On the town with GWB, AKA democracy in action

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Here's some coverage of the anti-Bush protests in downtown PDX.

 

Obviously the police are there to serve and protect. Big-money political donors, that is.

 

Does this make anyone else want to puke?

[Sparky]

GWB is a corporate icon. He may not actually exist. The rich "Christers" have their hands up some talking dolls' ass.

Let me look back with fondness to a president who got blow-jobs and at least appeared to give a shit about the wilderness. I hope he inhaled.

[Dave_Schuldt]

Great pictures, thanks DFA.

[sexual_chocolate]

Hey, thanks DFA, for that link.

[erik]

i am sorry but i think sooo maby of those peopl e are sooooooooooo fucking pathetic.

 

Just look at the pic of the lady staring at the cop....what the fuck???? that lady isssssss sooooo tough...come on i wanna see that lady stare down a crack addict....i wanna see that lady starre down ted bundy...of course that cop aint gonna do shit.....

 

and they call them storm troopers.....well i call those other people fat, and dirty and worthless....do not these people ahve jobs?? they can just go down and yell and tell the world what is wrong with it....i bet none of these people have any ideas on what really constitutes how the world works. these people obviously have no idea on how good their lives are.....you can look at those pictures and see deisgner clothes and all sort of expensive items....that ummm is called capitalism and without these jobless(speculating here) dirt bags would have none of it, even if they bought it at a 2nd hand store.

 

use that energy in a positive way. instead of crying what is wrong with the world, why dont you try to go out and work with it, make a positive influence with the people and the things around you.

 

and reading the other day on that same website about how attroucios it was that a bay got peppered sprayed....well um did that baby walk down there by itself.....umm no so irresponsible parents brought it there......obviously these people are real smart....i say those parents should be jailed....for endangering their child.

 

then they have the pic of the cop with the video camera, making comments on how smug he was....well lets see i am sure that there were thousands of wanna be video journalists down there doing the same thing.....obviously they are in the right and the cops are wrong there.....

 

we certainly have the right to assmeble and protest, but with that comes responsibilty. and that responsibilty comes from both sides of the fence. if protesters feel they need to antagonize the police in that situation...they should expect to get beat down....it works that way in all walks of life........

 

liberal news media at its finest. next expose' piece will be on "road kill why do humans feel the need to rid the world of animals!"

[allthumbs]

Erik, you're my hero! A voice of reason in a sea of swill.

[Dru]

ya those protestors probably listen to phish, therefore they suck.

[MtnGoat]

"Obviously the police are there to serve and protect. Big-money political donors, that is."

 

So, are they not supposed to protect, even if it *is* big money donors? When a mob turns out to break things and hurt people, are the police just supposed to step aside because oh, these rioters "care", and are showing "democracy"?

 

This criticism makes no sense whatsoever. The police are supposed to keep the streets safe no matter who is rioting and trying to cause problems.

 

And thats wether it's rioters who "care" and are threatening people for "peace" and "progressive" values, or anybody else. Funny thing is, it's the folks who *claim* to be oh so caring, and oh so peaceful, throwing bricks and causing problems. And they wonder why they get pepper sprayed. If it always seems to be the folks rioting for peace getting treatment from the cops, maybe that ought to tell us something. It's because of all the folks in the nation who hold vigils, demonstrations, and marches, only those who describe themselves as the most caring and peaceful do the worst damage and lately always cause riots. Not the pro gun crowd, not the million moms, not even the reparations folks, when you see it's the pro peace, social justice, anti globalization folks coming downtown to show us how "democracy" should work, prepare for violence. Makes sense, huh?

 

"Does this make anyone else want to puke?"

 

It certainly does. We have folks claiming "democracy" is shown by rioting. "peace" is pursued by violence in the streets, and police protecting citizens some others disagree with is somehow outrageous.

 

Because apparently if you're a rich donor, rioters should be able to harm you on the sidewalks, you have no life, no rights, no kids at home or people who love you. You're just a cartoon figure, not a real person, and pissed off "progressives" should be able to do what they want to you on the street. yeah, it makes me puke alright.

 

When you have a political disagreement with someone, you *don't* get mad because the cops keep you from harming them. You *don't* show up and cause riots.

 

Demonstration is a public right, causing harm is not, and if "progressives" cannot keep their demonstrations from turning into riots maybe they ought to grow up and take a look at who they are, who they attract, what they condone, and maybe, just maybe, *actually* *LIVE* what they claim to believe. Fat chance.

 

Is not rioting for peace really all that hard? And they wonder why they are viewed as fringe, while they claim to be mainstream. one casual look at claims vs actions is all it takes to explain why.

 

****************************8

 

Poor babies got pepper sprayed. Call the Waaaaaambulance for them. Pepper spray is an appropriate low intensity responce to rioters. They have no "right" to riot, they are committing a crime and threatening others. If you don't want to be pepper sprayed, with the attendant risk of allergic reactions in some, it's pretty simple, really...don't riot! Don't hang around when told to leave! Don't threaten people for peace!

 

Do these "progressive" folks really have a difficult time with such basics?

 

[ 08-26-2002, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

[allthumbs]

Right On

[b-rock]

I would assume that those causing the real trouble were in the minority, as is often the case (WTO?). Sucks for those making a statement by protesting peacefully (Erik, I think this is 'doing' something, it's being heard and getting a viewpoint out to many people). Peaceful demonstration has brought about a lot of possitive change in our country's history, and of that I am proud. As for those asses who take a different approach - bricks, tagging, etc., whatever, lock 'em up, spray 'em down. But I'm only saying that because they ruin anything and everything gained by demonstration. Oh well.

[Dwayner]

Erik, Mountain Goat....right on! I was fully anticipatin' "the 'bone" to chime in with some knee-jerk nonsense about them folks being "hassled by the pigs".

[MtnGoat]

"Peaceful demonstration has brought about a lot of possitive change in our country's history, and of that I am proud."

 

No disagreement there, the problem is these particular group of folks rarely manage a peaceful demonstration anymore.

 

There are many, many groups who protest and march in this nation on any given year. If rioting was merely a target of opportunity for a few bad apples looking for a crowd to incite, and there was no ideological linkage, you'd see troublemakers in the other protests too, which you don't. Of all the gatherings, only the "progressive" protests draw these bad apples, there is clearly an idelogical component to this, some reason they find "progressive" gatherings ripe ground for riots.

 

Wether or not "progressives" condone these acts, and most do not, the fact is something in their platform and views *repeatedly* draws rioters to their events. This ought to make them think about who they are appealing to, IMO. Why do the bad apples think it's fertile territory, in peace marches?

 

"But I'm only saying that because they ruin anything and everything gained by demonstration. Oh well."

 

They really do and I feel bad for honest, peaceful, folks just trying to make a point as well.

 

Personally, I think part of the problem is the hyperbole used by progressives and protest organizations, to stir up support. Press releases and news stories tell of "war" on poor people, how we're "killing" the earth, how hopeless everything is, how the capitalists are making slaves of people, how they want to jail this minority and enslave that one, how money rules everything, how horrible it all is, then after painting this horrible picture, article after article, time after time, day in day out, they're suprised when this rhetoric has upped the ante to violence.

 

What do they expect when every comment about what they wish to address, is a 'crisis' that "cannot continue", that the entire earth and society is about to collapse, and on and on and on? You use language of hopelessness, war and conflict to get support by inducing crisis feelings, and are suprised when people react in chaotic ways evidencing violence, hopelessness, cyncism, etc?

 

[ 08-26-2002, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

[sexual_chocolate]

Ummm, what am I missing here? I'm not privvy to all the facts about the Portland episode; it seems as though (as always) there are two sides to every story.

 

The link DFA provided seems to indicate that the cops sprayed and attacked without provocation (a peaceful protest is NOT provocation in a supposed democracy).

 

It's funny how differently people see and interpret events, depending on their personal, political, cultural, etc., histories! One person sees a mouse where another sees an elephant!

 

I think, with a little bit of patience and mindfullness, there is the potential for understanding why anyone comes to the conclusions they do (whether or not we agree with them) which often leaves us in a position where what we so stubbornly clung to as the "right" way doesn't necessarily ring so clearly with self-righteousness anymore.

[MtnGoat]

That site never once addresses the realities of what police officers face when dealing with a large crowd composed of the same people who have initiated violence in other cities. The police owe it to *NO* political viewpoint to stand unprotected in front of a mob and risk being killed by something as simple as a thrown rock from one of hundreds milling about.

 

Their armor and their horses are entirely justifiable purely on the basis of what they face. The horses are excellent for crowd control as they give mounted officers a vantage point those on foot do not have. If those at this "independent" site find horses dangerous, the tack most people take is, don't get near the horses, listen to the cops, and don't go looking for confrontation when you *claim* you're just there to demonstrate.

 

The danger is caused by thousands of people *looking* for confrontation, if you are just protesting peacefully you do not need to stare cops down or try and push them around. What part of carrying a sign and protesting peacefully, means one needs to go up to cops and try to push them back?

 

Seems to me if you weren't interested in trouble, you'd raise your banner and just walk on by the cops, no confrontation needed. And yet here we have people heading for the cops, standing face to face, with full intent, bent on making a statement by getting in the cops faces, and then complaining the man is hassling them. They go to protest, *they* make the choice to go confront police officers, *they* bear full responsibility for dangers they have chosen to risk when they could just walk on by and *actually* protest peacefully. Changing course to stand face to face with an officer is not avoiding trouble.

 

Read the captions to those photos and you see this repost is hardly unbiased. "sadistic" smiles on one cops face, calling them "stormtroopers" who'd use their deadly weapons "without mercy".

 

[ 08-26-2002, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

[Off_White]

At least the progressives have not begun targeted assasinations, unlike the anti-abortion crowd.

 

In the pictures I saw online, the crowd did not look agressive, and they didn't seem to be pressing the barricades. I agree that "stormtroopers" is a kneejerk phrase, but the outfits do suggest it. Larry the Tool is just a cop, but I don't see you all falling all over yourselves to gush about what a great public servant he is and what a drag it is to put up with all those grimy unemployed antisocial climber types who are just waiting for a chance to fuck things up, cut new trails, evade the permit process, and falsify documents.

 

Fact is, a lot of people are unhappy with our "President" who is planning on a little October war to help out with the November elections. What do you want them to do, go volunteer at Head Start and adopt kittens? Bush is also an opportunistic bastard, using Southern Oregon's fear, misery, and double digit unemployment to advance his pro-industry/anti-environment ideolgy, in the same way he used the terrorist attacks to justify other bits of unpopular lunacy like the Missle Defense Corporate Welfare plan and the erosion of civil liberties (which should alarm any Libertarian as much as anyone on the Progressive side). So what do you want people to do? Write letters to their representatives? Yeah, I just love form letter response. Shut up and vote? By every possible recount criteria, Bush was not elected, so even if you win it doesn't matter. I'm NOT advocating rioting in the streets, but I'm also no fan of the "don't bother me, I'm comfortable" stance others seem so fond of.

[erik]

hey off,

 

could you consider a logger hitting a spike in a tree and being killed an assaination attempt....????

 

what about destroying millions in private in public property.....fuck maybe we should burn down all the ski resorts and loot and vadalize all the research facilites in universities.

 

it goes both ways....you gotta hit all sources of media and read throught the crap and then make up your mind to what is really facts....

 

oh yeah and what about all billy c. homeboys dyin all myserious like?? killed for a different reason, but still killed by the left...

[MtnGoat]

"At least the progressives have not begun targeted assasinations, unlike the anti-abortion crowd."

 

Are you saying all anti abortion protestors support assasinations?

 

"that "stormtroopers" is a kneejerk phrase, but the outfits do suggest it."

 

Are cops supposed to go home to their families with crushed skulls, broken limbs, or missing eyes, so protestors don't feel threatened? I can't understand why someone who is supposed to stand in front of hundreds of people is supposed to do so without appropriate protection. They're *supposed* be to hard to hurt, they're *supposed* to be able to do their jobs without worrying about bricks they don't see flying above the crowd.

 

"Fact is, a lot of people are unhappy with our "President" who is planning on a little October war to help out with the November elections."

 

So they're unhappy. OK. Lots of people are unhappy, only some feel this makes it OK to fill the streets and threaten cops. Maybe they need to do some work on why their unhappiness means they need to display it in public in threatening ways. Peaceful protestors walk *by* cops, they don't turn and confront them.

 

"What do you want them to do, go volunteer at Head Start and adopt kittens?"

 

That would be a start. *Choosing* to stop buying consumer goods, taking vacations using fuel swilling jets, ceasing to buy hi tech corporate products like music devices, computers, outdoor gear, eating foods trucked thousands of miles, etc. Anti globalists who use global trade, anti loggers who live in wood houses and wipe their spoiled hinies with paper, anti oil kids who vacation in Costa Rica by jet, it goes on and on. Yes, they ought to live what they preach *first*. If they *really* have the numbers they claim to, the support of the "people" they self decide they represent, these simple choices by all those people would *instantly* change an economy in ways no nasty old capitalist could do anything about.

 

"Bush is also an opportunistic bastard, using Southern Oregon's fear, misery, and double digit unemployment to advance his pro-industry/anti-environment ideolgy,"

 

What is it called when "progressives", use the same places to campaign for more govt programs? Is that opportinism too? Seems to me this "opportunism" is decided by political reasons.

 

"in the same way he used the terrorist attacks to justify other bits of unpopular lunacy like the Missle Defense Corporate Welfare plan and the erosion of civil liberties (which should alarm any Libertarian as much as anyone on the Progressive side)"

 

I agree with you here, on the civil liberties, I'm all for missile defense.

 

"So what do you want people to do? Write letters to their representatives? Yeah, I just love form letter response. Shut up and vote?"

 

Yes. Or protest, but by walking *past* cops with your signs, instead of intentionally standing face to face and toe to toe so you feel like your facing down "the man". All you're doing is being an ass and getting in the face of a normal guy with a family just like you, who's job means he wears a lot of gear so his daughter will have a dad come home in one piece. What a bastard, huh?

 

"but I'm also no fan of the "don't bother me, I'm comfortable" stance others seem so fond of."

 

Protest all you like. Don't riot, *don't* block travel of other free citizens, *don't* self assume your viewpoints is so important you need to shout at people who don't agree. It's pretty simple, closely held beliefs do not entitle the bearer to do whatever they want because they feel caring or enlighted.

 

I do not agree with these protesters on nearly anything they say, I agree they have the right to protests, but when I see people *stay* at a barrier and *intentionally* face cops for long periods of time, they're not choosing the peaceful route IMO.

 

[ 08-26-2002, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

[Off_White]

quote:

---

Originally posted by erik:

quote:

---

could you consider a logger hitting a spike in a tree and being killed an assaination attempt....????

---

Yeah, unannounced tree spiking is booby trapping, like throwing caltrops on a highway. Have any loggers actually been killed that way? I'm not suggesting maiming is more acceptable, I'm just curious. If they know the trees are spiked, and cut anyway, is that the same as Mnt Goat's claims of provocation, and that they should accept personal responsibility for the situation they placed themselves in?

 

quote:

---

what about destroying millions in private in public property.....fuck maybe we should burn down all the ski resorts and loot and vadalize all the research facilites in universities.

---

Just as a note, ski areas are not public property, though they are often located on public lands. The ELF is certainly engaged in property destruction, and the Justice Department has declared them the #1 domestic terror agency in the country. They do not try and kill people. Christians with rifles who unequivocally target individuals and the Leaders who exhort them just don't rate the same with Mr. Ashcroft I guess. Property destruction does get the insurance industry all worked up though.

That said, no I don't endorse the ELF's activities.

 

---

oh yeah and what about all billy c. homeboys dyin all myserious like?? killed for a different reason, but still killed by the left.

 

I'm sorry, I don't get the reference. Is billy c Clinton and the homeboys a reference to Vince whatsisname? Well, Clinton is no lefty, and no pal of mine, but I doubt he's at the heart of some byzantine murder-for-hire scheme. Besides, the left gets the government to do the killing for them, like Ruby Ridge and Waco. Shit Erik, we don't even have guns!

 

..

[Off_White]

goddamn you write fast Mtn Goat, I'm still thrashing about trying to figure out the point by point response mechanism (and totally lost a reply to you in the process) and you're just churning it out fast as can be while I'm trying to trade witticisms with Erik.

 

Anyway, in response to your first query, no I don't think all anti-abortion people endorse assasination, anymore than I think all progressives support riots. You pointed out that it seems to be only the progressives who riot, and I thought I'd point out it seems to be only the Christian Right who practice assasination.

 

phew, now I gotta read what you wrote, but I gotta get back to work too. I think they need to add a "policy wonk" category and award it to you It's fun working though your stuff though, so thanks.

 

[ 08-26-2002, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: Off White ]

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

i am sorry but i think sooo maby of those peopl e are sooooooooooo fucking pathetic.

 

Just look at the pic of the lady staring at the cop....what the fuck???? that lady isssssss sooooo tough...come on i wanna see that lady stare down a crack addict....i wanna see that lady starre down ted bundy...of course that cop aint gonna do shit.....

 

Yeah, the picture of that lady swappin' stares with the cop is kind of goofy. But then again, if the cops are going to show up decked out in their body-armored best and stare you down, why not stare back? If the cops are there to "protect" the innocent corporate interests of the wealthy, why do they need to intimidate people?

 

[/b]and they call them storm troopers.....[/b]

 

What do you call large heavily armed and armored men dressed in black and carrying big sticks?

 

well i call those other people fat, and dirty and worthless....do not these people ahve jobs?? they can just go down and yell and tell the world what is wrong with it....i bet none of these people have any ideas on what really constitutes how the world works. these people obviously have no idea on how good their lives are.....you can look at those pictures and see deisgner clothes and all sort of expensive items....that ummm is called capitalism and without these jobless(speculating here) dirt bags would have none of it, even if they bought it at a 2nd hand store.

 

Fat, dirty, worthless ... what's that all about? A lot of those people looked pretty skinny to DFA, and they're drawing attention to their cause; what's worthless about that? If any of them are unemployed, do you think it has anything to do with our economy being in the shitbox? The argument that these people have nice clothes or good lives is pointless and empty. First off, if people of privilege want to stand up and draw attention to issues effecting the disadvantaged, isn't that fairly egalitarian? And second of all, why the fuck should we settle for a half-assed America? The whole beauty of this country is that we are free to voice our opinions in public, and that people should be able to live well and be treated fairly. It should be possible to have capitalism without gross injustice, shouldn't it? And those protesters who are staunchly anti-capitalist probably go a lot farther than you give them credit for to live that credo.

 

use that energy in a positive way. instead of crying what is wrong with the world, why dont you try to go out and work with it, make a positive influence with the people and the things around you.

 

What is negative about making the world's problems known in public? And what makes you think a lot of those protesters don't do things like volunteer to make positive changes. Groups like Food Not Bombs, organizations like Street Roots and Sisters of the Road, and hordes of nonprofits are all staffed and kept alive by idealists like this who feel that they can make a difference. Taking to the streets is just another way to get the word out.

 

and reading the other day on that same website about how attroucios it was that a bay got peppered sprayed....well um did that baby walk down there by itself.....umm no so irresponsible parents brought it there......obviously these people are real smart....i say those parents should be jailed....for endangering their child.

 

Yeah, it does seem a little dodgy that you'd bring a baby to a protest, or at least that you'd stick around when the riot cops showed up. But hey, maybe instead of it being incumbent on people to not get hurt by the cops for exerciseing their rights (does that sound at all backwards to you?), maybe it should be incumbent on the cops not to hurt people for exercising their rights. Since when should people expect to get beaten or pepper sprayed for voicing their opinions? It is grossly backwards to expect that the police are going to punish people who demonstrate peacefully.

 

then they have the pic of the cop with the video camera, making comments on how smug he was....well lets see i am sure that there were thousands of wanna be video journalists down there doing the same thing.....obviously they are in the right and the cops are wrong there.....

 

The point apparently being that the cop was real smug taking pictures of protesters, but apparently not so happy getting filmed himself. Why are the cops nervous about the public seeing what they're doing? Whose video footage probably makes it onto the nightly news? It's probably not the footage of the cops spraying people down with pepper spray for just standing there.

 

we certainly have the right to assmeble and protest, but with that comes responsibilty. and that responsibilty comes from both sides of the fence. if protesters feel they need to antagonize the police in that situation...they should expect to get beat down....it works that way in all walks of life........

 

But who's antagonizing who here? People are guaranteed the right to peaceably assemble, so they do so. They carry no weapons, and they stay on their side of the barricades. The cops, on the other hand, show up ready to kick ass, in their jackboots with nightsticks in hand, marching shoulder to shoulder. Isn't that a provocative act of intimidation? So by that line of reasoning, shouldn't the protesters mob the cops and fuck them up? But it didn't happen that way, did it?

 

liberal news media at its finest. next expose' piece will be on "road kill why do humans feel the need to rid the world of animals!"

 

Funny, and presumably meant to be. But if you look at mainstream media coverage of these events (when there is any), you find that the protesters are painted as a violent criminal mob, and that the police are just protecting people and maintaining order. You don't get a very balanced view there, so should you expect the independent media to present things in a balanced way?

[MtnGoat]

"Why is it that when a group of decidedly wealthy individuals turns out to hobnob with the President and Gordon Smith, they get police protection, essentially acting as armed guards?"

 

Because as you can see, they need it. Private citizens have the right to gather and support whom they choose *regardless* of their social status, rich or poor. Protestors do *not* have the right to impede travel or gathering of citizens wether they disagree with them, or not.

 

Police protect abortion facilities from some Christian militants, they protected civil rights marchers from racists and nazi's from demonstrators elseswhere, just as they protect wealthy donors from protestors here. There is no open season on citizens because some don't like them or what they support.

 

Weathly citizens have *every* right to attend such functions as they see fit, without interference, just as the protestors do, and singling them out because they need protection, due to the actions of others is kind of odd to me.

 

"Where are you getting this idea that peaceful protestors "always cause riots?" It does not make sense that the city should prepare for violence from peaceful demonstrators, because they rarely incite violence. "

 

WTO, Genoa, DC last summer, violence is the common thread with progressive agenda.

 

Cities are in a no win sitation. If they prepare for violence, they are accused of inciting it. If they do not, and it occurs, they are *rightfully* attacked for not being prepared, as in Seattle. The burden for this issue lies with those who come and incite violence, *not* those people tasked to prepare for it to protect the rest of us.

 

"Seattle only had a few instances of "violence," and as the Doctor recalls, that violence was against some windows and newspaper boxes."

 

Some see property destruction as legitimate, I am not sure how you view it but I do not. Protecting property means protecting the hard work of those people who invest their lives to create their capital and property, and damage to property is damaging to them.

"This is people exercising their right to peaceably assemble. This is the police keeping people from getting within several blocks of the people they disagree with."

 

I'm not sure I understand where the right to demonstrate became a right to interfere with other people. Putting forth your views on something peacefully respects your rights to free speech, but getting in the way of *others* legally assembling to observe *their* free speech rights is not.

 

An example is the WTO where protestors *illegally* blocked access to the meetings. The police have learned from this, obviously, and demonstrators are kept where they can demonstrate, but will not interfere with the actions of other free citizens to observe their rights to assemble. In short, one persons right to protest does *not* eclipse anothers right to assemble.

 

"These people weren't there to hurt wealthy political donors, but to voice their opinion of the "president" and what he stands for."

 

They did so.

 

"You keep calling these people violent and rioters, but look at the pictures, and tell the Doctor who showed up with pepper spray, clubs, and shotguns?"

 

Are you going to tell me you want your brother, son, mom, dad out in front of a crowd of hundreds with no pepper spray, helmets, armor, etc? Cops are *supposed* to be prepared, I don't understand why this is so contentious a point.

 

"Are the protestors beating up the cops and smashing windows? Hmmm ... no, they're not."

 

Could this have to do with the fact the cops are prepared to take action? What should we do, underprepare cops and allow them to return home to their families in bags, or overprepare them so the worst event of the day is some pepper spray and that's it?

 

"How many of those people do you think claim to be mainstream, or want to be? They know that as protesters they are in the minority."

 

Then why do they claim to represent "the people"? How can they claim non action on their issues represents oppression, if the real reason for non action is they don't represent anyone but a minority? I see lots of claims that they represent everyone. I see claims that "the system" is rigged because they all "know" most people support them. I don't agree. I think they don't get action on their ideas not because we're oppressed, but because they are a very loud 1% and the reason people don't flood downtown with more protestors is because they simply don't want to.

 

Not cynicism, not greed, not underenlightenment, just realization that a loud minority can tell itself it's oppressed, when it's really just being ignored.

 

"Yeah, it would be understandable if these people were causing havoc and wrecking shit, but that's not what was happening, so why should they get treated like criminals?"

 

At least we agree on the violence part, I'll contend that this action is appropriate to forestall further violence. Even the reporter at that site admits the police issued orders no less than three times to clear out.

 

I understand the technical aspects in the pure sense of your objections to this crowd control, but I also understand the position of the cops given the nature of these crowds and their tendency to get into face to face showdowns with police. We'll have to agree to disagree on these points I think.

 

thanks for the chewy posts and your comments, even though we're on opposites sides we can try and demonstrate some civility ourselves!

 

[ 08-26-2002, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

[allthumbs]

kent state

[erik]

DFA, I WAS A BIT JUDGEMENTAL ON THOSE PEEPS...AND DAT IS MY ISSUE...DANKE

[MtnGoat]

hey off white, good post , I'll come for you later! got work to do.

[shuksan]

quote:

---

The track record so far suggests it the protestors who are far more in need of protective gear.

 

---

Police were doing their JOB at the protest, and didn't have a choice about being there. If OSHA had any rules regarding protest sites, you can bet you'd be required to wear all those "storm-trooper" accessories. The protesters, on the other hand, were making a free decision to put themselves in danger.

 

If I attend a demonstration and the crowd becomes unruly/violent, then I'd better accept the possibility of getting "caught in the crossfire", whether that's pepper spray or charging horses.

 

What we don't get from DFA's link is any hope for an unbiased representation of what happened, since this website was also involved in the organization of the protest. DFA seems to claim there was no one out to "break things and hurt people", but I've seen newspaper pictures of police cars being jumped on, and the only hospital injury reported was a policeman's broken wrist for being pushed to the ground.

 

The trouble is that there is no easy way to get the unbiased story. Did people start jumping on cars before the pepper spray, or was it the other way 'round? I certainly don't think people standing at a barricade deserve to be sprayed, regardless of how they may be staring at the cops.

 

One interesting thing about the DFA link is it shows basically two scenes -- the first with a bunch of police in riot gear and with horses where the text says the protesters were pushing the protest line back. The second is another barricade where the police have no protective gear, but where the crowd is claimed to be peaceful. This is where the pepper spray gets used first.

 

Maybe these police felt vulnerable and that the crowd was ready to come through the barricade. Certainly plausible, given what they must have known the other crowd was doing. Of course this would not fully excuse the use of the pepper spray; it just makes it more understandable. If indeed things did happen this way, criticism is most fairly put on the planning that resulted in a bunch of police in shirt sleeves without adequate protective gear having to control an unruly crowd.