If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Care2)   Tampa jails releasing criminals into the community in order to make cells available for those who might dare protest the GOP convention   (care2.com) divider line 534
    More: Asinine, RNC, Tampa, GOP, lethal, ABC Action News, political action, political convention, COINTELPRO  
•       •       •

7473 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Aug 2012 at 6:26 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



534 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-27 10:17:24 PM

feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: If that makes you so afraid, then why are you a police officer?

You know what, I am just going to call you out on this. If you've never been a police officer you can't possibly know what it is like to be a police officer. You know you can't sit in a restaurant in uniform unless you can see all the exits, you know you can't park your car to work on paperwork unless you have an unobstructed view 360 degrees, you know you can't shake hands with people you've just met while you're working, you know you can't use a public bathroom while your working. No you don't know any of these things because you obviously have never been a cop.

People attack cops simply because they are cops, lunatics attack cops for sport. All of the things I mentioned are daily reminders that as a cop at work you are in danger just by doing simple things that everyone else takes for granted. Do you want someone to come in the back door of a McDonalds and shoot you, how about sneak up on your car? Do you want someone to grab you when you try to be a nice guy by shaking hands with the same hand you use for your gun? Do you want to get shot while taking a leak, or have to hang your gun up on a hook in a stall?

Do you want protesters who may be hiding weapons of one sort or another, whom you have to arrest for violation of the law to be able to hide those weapons or injure one another with their arms locked together. When you arrest someone their safety becomes your responsibility.

I don't think they should have been sprayed, but it beat beating all of them on the arms until they let go of one another and could be arrested. I would have waited for more police officers, but perhaps they didn't have that luxury. The protesters could have obeyed the law and followed the lawful commands of the police, they didn't and were arrested. Not for protesting, but for failing to follow lawful orders

You're an imbecile.


And you are obviously way too emotional to have an objective opinion on this subject.
 
2012-08-27 10:21:22 PM
liam76
Great, instead of shotgunning out links that don't answer the question you barfed up some copy-pasta that doesn't answer the question.

Okay, now I'm convinced you're a troll. Bye!
 
2012-08-27 10:31:58 PM

feckingmorons: The protesters could have obeyed the law and followed the lawful commands of the police, they didn't and were arrested. Not for protesting, but for failing to follow lawful orders


You do not harm students who are passive. You do not beat them, you do not let dogs loose on them, you do not turn the hoses on them, and you do not pepper spray them. Unless you want to wear the brown shirt (a reffrence you probably do not get) you act civil. Based on what i've seen so far you are the willing muscle of facism.
 
2012-08-27 10:58:11 PM

feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: If that makes you so afraid, then why are you a police officer?

You know what, I am just going to call you out on this. If you've never been a police officer you can't possibly know what it is like to be a police officer. You know you can't sit in a restaurant in uniform unless you can see all the exits, you know you can't park your car to work on paperwork unless you have an unobstructed view 360 degrees, you know you can't shake hands with people you've just met while you're working, you know you can't use a public bathroom while your working. No you don't know any of these things because you obviously have never been a cop.

People attack cops simply because they are cops, lunatics attack cops for sport. All of the things I mentioned are daily reminders that as a cop at work you are in danger just by doing simple things that everyone else takes for granted. Do you want someone to come in the back door of a McDonalds and shoot you, how about sneak up on your car? Do you want someone to grab you when you try to be a nice guy by shaking hands with the same hand you use for your gun? Do you want to get shot while taking a leak, or have to hang your gun up on a hook in a stall?

Do you want protesters who may be hiding weapons of one sort or another, whom you have to arrest for violation of the law to be able to hide those weapons or injure one another with their arms locked together. When you arrest someone their safety becomes your responsibility.

I don't think they should have been sprayed, but it beat beating all of them on the arms until they let go of one another and could be arrested. I would have waited for more police officers, but perhaps they didn't have that luxury. The protesters could have obeyed the law and followed the lawful commands of the police, they didn't and were arrested. Not for protesting, but for failing to follow lawful orders

You're an imbecile.


That's a hell of a rant to tell me "YOU HATE COPS!!". Sorry, cupcake, some people being dicks to cops elsewhere doesn't give them a reason to attack peaceful college students exercising their rights and not harming or inconveniencing anyone (yes, not inconveniencing, anyone with legs could walk through the grass and there were no classes that day anyways).

Here's the thing about civil disobedience: if you immediately obey the first order given to you, it's pointless. You're there for a reason(s), and instantly rolling over and slinking away isn't one of them.
 
2012-08-28 12:16:03 AM
HOLY CONSERVAVICTIM BUTTHURT BATMAN!!

Summary of Farker Neo-Con logic: Teabaggers, who take their name from a historic event that looted and destroyed mass amounts of goods in protest is Good. Also, advocating 2nd Amendment Solutions to problems is Good.

BUT, dirty hippie libruls who do little more than put themselves in harms way by not supplicating themselves to every jackboot thug with a badge and an agenda informed by the most anti-bill of rights authoritarianism is Bad.

/Does the Derp hurt, or is it like an ignorance is bliss type feeling?
 
2012-08-28 12:58:40 AM

Magruda: feckingmorons: The protesters could have obeyed the law and followed the lawful commands of the police, they didn't and were arrested. Not for protesting, but for failing to follow lawful orders

You do not harm students who are passive. You do not beat them, you do not let dogs loose on them, you do not turn the hoses on them, and you do not pepper spray them. Unless you want to wear the brown shirt (a reffrence you probably do not get) you act civil. Based on what i've seen so far you are the willing muscle of facism.


If they were mechanics or Dairy queen employees it would be OK? The fact they were students is immaterial.

They were under arrest, they were not beaten, or tasered, or shot. They were sprayed with a chemical agent. I wouldn't have done it, but I wasn't there.
 
2012-08-28 01:01:02 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: That's a hell of a rant to tell me "YOU HATE COPS!!". Sorry, cupcake, some people being dicks to cops elsewhere doesn't give them a reason to attack peaceful college students exercising their rights and not harming or inconveniencing anyone (yes, not inconveniencing, anyone with legs could walk through the grass and there were no classes that day anyways).


But they were under arrest. When you are arrested your freedom is curtailed, you're not allowed to sit on the ground and sing kumbaya.

Sure, they can make a point by demonstrating, but they have to be aware that there may be consequences. I think the spray was unwarranted, but the arrests certainly were. We have Courts to sort these things out.
 
2012-08-28 02:17:50 AM

feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: That's a hell of a rant to tell me "YOU HATE COPS!!". Sorry, cupcake, some people being dicks to cops elsewhere doesn't give them a reason to attack peaceful college students exercising their rights and not harming or inconveniencing anyone (yes, not inconveniencing, anyone with legs could walk through the grass and there were no classes that day anyways).

But they were under arrest. When you are arrested your freedom is curtailed, you're not allowed to sit on the ground and sing kumbaya.

Sure, they can make a point by demonstrating, but they have to be aware that there may be consequences. I think the spray was unwarranted, but the arrests certainly were. We have Courts to sort these things out.


The fact that we resort immediately to arrest and stripping of rights instead of examining and addressing the reasons shows that America doesn't seem to care about anything but status quo and conformity. Quite san really, for a land that proudly proclaims itse'f the land of the free.

You keep licking the boot of absolute law and order if you like. The rest of us will continue to show that being noticed and noisy is how you draw attention to things, not being silent and hidden.
 
2012-08-28 06:35:49 AM

feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: If that makes you so afraid, then why are you a police officer?

You know what, I am just going to call you out on this. If you've never been a police officer you can't possibly know what it is like to be a police officer. You know you can't sit in a restaurant in uniform unless you can see all the exits, you know you can't park your car to work on paperwork unless you have an unobstructed view 360 degrees, you know you can't shake hands with people you've just met while you're working, you know you can't use a public bathroom while your working. No you don't know any of these things because you obviously have never been a cop.

People attack cops simply because they are cops, lunatics attack cops for sport. All of the things I mentioned are daily reminders that as a cop at work you are in danger just by doing simple things that everyone else takes for granted. Do you want someone to come in the back door of a McDonalds and shoot you, how about sneak up on your car? Do you want someone to grab you when you try to be a nice guy by shaking hands with the same hand you use for your gun? Do you want to get shot while taking a leak, or have to hang your gun up on a hook in a stall?

Do you want protesters who may be hiding weapons of one sort or another, whom you have to arrest for violation of the law to be able to hide those weapons or injure one another with their arms locked together. When you arrest someone their safety becomes your responsibility.

I don't think they should have been sprayed, but it beat beating all of them on the arms until they let go of one another and could be arrested. I would have waited for more police officers, but perhaps they didn't have that luxury. The protesters could have obeyed the law and followed the lawful commands of the police, they didn't and were arrested. Not for protesting, but for failing to follow lawful orders

You're an imbecile.


So, what you're saying is:

www.naderlibrary.com

"Now, look, buddy, you're not dealing with any dumb, two-bit, trigger-pumping morons with low hairlines, little piggy eyes and no conversation! We're a couple of caring, intelligent guys you'd probably really like if you met us socially. I don't go around gratuitously shooting people and then brag about it in seedy space rangers bars. I go around gratuitously shooting people, then I agonise about it afterwards to my girlfriend!"
 
2012-08-28 06:36:51 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: The cops stepped over and around the sitting students several times before they got sprayed, the cop even stepped over them to get to his car for the spray and stepped back over them to get the best angle of attack. Not once were any of the cops interfered with before the spraying.

After they sprayed the students and decided to take them in, they were surrounded. By people who did nothing but chant. If that makes you so afraid, then why are you a police officer?


If they had to step over the students, they were interfered with. They decided to "take in" students before the pepperspray.

Do you have no idea what happened?

Kids were protesting there for weeks. School told them enough and gave them a deadline. Police came in and most students left. Those that stayed were arrested. At that point students surrounded them set down and linked arms. Thsi prevented the cops from leaving witht he people they arrested. None of this is contested by protestors.


Magruda: liam76: Magruda: liam76: Read through those. None of them take an illegal act and say it was legal because it was done in a protest.

Cox v. Louisiana (1965)
Rev. B. Elton Cox was arrested and convicted for breach of the peace in Baton Rouge, La., for leading a demonstation of 2,000 black college students from the state capitol to the courthouse to protest the jailing of 23 other students for attempting to integrate white lunch counters. The high court overturned his conviction, 7-to-2, and held the state's breach of the peace law overly broad.

Was arrested, was convicted, was overturned based on 1st amendment rights....

They said the law was overly broad. They didn't say it was a protest so it was legal.

You think attempting to intergrate a white lunch counter is not a protest?


Is english not your first language? How can you get "that wasn't a protest" from what I said? Did you just stop at the word protest? Has the point we were discussing escaped you? Is it too difficult to grasp what we are talking about?

Lets recap. I said I am not familiar with a court case that says something that was otherwise illegal became legal because it was a protest. You disagreed and linked to a case that had nothing to do with what I said. You then linked to a number of court cases that either have nothing to do witht he topic, or backed straight out said just because soemthing is a protest deosn't mean you can break the law (Clark v. Community for Creative Nonviolence). You have now pointed out another court case that doesn't back you up. They dismissed the charges because the law was overly broad. They didn't dismiss it because otherwise illegal actions become legal when it is a protest.


Did they even cover the 60s in that suburban highschool of yours?

By the way, clever jab with "suburban". Did you go to some special school that provided you a better education than suburban students? If so it is a damn shame you didn't take advantage of it (which is demonstrated by your lack of reading comprehension).

If it is supposed to be a jab at my worldliness why don;t tell me about allt he years you spent outside of western countries?
 
2012-08-28 06:54:00 AM

Magruda: You do not harm students who are passive.


They acticely circled the cops. The actively linked arms. they actively demanded the relases of their buddies.

That was not a passive group.

Passive doesn't equal non-violent.

Keizer_Ghidorah: The fact that we resort immediately to arrest and stripping of rights instead of examining and addressing the reasons shows that America doesn't seem to care about anything but status quo and conformity. Quite san really, for a land that proudly proclaims itse'f the land of the free.


they had weeks of warning that they had to leave. They were warned about the pepperspray for several minutes before they sprayed.


Keizer_Ghidorah: The rest of us will continue to show that being noticed and noisy is how you draw attention to things, not being silent and hidden


Going out of your way to get a reaction then crying when you get said reation does get you noticed, but it doesn't get you support.
 
2012-08-28 07:58:53 AM

liam76: Kids were protesting there for weeks. School told them enough and gave them a deadline. Police came in and most students left. Those that stayed were arrested.


They obviously forgot about that fine-print in the first amendment: "... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances (unless they take longer than a couple weeks to make their point, in which case go ahead and lock the hippies up!)"
 
2012-08-28 08:13:49 AM

RobSeace: liam76: Kids were protesting there for weeks. School told them enough and gave them a deadline. Police came in and most students left. Those that stayed were arrested.

They obviously forgot about that fine-print in the first amendment: "... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances (unless they take longer than a couple weeks to make their point, in which case go ahead and lock the hippies up!)"


They weren't peaceable. They were breaking the law.

They were allowed to protest, theyw eren't allowed to set up camps on property they didn't own, and stay there for weeks at a time.
 
2012-08-28 10:21:44 AM

liam76: I said I am not familiar with a court case that says something that was otherwise illegal became legal because it was a protest


You are being intellectually dishonest court history is full of cases where people were arrested for protesting and had their case to before a higher court, charges were either dropped or laws ruled unconstitutional. To claim that it has never happend displayes a unique ignorance of both law and history. In the case that i linked it was illegal for blacks to sit at white lunch counters and they were arrested for it, to see it as anything other than they were protesting an unjust law and then arrested for it is just plain dishonest.

You would find a hair to split with any case i presented you because you would rather distort reality than admit you were wrong. I can not stress enough the ignorance required to claim that no laws have ever been overturned based on 1st amendment rights to protest. You are either willfully ignorant or honestly stupid.

liam76: Passive doesn't equal non-violent.


Honest stupidity then? Really, did you mean to type this? I mean here i was thinking that you were misstating history in order to make your point when it turns out that the curiculum was probably over your reading level. I apologize, why do you go find someone at your local library, or an elementary teacher, or a special ed tutor to explain to you the text that has been scrolling on your screen the past day or two. Especially the part where the courts ruled on laws based on first amendment rights.
 
2012-08-28 10:30:32 AM

feckingmorons: They were under arrest, they were not beaten, or tasered, or shot. They were sprayed with a chemical agent.


wuh? So you can't be hurt by a chemical agent in the way that beating or tasering or shooting can? Are you saying that chemical agents can't be deadly?

Yes, the fact that they were students is imaterial, you don't treat people that way.
 
2012-08-28 10:33:20 AM

liam76: They weren't peaceable. They were breaking the law.


So you can't be peaceable AND break the law? I guess we'll need to throw out decades of scholarly work on civil disobedience. And we'll have to rewrite the books on Ghandi and King.
 
2012-08-28 11:04:45 AM

Magruda: liam76: I said I am not familiar with a court case that says something that was otherwise illegal became legal because it was a protest

You are being intellectually dishonest court history is full of cases where people were arrested for protesting and had their case to before a higher court, charges were either dropped or laws ruled unconstitutional.


Charges were dropped is not what we are talking about. how many times have Ipointed thsi out to you?

You aren't just being intellectually dishonest, you are being completely full of shiat.

Same with "laws being ruled unconstitutional". If you are too farking stupid to see the difference between "that law is to broad, case thrown out and law struck" and "he was protesting so he was allowed to break that law" then please kill yoru self.


Magruda: In the case that i linked it was illegal for blacks to sit at white lunch counters and they were arrested for it, to see it as anything other than they were protesting an unjust law and then arrested for it is just plain dishonest.


No you dumb fark. You linked a case where a guy was arrested for protesting after peopel were arrested for doing a sit in at a lunch counter. The court ruled that the law he was arrested under was to broad they didn;t rule he was allowed to break the law because it was a protest.

Magruda: You would find a hair to split with any case i presented you because you would rather distort reality than admit you were wrong. I can not stress enough the ignorance required to claim that no laws have ever been overturned based on 1st amendment rights to protest. You are either willfully ignorant or honestly stupid


Except I never claimed that. I spent about 10 posts explaining to you that I never claimed that. I claimed I am not aware of any court case that said what was otherwise illegal is legal during a protest.

Magruda: liam76: Passive doesn't equal non-violent.

Honest stupidity then?


Passive

1. not actively taking part: tending not to participate actively, and usually letting others make decisions -you know the opposite of actively circling cops and linking arms to resist them from moving you2. obeying readily: tending to submit or obey without arguing or resisting
3. not operational: not working or operating
4. influenced by something external: influenced, affected, or produced by something external

Non-violent

abstaining or free from violence

Holy shiat you are stupid.This it. I may have to ignore someone because they are too stupid. I am torn, it is funny to watch the responses of someoen so stupid, but at the same time it makes me sad that you are alive.


Magruda: liam76: They weren't peaceable. They were breaking the law.

So you can't be peaceable AND break the law? I guess we'll need to throw out decades of scholarly work on civil disobedience. And we'll have to rewrite the books on Ghandi and King


No you can't. When there is a dispute it goes to the court it is determined if the law was wrong or if the groupw as not in fact peaceable.

Of course we already established you have problems with fairly simple words, so you probably still don't get it.
 
2012-08-28 11:42:12 AM

liam76: Except I never claimed that. I spent about 10 posts explaining to you that I never claimed that. I claimed I am not aware of any court case that said what was otherwise illegal is legal during a protest.


Except you completely throw out when an unjust law is being protested. For instance you can't make it illegal for students to assemble and protest.

liam76: When there is a dispute it goes to the court it is determined if the law was wrong or if the groupw as not in fact peaceable.


You seem unable to grasp the concept that you can break a law peaceably. It is called civil disobedience. There are tons of laws you can break without being violent.
 
2012-08-28 01:01:44 PM
Not trying to interfere with the well-thought out debate but I have some actual questions:

1) Is any order a police officer gives you a legal order? ie: Can they arrest you for not following it? (The courts may throw it out since they determine innocence or guilt but can the policeman always arrest you for not following his instructions?

2) The surrounded thing confuses me. A policeman is always surrounded to some extent. If there is a disturbance at a McDonalds, does the policeman have a right to use force because there are people all around him? If I stand between a cop and his car, am I obstructing justice or does he have to go around me?

3) Should civil disobedience always result in arrests? (assuming passive)

4) One that hasn't come up yet but is strongly involved in protests; What is public property? Schools are not, roads are not, parks are not, sidewalks are not. Where can people peacefully assemble without the blessing of a government permit?
 
2012-08-28 01:13:03 PM
Six arrests. Four in Pinellas and two in Hillsborough county. So far the protests have been peaceful and uninspiring.

They did bring out the huge puppets though.
 
2012-08-28 01:34:35 PM

rdalton: Not trying to interfere with the well-thought out debate but I have some actual questions:

1) Is any order a police officer gives you a legal order? ie: Can they arrest you for not following it? (The courts may throw it out since they determine innocence or guilt but can the policeman always arrest you for not following his instructions?

2) The surrounded thing confuses me. A policeman is always surrounded to some extent. If there is a disturbance at a McDonalds, does the policeman have a right to use force because there are people all around him? If I stand between a cop and his car, am I obstructing justice or does he have to go around me?

3) Should civil disobedience always result in arrests? (assuming passive)

4) One that hasn't come up yet but is strongly involved in protests; What is public property? Schools are not, roads are not, parks are not, sidewalks are not. Where can people peacefully assemble without the blessing of a government permit?


1) Not necessarily, but you can't decide that on the street that is for a Court to determine. The presumption is that the order is lawful, if it is not and you don't follow it and you are arrested you will certainly be afforded an opportunity to contest that. If you follow the order and feel it is not a lawful order you can file a civil action. Either way the Court is the proper forum not the sidewalk.

2) If the officer does not order you to move, and you are not purposefully impeding him or her you can do as you please in McDonalds or a parking lot. It is a two way street, reasonable spectators at an arrest at a fast food restaurant are not unexpected. Attempting to pull the person arrested away from the police officer is a crime. Standing between someone and their car is OK, jumping in front of them each time they move to go around you is improper.

3) Probably not, certainly warnings that the conduct is improper and illegal must come first, the disruption of the public use of any property must be considered must be considered a minor disruption may be best ignored from a criminal perspective (safety and hygiene is of course important - essential services such as fire protection or crime investigation, or water supplies must continue, they cannot be withdrawn to force compliance with other laws.) However occasionally the civil disobedience will become overly burdensome on the society as a whole and it must be curtailed either voluntarily or through arrests.

As an example a group prostrated themselves on a main road in Tampa earlier in the week. The police discussed their options with them regarding moving or being arrested. The protesters in the street were told that they were blocking the ambulance route to the area's major hospital and trauma center so they voluntarily relocated to the sidewalk. No arrests were made becuase everyone behaved well.

Public property is property paid for by taxpayers. Some public property is designated for specific purposes and often reserved full time or part time for those purposes. Your example of a school is very good. It is reserved for school purposes, not public demonstrations that would disrupt the primary purpose. They may make available their facilities upon request, but generally they are not available without specific arrangements to ensure that classes and school activities are not interrupted.

Roads are similarly reserved for motor vehicle traffic, except when they can be made safe for other purposes. Neither The Daughters of the American Revolution nor the American Communist Party can have a 5th of July parade without permission and traffic control, however the day before the Scouts, Atheists, Unitarians, and Log Cabin Republicans enjoyed their parade in safety because they city closed the roads to vehicular traffic for the special event.

Parks are more open, but reasonable (and reasonable is key) restrictions may be imposed to facilitate the upkeep of the park and for safety and security of park users. For example public parks may be closed at night because there are not enough police resources available to ensure the safety of overnight campers, or because the sprinklers come on at 3AM. You shouldn't need a permit to assemble and speak during the open hours of a public park.

We must also consider disorderly conduct. We have a right to peaceably assemble, but we don't have a right to fling poo as it were. You can't engage in conduct that the local residents find disorderly - this is similar to the local definition of obscenity - there can be no bright line as it varies from community to community. It must be mentioned that police officers can't be offended by definition. You can scream obscenities at the cops all day if there are no non-police citizens around to be offended. However once your conduct offends the reasonable citizenry it can judged disorderly.

The location of the park might also be taken into consideration. It is hard to offend others if your group is 100 acres away from any others rather than in quarter acre park downtown.

I hope that helps answer your questions.
 
2012-08-28 02:21:47 PM

liam76: Magruda: liam76: I said I am not familiar with a court case that says something that was otherwise illegal became legal because it was a protest

You are being intellectually dishonest court history is full of cases where people were arrested for protesting and had their case to before a higher court, charges were either dropped or laws ruled unconstitutional.

Charges were dropped is not what we are talking about. how many times have Ipointed thsi out to you?

You aren't just being intellectually dishonest, you are being completely full of shiat.

Same with "laws being ruled unconstitutional". If you are too farking stupid to see the difference between "that law is to broad, case thrown out and law struck" and "he was protesting so he was allowed to break that law" then please kill yoru self.


Magruda: In the case that i linked it was illegal for blacks to sit at white lunch counters and they were arrested for it, to see it as anything other than they were protesting an unjust law and then arrested for it is just plain dishonest.

No you dumb fark. You linked a case where a guy was arrested for protesting after peopel were arrested for doing a sit in at a lunch counter. The court ruled that the law he was arrested under was to broad they didn;t rule he was allowed to break the law because it was a protest.

Magruda: You would find a hair to split with any case i presented you because you would rather distort reality than admit you were wrong. I can not stress enough the ignorance required to claim that no laws have ever been overturned based on 1st amendment rights to protest. You are either willfully ignorant or honestly stupid

Except I never claimed that. I spent about 10 posts explaining to you that I never claimed that. I claimed I am not aware of any court case that said what was otherwise illegal is legal during a protest.

Magruda: liam76: Passive doesn't equal non-violent.

Honest stupidity then?

Passive

1. not actively taking part: tending not to ...


Dude, stop being such a deliberate dipshiat. Yes, you can break the law peacefully. I don't know why you keep thinking sitting and refusing to move or standing and chanting = "violent" while applauding the police for their overblown actions, but it seriously shows a lack of knowledge about decades of cases, laws, and rulings.

We get it, you think that all forms of law-breaking are evil and violent, that police can do no wrong, and that there's no such thing as civil disobedience.
 
2012-08-28 03:16:55 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Dude, stop being such a deliberate dipshiat. Yes, you can break the law peacefully. I don't know why you keep thinking sitting and refusing to move or standing and chanting = "violent" while applauding the police for their overblown actions, but it seriously shows a lack of knowledge about decades of cases, laws, and rulings.

We get it, you think that all forms of law-breaking are evil and violent, that police can do no wrong, and that there's no such thing as civil disobedience.


I'm much more on your side than his, but both sides seem to be shouting past each other and missing each other's points...

He specifically didn't say "violent", but "not passive"... I think it's still a bit bullshiat, but there is a difference in meaning... Personally, I'd say just sitting on your ass is the very definition of "passive"; otherwise, I lead a very "active" life all day! But, in any case, no one claimed it was "violent"...

However, if just sitting around holding hands with fellow protesters doesn't qualify as passive resistance, then just what does? Does anything at all? Doesn't the very fact that you're trying to "resist" mean there's no way to be completely and totally "passive" to liam's standards? If so, then it seems the standard is incorrect, or else he simply doesn't recognize passive resistance as a valid concept at all... Either way, I think I'm going to disagree with him...
 
2012-08-29 11:25:06 AM

RobSeace: He specifically didn't say "violent", but "not passive"... I think it's still a bit bullshiat, but there is a difference in meaning...


Thanks for pointing that out. There are many peopel on fark who seem to lack basic understanding of english (or are flat out dishonest) when it comes to sensitive subjects.

RobSeace: Personally, I'd say just sitting on your ass is the very definition of "passive"; otherwise, I lead a very "active" life all day! But, in any case, no one claimed it was "violent"...

However, if just sitting around holding hands with fellow protesters doesn't qualify as passive resistance


Come on now, be honest. You started out strong.

They weren't just "sitting on their ass", they weren't just "sitting around holding hands". The police arrested the inittial protestors who had refused to leave. People then actively encircled the police, actively sat down around them, and actively linked arms to prevent police from pulling them away.

RobSeace: Does anything at all? Doesn't the very fact that you're trying to "resist" mean there's no way to be completely and totally "passive" to liam's standards? If so, then it seems the standard is incorrect, or else he simply doesn't recognize passive resistance as a valid concept at all... Either way, I think I'm going to disagree with him...


Yes if you are "resisting" you aren't being "passive".

Completely passive is having a "sit-in" and whent he police come to get you you go limp.

If you disagre with that you are disagreeing with the definition of passive.

Magruda: liam76: Except I never claimed that. I spent about 10 posts explaining to you that I never claimed that. I claimed I am not aware of any court case that said what was otherwise illegal is legal during a protest.

Except you completely throw out when an unjust law is being protested. For instance you can't make it illegal for students to assemble and protest.


I am not "throwing it out". It just doesn't adress what we have been talking out. You know, the bolded portion above.

Actually I don;t even know whay I am typing this out as we have gone over this multiple times. I will just repeat from my previous response.

You aren't just being intellectually dishonest, you are being completely full of shiat.

Same with "laws being ruled unconstitutional". If you are too farking stupid to see the difference between "that law is to broad, case thrown out and law struck" and "he was protesting so he was allowed to break that law" then please kill your self


Magruda:
You seem unable to grasp the concept that you can break a law peaceably. It is called civil disobedience. There are tons of laws you can break without being violent


Seriously? You are still confusing those two? Are you still this ignorant? Woudl you call a non-violent crowd who was blocking an intersection shouting on bullhorns peaceable? Do you see the difference between the words now?
 
2012-08-29 12:27:11 PM

liam76: Yes if you are "resisting" you aren't being "passive".


So, you don't think passive resistance exists? I'm going to go ahead and say you're in the minority in that opinion... Dictionaries recognize the term as valid, and you'll find lots of references to it all over the place...

If you disagre with that you are disagreeing with the definition of passive.

But, not the definition of the actual term "passive resistance", as defined in any dictionary you care to look in...
 
2012-08-29 01:22:03 PM

RobSeace: So, you don't think passive resistance exists? I'm going to go ahead and say you're in the minority in that opinion... Dictionaries recognize the term as valid, and you'll find lots of references to it all over the place...


Passive resistance refers to resistance to movements, govts, laws etc using non-violence.

In that protest they were physically resisting (hence the quotes) the police from moving their prisoners,a nd moving them.

RobSeace: But, not the definition of the actual term "passive resistance", as defined in any dictionary you care to look in


Here is your definition "opposition to a government or to specific governmental laws by the use of noncooperation and other nonviolent methods, as economic boycotts and protest marches. Compare ". Pretty much what I said above.

Back to the point. You can see the difference between a sit in and actively resisting cops by encircling them and linking arms to prevent them from moving you?
 
2012-08-29 01:35:43 PM

liam76: Back to the point. You can see the difference between a sit in and actively resisting cops by encircling them and linking arms to prevent them from moving you? And why one could be accurately called "passive" while the other is "active"?


Sorry I somehow cut myself off.
 
2012-08-29 02:10:04 PM

liam76: Passive resistance refers to resistance to movements, govts, laws etc using non-violence.


Right... I think that's why so many people here are mixing and equating "passive" and "non-violent" (or "active" and "violent")... Perhaps "passive resistance" is merely a misnomer, but it is a widespread one... Indeed, some people apparently prefer to call it simply nonviolent resistance instead...

In that protest they were physically resisting (hence the quotes) the police from moving their prisoners,a nd moving them.

But, in a non-violent way, which I think qualifies under the defintion of "passive resistance", even if it doesn't strictly qualify under the definition of "passive" by itself...

liam76: liam76: Back to the point. You can see the difference between a sit in and actively resisting cops by encircling them and linking arms to prevent them from moving you? And why one could be accurately called "passive" while the other is "active"?

Sorry I somehow cut myself off.


I can see a difference, yes... I might even agree that the linking of arms (and presumably tightly holding them linked if pulled on) was indeed "active"... Merely the sitting down, even if it happens to be in a circle surrounding the cops, I don't see as particular "active", however...

But, even if their actions were somewhat active, I think they qualify as "passive resistance", as defined... It certainly seems like non-violent non-cooperation to me, anyway...
 
2012-08-29 02:38:50 PM

RobSeace: Right... I think that's why so many people here are mixing and equating "passive" and "non-violent" (or "active" and "violent")... Perhaps "passive resistance" is merely a misnomer, but it is a widespread one... Indeed, some people apparently prefer to call it simply nonviolent resistance instead...


I agree that "non-violent" is a better umbrella term, and I fine with the umbrella term of "passive resistance" for what these guys were doing. But their actual actiosn weren't "passive".

RobSeace: But, in a non-violent way, which I think qualifies under the defintion of "passive resistance", even if it doesn't strictly qualify under the definition of "passive" by itself...


Under the umbrella term, but if you are talking about actual reaction to police it wasn't passive.


RobSeace: I can see a difference, yes... I might even agree that the linking of arms (and presumably tightly holding them linked if pulled on) was indeed "active"...


Which is at the root of my argument. Peopel were arguing they were using force against passive protestors, they weren't. If you are actively resisting police they have to use force. Aside from being closer than the manufacturer recommneds I can't really get upset at him for makingt he call that using pepper spray is better than forcibly dragging peopel away. this is fro two reasons. First they have a "hostile" crowd that outnumbers them. If cops start forcing people away by hand then more could just climb in. Second, it is pretty hard to injure someone with pepperspray. Yes it hurts, yes it is unpleaseant, but no bruises, no broken bones, and almost no chance of somebody being hurt the next day, unlike trying to forcibly remove peopel with locked arms.
 
2012-08-29 03:37:04 PM

liam76: If you are actively resisting police they have to use force.


Have to? I'm not sure that's true... If they instead just walked over them and left them sitting there by themselves, who would have a problem with it? Are you saying they'd get in trouble with their superiors for not arresting them?

I can't really get upset at him for makingt he call that using pepper spray is better than forcibly dragging peopel away

Sure... But, what's wrong with the third option: ignore them and leave them sitting there, since they're not really doing any harm? Is it just that things had progressed past the point of no return, and now everyone was getting arrested one way or another, no matter what? Because, they clearly weren't much of a real obstacle preventing police moving past them... As you can see the sprayer step over them himself before spraying them! It just seemed like a bit of an overreaction... Now, if they had all tried stepping over them, and someone tried to grab them or stop them, then I'd agree they deserve to be arrested (and sprayed/tased or whatever, as needed)... But, all I see is a group of idiots making a purely superficial gesture in their "blocking" of the cops, forcing them to, at most, step a bit awkwardly to get over/around them... Ok, maybe that's enough to piss off the cops enough to want to arrest them all anyway... But, I'm not sure it was the smartest call from a PR perspective, if nothing else... Too many people already hate the cops, without needing to give them video like that to further enflame them... *shrug*
 
2012-08-29 04:26:33 PM

RobSeace: liam76: If you are actively resisting police they have to use force.

Have to? I'm not sure that's true... If they instead just walked over them and left them sitting there by themselves, who would have a problem with it? Are you saying they'd get in trouble with their superiors for not arresting them?

I can't really get upset at him for makingt he call that using pepper spray is better than forcibly dragging peopel away

Sure... But, what's wrong with the third option: ignore them and leave them sitting there, since they're not really doing any harm? Is it just that things had progressed past the point of no return, and now everyone was getting arrested one way or another, no matter what? Because, they clearly weren't much of a real obstacle preventing police moving past them... As you can see the sprayer step over them himself before spraying them! It just seemed like a bit of an overreaction... Now, if they had all tried stepping over them, and someone tried to grab them or stop them, then I'd agree they deserve to be arrested (and sprayed/tased or whatever, as needed)... But, all I see is a group of idiots making a purely superficial gesture in their "blocking" of the cops, forcing them to, at most, step a bit awkwardly to get over/around them... Ok, maybe that's enough to piss off the cops enough to want to arrest them all anyway... But, I'm not sure it was the smartest call from a PR perspective, if nothing else... Too many people already hate the cops, without needing to give them video like that to further enflame them... *shrug*


No no no, according to liam76 and others the cops HAD to do something because the students were being illegal and disruptive and dangerous. They didn't have specific permission to protest, they weren't in specially-prepared protesting places, they were protesting at a time not specified, and they didn't listen to absolute authority when it told them to stop.

For conformists and authoritarians, there is nothing in between. You either follow all the laws without question or you're a violent anarchist.
 
2012-08-29 07:40:33 PM

RobSeace: Have to? I'm not sure that's true... If they instead just walked over them and left them sitting there by themselves, who would have a problem with it? Are you saying they'd get in trouble with their superiors for not arresting them?


I woudl agree if they didn't have prisoners.

RobSeace: Sure... But, what's wrong with the third option: ignore them and leave them sitting there, since they're not really doing any harm?


See above.

They had people they arrested.

They "ignored them" for weeks. The school finally said they needed to leave, or at least take down their camping stuff. Most took their stuff down. Those that refuse to leave were arrested, with nobody getting hurt. The problem started after that when students encircled them and refused to let them leave with the prisoners.

Keizer_Ghidorah: No no no, according to liam76 and others the cops HAD to do something because the students were being illegal and disruptive and dangerous. They didn't have specific permission to protest, they weren't in specially-prepared protesting places, they were protesting at a time not specified, and they didn't listen to absolute authority when it told them to stop.


Once again you show you can't argue against what I am actually saying so you will just make things up.

Keizer_Ghidorah: You either follow all the laws without question or you're a violent anarchist


How many times have you been corrected on this? Are you really that dumb to think I said "violent" or are you just so blatanly dishonest you have no problem pretending I did?
 
2012-08-29 08:20:59 PM
Wow you people are still at it. Someone should spray you with something.
 
2012-08-29 08:24:49 PM

feckingmorons: Wow you people are still at it. Someone should spray you with something.


Like a vegetable product?
 
Displayed 34 of 534 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report