likely to do that than the police?

Because that's the whole point of a local militia.


Edit - Are you aware that the militia IS the people? Sure, not everyone may agree with what everyone says, but their whole existance is to be able overthrow "the man" if "he" becomes to corrupt. A Chief of Police becoming too oppressive fits the bill. The militia members talk to their peeps...they agree that he needs to be ousted and they take over "security." Nothing wrong with that, especially since our constituational amendments provide for that.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If they started killing his people I don't think it would require him to do anything at all to start a war between the cops and the militia.

It wouldn't even get that far, though. If it did, the Chief should be the first one to go.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think you mean: overthrow tyranny and replace it with a military junta.

No, I mean overthrow the chief of police and his high ranking officers and replace those with other people not as supressive.



Originally posted by jaden101
You fear Bardock?

You really have gotten soft in your old age.

I just didn't feel like arguing with Bards about what would be seen or not seen in a monty python movie...so I didn't post it...to avoid the argument to begin with.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Because that's the whole point of a local militia.

Well in that case we shouldn't worry about police. The whole point of having cops is to protect us.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, I mean overthrow the chief of police and his high ranking officers and replace those with other people not as supressive.

And they wouldn't take those position themselves? They now run the town and are accountable to absolutely no one.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well in that case we shouldn't worry about police. The whole point of having cops is to protect us.

You have been reading the other conversations going on in this thread, right?

The point is...when they cross the line from protecting to harming or depriving rights, then that is just that: crossing the line. We the people are actually obligated to "right" the situation.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And they wouldn't take those position themselves? They now run the town and are accountable to absolutely no one.

I guess you forgot all about the national guard and any federal force.

You're really missing the point here.



Answer this to yourself: Do you understand the point of the second amendment? If you do, then I don't see why we are arguing. There's nothing to argue. The militia is there to overthrow what ever is in place that starts to infringe on certain "inalienable rights."

As a resident of Pittsburgh i am more annoyed by the fact that the city had to be, essentially, shut down for three days. This says a lot about protesters. As an American i value that first amendment so very much. I would die for that Constitution, not my gomment. With that said...,protesters are nothing more than a nuisance. The majority of them are just young, uninformed and impressionable youths. Yeah, i understand their urge to rebel, but while they're screaming their mindless brainwashed chants the adults are inside discussing change over a few cups of coffee.

The Protesters arrested deserved to be imprisoned, if not just on the grounds of stupidity. Before this big cluster frack that was the G20, the city of Pittsburgh issued designated protest area's. The fact that you need to have a permit to protest definitely pains me, but the reason we need permits is because of dumbasses. If people could voice their opinion in a fair and just manner we wouldn't need riot squads and sound canons. I am proud of this citys' police effort to sustain normality. Only a few businesses were vandalized and some self righteous protesters were arrested. This is a happy ending to me.