you people make it sound like being late for work is such an affront to society, while people are having their rights violated on your dime.
Ridiculous!
you people make it sound like being late for work is such an affront to society, while people are having their rights violated on your dime.
Ridiculous!
What rights have been violated on my dime?
Are you serious? You can't think of anything that's been done to these protesters that violates their rights?
Did you tell your friend that? That he shouldn't get more unemployment? Or are you just talkin tough to support your point? Most people took on student loans based on the premise that it would get them a good job. They spent their lives being told the education would pay for the loan in the end (this from a guy who took an entirely different route and has no stake in this stance)...I do know the fishing parable...So we teach people to fish under the notion that they owe us their first 20 harvests for teaching them. We just don't tell them they have to fish in a cesspool. But hey, lets pick the most easily argued of the issues at hand, and beat it to death, shall we?
"But, Rosa Parks was entirely peaceful. That seemed to work. So, we can both conjure up examples."...that was not tongue-in-cheek. You defended your statement and when called out on your mistake, you backpedalled. Conjure up some more examples, please? Lets see how many you've got...
Have you paid attention to ANY protest movement in the last 10 years? The police work 100% in support of the government and the corporations who are being protested. This has pretty much always been the case, but has accelerated exponentially since the 04 election conventions.
If you get permits, you are sent to a 'protest zone'; essentially fenced in, in an area where you are least disruptive to what the powers that be determine to be important – ie: the institutions being protested. The protest permits make it nearly impossible to have an effective, large demonstration because of restrictions on when and where you can march. No marching on the streets – sidewalks or parks only. It’s nearly impossible to get a road closed for a demonstration these days. If keeping the protests ‘out of sight-out of mind’ doesn’t accomplish the police goal of stopping them from growing (again – a goal completely at odds with the movement, and in full support of the ‘other side’), they use undercover agents to gain an excuse to shut it down. Look up “Toronto G20 exposed” on youtube to see how corralling and the use of provocateurs works.
The police don’t play by the rules. The government doesn’t play by the rules. Why should the people? When ‘they’ decide to break a rule, there is no consequence to them, and far-reaching repercussions for the public. Then they change the rules so that the next time, they don't even need to break a rule. When the people don’t play by the rules, they get assaulted, pepper sprayed, arrested, and illegally detained. But you’re ok with that as long as you’re not late for work???
All this bitching about inconvenience….and I bet the conversation at work, for 99% of these people, went something like this:
“sorry I’m late boss, a protest shut down the Brooklyn bridge…”
“ya, I heard about that, half the office is late…crazy, huh?”
“Crazy is right! I missed that conference call because of those stinking hippies!”
“Well I didn’t expect you to swim here, but….don’t you have a cell phone?”
Or something like that….
you people make it sound like being late for work is such an affront to society, while people are having their rights violated on your dime.
Ridiculous!
Why is it my job to talk tough? Should I protest on the GW Bridge because I want unemployment reduced?
And, I second the - what rights have been violated? They were told not to go on the birdge, and they did. Was that so hard to understand? Not very bright people, obviously.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
you people make it sound like being late for work is such an affront to society, while people are having their rights violated on your dime.
Ridiculous!
What rights have been violated on my dime?
Are you serious? You can't think of anything that's been done to these protesters that violates their rights?
No we can't. Please specify.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Why is it my job to talk tough? Should I protest on the GW Bridge because I want unemployment reduced?
And, I second the - what rights have been violated? They were told not to go on the birdge, and they did. Was that so hard to understand? Not very bright people, obviously.
I think you misunderstood me. I meant to ask if you’re saying things here that you wouldn’t say to your friend in person. My point is that it’s easy to talk tough here, when the issue is faceless and doesn’t involve you…but I bet you’d show more empathy if your friend was reading over your shoulder. Which would be kinda two-faced, no?
As for the bridge incident – again, picking apart a single incident and ignoring the overall issue – my understanding is that the police did initially warn people at the front of the march not to go on the bridge. Then they began crossing themselves, which led some to believe they were ok’d to cross. People at the front of the march followed. The majority of the people in the march (those not at the front) didn’t even know they weren’t allowed to cross until they were being arrested.
As for rights violations…I’m not a lawyer, and I know that thanks to the apathy you guys are supporting, your rights have eroded to the point that maybe there were no violations…But I would think these people were detained without cause - for something that a citation or ticket would have sufficed (the bridge incident). The unprovoked assaults are obvious violations.
Of all the points I made in that long winded rant, all you have in response is one question stemming from miscomprehension? And the rights thing?
Hey Gimmie... the article says the crowd was gathered at the foot of the bridge and told to stop. So how exactly is it the cops fault for them to march on the bridge?
the bridge was blocked off by the nypd. so are you saying that the police vehicles we not blocking the bridge to begin with? if the police were not blocking he bridge then the people protesting could not have walked out onto the bridge without being run over by hundreds of cars.
the cops were walking ahead of them and giving them ground. they gave them ground for the group to spread out, then they surrounded them.
either way, you are arguing semantics. the fact is the police gave them ground and they took it, just as any large crowd of people would do. then they were boxed in from behind so they could not flee even if they wanted to.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I think you misunderstood me. I meant to ask if you’re saying things here that you wouldn’t say to your friend in person. My point is that it’s easy to talk tough here, when the issue is faceless and doesn’t involve you…but I bet you’d show more empathy if your friend was reading over your shoulder. Which would be kinda two-faced, no?
As for the bridge incident – again, picking apart a single incident and ignoring the overall issue – my understanding is that the police did initially warn people at the front of the march not to go on the bridge. Then they began crossing themselves, which led some to believe they were ok’d to cross. People at the front of the march followed. The majority of the people in the march (those not at the front) didn’t even know they weren’t allowed to cross until they were being arrested.
As for rights violations…I’m not a lawyer, and I know that thanks to the apathy you guys are supporting, your rights have eroded to the point that maybe there were no violations…But I would think these people were detained without cause - for something that a citation or ticket would have sufficed (the bridge incident). The unprovoked assaults are obvious violations.
Of all the points I made in that long winded rant, all you have in response is one question stemming from miscomprehension? And the rights thing?
I understood you perfectly. I have to agree with him - as the current situation is, I would do the same. That's the point. We should change that incentive.
So, your mom tells you not to drink alcohol when you're 8. She has a beer, and it's ok for you to drink beer? That is the craziest justification I've ever heard. The police are allowed to cross the bridge. Maybe, those in the back shouldn't be such followers. Again, another crazy justification. Perhaps, they should think for themselves and not just blindly follow over the cliff.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Hey Gimmie... the article says the crowd was gathered at the foot of the bridge and told to stop. So how exactly is it the cops fault for them to march on the bridge?
the bridge was blocked off by the nypd. so are you saying that the police vehicles we not blocking the bridge to begin with? if the police were not blocking he bridge then the people protesting could not have walked out onto the bridge without being run over by hundreds of cars.
the cops were walking ahead of them and giving them ground. they gave them ground for the group to spread out, then they surrounded them.
either way, you are arguing semantics. the fact is the police gave them ground and they took it, just as any large crowd of people would do. then they were boxed in from behind so they could not flee even if they wanted to.
In fairness, it is you arguing semantics. Yes, the police technically were the ones to block the bridge. To protect the protestors!!! Ironic isn't it? Their protectors become their jailers. All that being said - it was the protestors that caused the closure.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
you people make it sound like being late for work is such an affront to society, while people are having their rights violated on your dime.
Ridiculous!
What rights have been violated on my dime?
Are you serious? You can't think of anything that's been done to these protesters that violates their rights?
You said it so I wanted to know what rights you are talking about. Sorry I asked you a question.
As for rights violations…I’m not a lawyer, and I know that thanks to the apathy you guys are supporting, your rights have eroded to the point that maybe there were no violations…But I would think these people were detained without cause - for something that a citation or ticket would have sufficed (the bridge incident). The unprovoked assaults are obvious violations.
Of all the points I made in that long winded rant, all you have in response is one question stemming from miscomprehension? And the rights thing?
Why are you being so confrontational when I asked you a fucking question for clarification? Get over yourself.
you people make it sound like being late for work is such an affront to society, while people are having their rights violated on your dime.
Ridiculous!
What rights have been violated on my dime?
Are you serious? You can't think of anything that's been done to these protesters that violates their rights?
what about the original videos in the original post?
looks as if the freedom to assemble had been violated.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Are you serious? You can't think of anything that's been done to these protesters that violates their rights?
what about the original videos in the original post?
looks as if the freedom to assemble had been violated.
Yeah, certainly some abuse of power going on. It's not an excuse because they have to be held to the highest standard, but I can only imagine the frustration level of those police officers. Not all the protesters are all puppy dogs and rainbows I bet.
In fairness, it is you arguing semantics. Yes, the police technically were the ones to block the bridge. To protect the protestors!!! Ironic isn't it? Their protectors become their jailers. All that being said - it was the protestors that caused the closure.
i am quite sure that if the police had not blocked the bridge that people would have wandered out into traffic... they are not stupid..
is it your position that had the police not blocked the bridge that the protestors en masse would have flooded out into traffic? if so, how do you know? you don't.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,088
Bridge or no bridge, I still support the protesters. Brave souls holding Wall Street accountable for all the B.S.
Thank you, protesters. You are more brave than those of us who sit comfortably at our computers.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
Bridge or no bridge, I still support the protesters. Brave souls holding Wall Street accountable for all the B.S.
Thank you, protesters. You are more brave than those of us who sit comfortably at our computers.
I'm not sure they are brave. They have the courage of their convictions though which is impressive. They also have a lot of free time while others continue to work and provide the products they need.
I think you misunderstood me. I meant to ask if you’re saying things here that you wouldn’t say to your friend in person. My point is that it’s easy to talk tough here, when the issue is faceless and doesn’t involve you…but I bet you’d show more empathy if your friend was reading over your shoulder. Which would be kinda two-faced, no?
As for the bridge incident – again, picking apart a single incident and ignoring the overall issue – my understanding is that the police did initially warn people at the front of the march not to go on the bridge. Then they began crossing themselves, which led some to believe they were ok’d to cross. People at the front of the march followed. The majority of the people in the march (those not at the front) didn’t even know they weren’t allowed to cross until they were being arrested.
As for rights violations…I’m not a lawyer, and I know that thanks to the apathy you guys are supporting, your rights have eroded to the point that maybe there were no violations…But I would think these people were detained without cause - for something that a citation or ticket would have sufficed (the bridge incident). The unprovoked assaults are obvious violations.
Of all the points I made in that long winded rant, all you have in response is one question stemming from miscomprehension? And the rights thing?
I understood you perfectly. I have to agree with him - as the current situation is, I would do the same. That's the point. We should change that incentive.
So, your mom tells you not to drink alcohol when you're 8. She has a beer, and it's ok for you to drink beer? That is the craziest justification I've ever heard. The police are allowed to cross the bridge. Maybe, those in the back shouldn't be such followers. Again, another crazy justification. Perhaps, they should think for themselves and not just blindly follow over the cliff.
Again – did you say that to your friend or did you sympathize with him before coming here to state that he should be left to fend for himself?
I’m not even touching your analogy.…
But...do you think people in a march or parade or protest should ‘think for themselves’ every time they change directions? “Waaaaait a minute!!! A right turn??? What could happen if we turn right? I better think about this. Turning right could lead to being hogtied, pepper sprayed, and thrown in jail, maybe I shouldn’t”. Somewhat moot when you consider that civil disobedience causing a road closure is a much less serious problem than unprovoked police violence and their use of underhanded methods to quell dissent.
No examples of effective, government approved protests…especially since the inception of the ‘protest zone’?
No comments on the use of ‘corralling’ as a police tactic?
No outrage at the unprovoked police violence, relative to your outrage over being late for work?
No comment on why the police and governments are never held accountable for their actions in these situations?
As for rights violations…I’m not a lawyer, and I know that thanks to the apathy you guys are supporting, your rights have eroded to the point that maybe there were no violations…But I would think these people were detained without cause - for something that a citation or ticket would have sufficed (the bridge incident). The unprovoked assaults are obvious violations.
Of all the points I made in that long winded rant, all you have in response is one question stemming from miscomprehension? And the rights thing?
Why are you being so confrontational when I asked you a fucking question for clarification? Get over yourself.
um...debate is confrontational by nature. I'm pretty sure you find me abrasive and I'm ok with that. It's nothing personal. But don't pretend your question wasn't provocative and rhetorical. You weren't interested in my answer, because you knew what it would be.
As for rights violations…I’m not a lawyer, and I know that thanks to the apathy you guys are supporting, your rights have eroded to the point that maybe there were no violations…But I would think these people were detained without cause - for something that a citation or ticket would have sufficed (the bridge incident). The unprovoked assaults are obvious violations.
Of all the points I made in that long winded rant, all you have in response is one question stemming from miscomprehension? And the rights thing?
Why are you being so confrontational when I asked you a fucking question for clarification? Get over yourself.
um...debate is confrontational by nature. I'm pretty sure you find me abrasive and I'm ok with that. It's nothing personal. But don't pretend your question wasn't provocative and rhetorical. You weren't interested in my answer, because you knew what it would be.
In fairness, it is you arguing semantics. Yes, the police technically were the ones to block the bridge. To protect the protestors!!! Ironic isn't it? Their protectors become their jailers. All that being said - it was the protestors that caused the closure.
i am quite sure that if the police had not blocked the bridge that people would have wandered out into traffic... they are not stupid..
is it your position that had the police not blocked the bridge that the protestors en masse would have flooded out into traffic? if so, how do you know? you don't.
You are right. I don't. Neither do you. But, I do know their intent was to walk the bridge and attempt something. Were they going to stick to the walkways? I don't know. Neither do you. Netiher do the police officers. So, they took the safest route and said - I'd rather stop traffic, make sure nobody gets hurt and solve this problem peacefully. They were successful. I don't see how anyone can have a problem with this. Would you rather they took the chance that some DID flood into traffic and see what happened? Or would you prefer they take steps based on experience to diffuse the issue peacefully?
The protestors still had the option NOT to walk onto the bridge. In your "impartial" videos I didn't see the guns to the protestors heads to walk the bridge. Are you still developing that film?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
No. Are you telling me it's ok for the police to mislead a protest march in order to gain an excuse to end it?
How do you come to that conclusion? The police LEAD the march? That is insane. Yes, they were in front. To make sure nobody caused havoc. But, they didn't say - hey! follow me!! I know the fastest way off this island.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
No. Are you telling me it's ok for the police to mislead a protest march in order to gain an excuse to end it?
How do you come to that conclusion? The police LEAD the march? That is insane. Yes, they were in front. To make sure nobody caused havoc. But, they didn't say - hey! follow me!! I know the fastest way off this island.
You're taking the 'lead' part too literally. I meant in the context of a false impression....by giving the protesters ground, closing the bridge, and possibly making it appear to some that it was ok to cross. Honestly, I have only read a couple articles about this and haven't watch much video...but this is a tried and true tactic. Corralling was used very effectively and very unfairly at the Toronto G20 protests. There, regardless of what the protesters' intent was, they were going to jail. In fact, some people 'penned in' were not even protesters. There were several instances in which people wanted to leave and get out of the situation they found themselves in, but police had them surrounded and would not allow them to disperse. Do you think that's right? That once made aware that they were doing something the police were not ok with, they had no chance to disperse? (ie: marching across a closed bridge that not all protesters knew was ill-advised). The police intent with corralling is to intimidate and to crush the march and prevent it from becoming a more popular movement, not to keep anyone safe.
You are right. I don't. Neither do you. But, I do know their intent was to walk the bridge and attempt something. Were they going to stick to the walkways? I don't know. Neither do you. Netiher do the police officers. So, they took the safest route and said - I'd rather stop traffic, make sure nobody gets hurt and solve this problem peacefully. They were successful. I don't see how anyone can have a problem with this. Would you rather they took the chance that some DID flood into traffic and see what happened? Or would you prefer they take steps based on experience to diffuse the issue peacefully?
The protestors still had the option NOT to walk onto the bridge. In your "impartial" videos I didn't see the guns to the protestors heads to walk the bridge. Are you still developing that film?
it was on the cbs website, and on youtube. you can google it just as well as i can. no need to be asinine about it.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
No. Are you telling me it's ok for the police to mislead a protest march in order to gain an excuse to end it?
How do you come to that conclusion? The police LEAD the march? That is insane. Yes, they were in front. To make sure nobody caused havoc. But, they didn't say - hey! follow me!! I know the fastest way off this island.
You're taking the 'lead' part too literally. I meant in the context of a false impression....by giving the protesters ground, closing the bridge, and possibly making it appear to some that it was ok to cross. Honestly, I have only read a couple articles about this and haven't watch much video...but this is a tried and true tactic. Corralling was used very effectively and very unfairly at the Toronto G20 protests. There, regardless of what the protesters' intent was, they were going to jail. In fact, some people 'penned in' were not even protesters. There were several instances in which people wanted to leave and get out of the situation they found themselves in, but police had them surrounded and would not allow them to disperse. Do you think that's right? That once made aware that they were doing something the police were not ok with, they had no chance to disperse? (ie: marching across a closed bridge that not all protesters knew was ill-advised). The police intent with corralling is to intimidate and to crush the march and prevent it from becoming a more popular movement, not to keep anyone safe.
Again, I got what you were saying, and you were the one taking it literally. They are not LEADING them onto the bridge - that is your literlal interpretation of what they are doing. They are ahead of them on the bridge executing their plan to prevent chaos.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
You are right. I don't. Neither do you. But, I do know their intent was to walk the bridge and attempt something. Were they going to stick to the walkways? I don't know. Neither do you. Netiher do the police officers. So, they took the safest route and said - I'd rather stop traffic, make sure nobody gets hurt and solve this problem peacefully. They were successful. I don't see how anyone can have a problem with this. Would you rather they took the chance that some DID flood into traffic and see what happened? Or would you prefer they take steps based on experience to diffuse the issue peacefully?
The protestors still had the option NOT to walk onto the bridge. In your "impartial" videos I didn't see the guns to the protestors heads to walk the bridge. Are you still developing that film?
it was on the cbs website, and on youtube. you can google it just as well as i can. no need to be asinine about it.
So, totally impartial people posted those videos? Fine. The point is - where's the part that shows the police forcing them into the "trap?" Not very intelligent leader. Not very intelligent followers if you ask me. Maybe, if I was drunk, I might not have taken the bullhorned notification that we would be arrested if we stepped foot on the bridge. But, basically, that's the leaders of the protest being completely irresponsible. If their followers did not know, they are the ones responsible to make sure they knew what they were getting themselves into.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
You are right. I don't. Neither do you. But, I do know their intent was to walk the bridge and attempt something. Were they going to stick to the walkways? I don't know. Neither do you. Netiher do the police officers. So, they took the safest route and said - I'd rather stop traffic, make sure nobody gets hurt and solve this problem peacefully. They were successful. I don't see how anyone can have a problem with this. Would you rather they took the chance that some DID flood into traffic and see what happened? Or would you prefer they take steps based on experience to diffuse the issue peacefully?
The protestors still had the option NOT to walk onto the bridge. In your "impartial" videos I didn't see the guns to the protestors heads to walk the bridge. Are you still developing that film?
it was on the cbs website, and on youtube. you can google it just as well as i can. no need to be asinine about it.
So, totally impartial people posted those videos? Fine. The point is - where's the part that shows the police forcing them into the "trap?" Not very intelligent leader. Not very intelligent followers if you ask me. Maybe, if I was drunk, I might not have taken the bullhorned notification that we would be arrested if we stepped foot on the bridge. But, basically, that's the leaders of the protest being completely irresponsible. If their followers did not know, they are the ones responsible to make sure they knew what they were getting themselves into.
the video i am talking about was the one from the cbs reporter and crew walking with the crowd taht aired on the national network news last night. it is from a professional camera, not some shitty cell phone camera. why do you assume that it is sarcastically impartial??? there is no talking with you. too many assumptions and hypotheticals.
why not just admit you are all for police brutality and all for the subterfuge these cops pulled in this case that will shortly be under review in the courts. there has already been one lawsuit filed, and i am sure more will follow.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
why do you assume that it is sarcastically impartial??? there is no talking with you. too many assumptions and hypotheticals.
why not just admit you are all for police brutality and all for the subterfuge these cops pulled in this case that will shortly be under review in the courts. there has already been one lawsuit filed, and i am sure more will follow.
I do agree with what the police did. I do not agree with excessive use of force. But, I am not in the Police's shoes when these things go down. If they fell threatened, and they go a little overboard, then I'm fine with it. I do not agree with just walking over to people and beating them with sticks. But, I will cut the NYPD slack over a protestor every day of the week.
That video does not show what occured prior. I'm not saying they edited the actual footage they have. But, it does not necessarily (and I don't know that it doesn't either) give the entire context. So, the police get the benefit of my doubt.
Lawsuits - the refuge of the weak (in cases like this). We'll break the law to get our point across, but if you do anything that even pretends to cross the line, we'll use the law against you.
As others have said - I am sure there are incidents where police cross the line. No profession is full of angels. But, for the most part, they are trying to do their jobs to the best of their abilities and get home safely to THEIR children. It's a dangerous jobs that nuts like these only make tougher.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Lawsuits - the refuge of the weak (in cases like this). We'll break the law to get our point across, but if you do anything that even pretends to cross the line, we'll use the law against you.
Lawsuits - the refuge of the weak (in cases like this). We'll break the law to get our point across, but if you do anything that even pretends to cross the line, we'll use the law against you.
That is the great irony of this.
Maybe, this was their plan all along. Brilliant!! They will get their college loans paid (and still not have a job that pays above poverty in the arts) after all!
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Comments
What rights have been violated on my dime?
Why is it my job to talk tough? Should I protest on the GW Bridge because I want unemployment reduced?
And, I second the - what rights have been violated? They were told not to go on the birdge, and they did. Was that so hard to understand? Not very bright people, obviously.
No we can't. Please specify.
As for the bridge incident – again, picking apart a single incident and ignoring the overall issue – my understanding is that the police did initially warn people at the front of the march not to go on the bridge. Then they began crossing themselves, which led some to believe they were ok’d to cross. People at the front of the march followed. The majority of the people in the march (those not at the front) didn’t even know they weren’t allowed to cross until they were being arrested.
As for rights violations…I’m not a lawyer, and I know that thanks to the apathy you guys are supporting, your rights have eroded to the point that maybe there were no violations…But I would think these people were detained without cause - for something that a citation or ticket would have sufficed (the bridge incident). The unprovoked assaults are obvious violations.
Of all the points I made in that long winded rant, all you have in response is one question stemming from miscomprehension? And the rights thing?
the cops were walking ahead of them and giving them ground. they gave them ground for the group to spread out, then they surrounded them.
either way, you are arguing semantics. the fact is the police gave them ground and they took it, just as any large crowd of people would do. then they were boxed in from behind so they could not flee even if they wanted to.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I understood you perfectly. I have to agree with him - as the current situation is, I would do the same. That's the point. We should change that incentive.
So, your mom tells you not to drink alcohol when you're 8. She has a beer, and it's ok for you to drink beer? That is the craziest justification I've ever heard. The police are allowed to cross the bridge. Maybe, those in the back shouldn't be such followers. Again, another crazy justification. Perhaps, they should think for themselves and not just blindly follow over the cliff.
In fairness, it is you arguing semantics. Yes, the police technically were the ones to block the bridge. To protect the protestors!!! Ironic isn't it? Their protectors become their jailers. All that being said - it was the protestors that caused the closure.
You said it so I wanted to know what rights you are talking about. Sorry I asked you a question.
Why are you being so confrontational when I asked you a fucking question for clarification? Get over yourself.
So now you are telling me that people don't know it's not ok to walk across a bridge designed for cars?
looks as if the freedom to assemble had been violated.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Yeah, certainly some abuse of power going on. It's not an excuse because they have to be held to the highest standard, but I can only imagine the frustration level of those police officers. Not all the protesters are all puppy dogs and rainbows I bet.
is it your position that had the police not blocked the bridge that the protestors en masse would have flooded out into traffic? if so, how do you know? you don't.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Thank you, protesters. You are more brave than those of us who sit comfortably at our computers.
I'm not sure they are brave. They have the courage of their convictions though which is impressive. They also have a lot of free time while others continue to work and provide the products they need.
I’m not even touching your analogy.…
But...do you think people in a march or parade or protest should ‘think for themselves’ every time they change directions? “Waaaaait a minute!!! A right turn??? What could happen if we turn right? I better think about this. Turning right could lead to being hogtied, pepper sprayed, and thrown in jail, maybe I shouldn’t”. Somewhat moot when you consider that civil disobedience causing a road closure is a much less serious problem than unprovoked police violence and their use of underhanded methods to quell dissent.
No examples of effective, government approved protests…especially since the inception of the ‘protest zone’?
No comments on the use of ‘corralling’ as a police tactic?
No outrage at the unprovoked police violence, relative to your outrage over being late for work?
No comment on why the police and governments are never held accountable for their actions in these situations?
um...debate is confrontational by nature. I'm pretty sure you find me abrasive and I'm ok with that. It's nothing personal. But don't pretend your question wasn't provocative and rhetorical. You weren't interested in my answer, because you knew what it would be. No. Are you telling me it's ok for the police to mislead a protest march in order to gain an excuse to end it?
First of all, yes I was interested in your answer. Because it's suppose to be a discussion, doesn't have to be confrontational 100% of the time.
Secondly, I'm not sure I would agree in saying that the police "mislead" as I'm not sure they are leading. But an interesting question.
You are right. I don't. Neither do you. But, I do know their intent was to walk the bridge and attempt something. Were they going to stick to the walkways? I don't know. Neither do you. Netiher do the police officers. So, they took the safest route and said - I'd rather stop traffic, make sure nobody gets hurt and solve this problem peacefully. They were successful. I don't see how anyone can have a problem with this. Would you rather they took the chance that some DID flood into traffic and see what happened? Or would you prefer they take steps based on experience to diffuse the issue peacefully?
The protestors still had the option NOT to walk onto the bridge. In your "impartial" videos I didn't see the guns to the protestors heads to walk the bridge. Are you still developing that film?
How do you come to that conclusion? The police LEAD the march? That is insane. Yes, they were in front. To make sure nobody caused havoc. But, they didn't say - hey! follow me!! I know the fastest way off this island.
Here's the documentary I referenced earlier....Corralling examples a'plenty here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZxkAn-g4Xo
PS - still waiting on those other points....
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Again, I got what you were saying, and you were the one taking it literally. They are not LEADING them onto the bridge - that is your literlal interpretation of what they are doing. They are ahead of them on the bridge executing their plan to prevent chaos.
So, totally impartial people posted those videos? Fine. The point is - where's the part that shows the police forcing them into the "trap?" Not very intelligent leader. Not very intelligent followers if you ask me. Maybe, if I was drunk, I might not have taken the bullhorned notification that we would be arrested if we stepped foot on the bridge. But, basically, that's the leaders of the protest being completely irresponsible. If their followers did not know, they are the ones responsible to make sure they knew what they were getting themselves into.
why not just admit you are all for police brutality and all for the subterfuge these cops pulled in this case that will shortly be under review in the courts. there has already been one lawsuit filed, and i am sure more will follow.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I do agree with what the police did. I do not agree with excessive use of force. But, I am not in the Police's shoes when these things go down. If they fell threatened, and they go a little overboard, then I'm fine with it. I do not agree with just walking over to people and beating them with sticks. But, I will cut the NYPD slack over a protestor every day of the week.
That video does not show what occured prior. I'm not saying they edited the actual footage they have. But, it does not necessarily (and I don't know that it doesn't either) give the entire context. So, the police get the benefit of my doubt.
Lawsuits - the refuge of the weak (in cases like this). We'll break the law to get our point across, but if you do anything that even pretends to cross the line, we'll use the law against you.
As others have said - I am sure there are incidents where police cross the line. No profession is full of angels. But, for the most part, they are trying to do their jobs to the best of their abilities and get home safely to THEIR children. It's a dangerous jobs that nuts like these only make tougher.
That is the great irony of this.
Maybe, this was their plan all along. Brilliant!! They will get their college loans paid (and still not have a job that pays above poverty in the arts) after all!