• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Police beat war veterans in assault on Occupy Boston

dirtpoorchris said:
Permit to protest.... Do you know how wrong that sounds? Seems like it should be in a Monty Python skit.
Click to expand...

I concur. Though I'm against all sorts of permits, even those for firearms.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
I don't share your world view. I don't see us as allies and enemies, though the temptation is there at times.
Click to expand...

That's fine. We can disagree.

GhostlyJoe said:
As for the permits, I see no reason it shouldn't be at the discretion of the local community. It's appropriate for cities to facilitate peaceful protest as much as possible.
Click to expand...

The problem comes when the local community refuses to require these individuals to conform to any level of decency. Yesterday, these people caused a MASSIVE traffic issue in the North End of Boston. They paraded (again without permit) through the STREETS (not sidewalks) in an area that already was having traffic issues due to a hockey game and a bridge which is closed for the filming of a motion picture. Not only didn't the cops arrest them, they ASSISTED this action for the most part. The Mayor of Boston, Thomas Menino is on these people's side. Personally, I'd have run the protestors down, but that apparently didn't dawn on anyone in Boston.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
I never got the "if this were us, it would be so much worse" argument. First, its a narrative wholly divorced from reality, as it isn't an anti-abortion rally, so your hypothesis is untestable. Then, you act outraged at this made-up transgression. It's a common rhetorical tactic, but it's so cheap.

When you revel in the hypocrisy of the worst of your opponents -- especially the ones your just conjured out of your own imagination, you just highlight your own hypocrisy. Conservatives who applaud the tea party and decry these people en mass are equally guilty as your hypocritical liberals.
Click to expand...

whatever, I've seen it happen.
 
Tigger said:
That's fine. We can disagree.



The problem comes when the local community refuses to require these individuals to conform to any level of decency. Yesterday, these people caused a MASSIVE traffic issue in the North End of Boston. They paraded (again without permit) through the STREETS (not sidewalks) in an area that already was having traffic issues due to a hockey game and a bridge which is closed for the filming of a motion picture. Not only didn't the cops arrest them, they ASSISTED this action for the most part. The Mayor of Boston, Thomas Menino is on these people's side. Personally, I'd have run the protestors down, but that apparently didn't dawn on anyone in Boston.
Click to expand...

Let me make myself clear. I don't think it's inappropriate to arrest people on misdemeanor charges if they're breaking the law and preventing others from going about their business. but I do think it's appropriate to tolerate or even assist the protesters as much as possible. As for running people down ... yeah, that would be murder.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Let me make myself clear. I don't think it's inappropriate to arrest people on misdemeanor charges if they're breaking the law and preventing others from going about their business. but I do think it's appropriate to tolerate or even assist the protesters as much as possible. As for running people down ... yeah, that would be murder.
Click to expand...

We will have to disagree on the amount of tolerance that should be shown to these SQUATTERS. It dawned on me a couple minutes ago that these people aren't Protestors, they're Squatters. If they're Protestors, what's their message? If they don't have a message then they're just derilicts and squatters and should be treated as such.

I'd have no more issue running them down than I would a squirrell or chipmunk.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
You know, I try to be an fairly even-handed guy, give people the benefit of the doubt and take them at their word. I can't believe the derision some conservatives are casting on these protesters: Scum, wastes of oxygen, filth, sleaze ...
Click to expand...

Sort of like what some liberals did concerning the Tea Party.

You display precious little respect for your fellow Americans, and you act like children with your fingers in your ears. Do you think you're winning rational people to your cause?
Click to expand...

Did you ask this question of those who slammed the Tea Party?
 
tessaesque said:
No, that's completely incorrect. There's a law that states you cannot trample all over one specific area of land. Nobody was asked to stop assembling. Nobody was told they couldn't peacefully assemble. They were told, "Hey, this spot is off limits...please walk across the street (roads closed for your safety!) to the area that isn't restricted by previously existing laws." Something that the SCOTUS has said is perfectly acceptable. Much like a city can say that the public park closes at 10, so protests must vacate by 10 (but can return upon open the next morning!).
Click to expand...

You are correct as far as I can tell.

However, bear in mind that abuses do occur.

The whole, "ots illegal to sit down and hold an umbrella" bit in Washington was going too far.

There's lots of places where structures are forbidden. Even a beach umbrella.

It dickish to forbid in an area with regular heavy rainfall, but they wouldn't allow an EZUp on a sunny day/clear night either. (Assuming they aren't selectively enforcing)

But calling out the wording of the law to ticket people for sitting down while holding an open umbrella is assinine.

And from what I've seen, individual conduct notwithstanding, and subject to revision on further information, I have to give this one to the cops.

If, as it appears, the protesters were instructed to stay off the fresh sod, to prevent costly damage (a legitimate concern if true), then did so anyway, then the cops were doing as instructed and the protesters got arrested.

"Its a fair cop." in keeping with the Monty Python theme.

I've worked a lot of events and actually served as a LE liason for the Rainbow Gatherings.

Crowd control is complex and unpredictable. A little leeway on the side of LE is appropriate. Watching all the videos posted from the demonstrations show all the things I've seen before. Cops being dicks standing right next to cops comporting themselves respectfully. (Note this as you watch videos, polite, respectful cops get better compliance than rude, bullying cops. Check it out for yourself, its real clear in one of the videos I've seen posted here)

And as a liason, LE would provide me with instructions regarding whatever the issue is and it became our responsibility to get everybody to comply. With that event it was usually something like a trail too close to a stream is damaging the bank so a crew would have to deal with it or traffic would have to be re-routed. One year they suited up in riot gear to move on a parking area, but we had enough warning and had so many people standing about awaiting instructions on how to comply that their operation failed miserably, leaving a whole lot of cops standing around in the hot sun in riot gear with no hippies to beat. Which they had clearly been eager to do at the beginning. It was pretty funny, actually.

So lss, while I support the protests i also understand the problems being addressed by LE as well, so I'm sure its going to sound like I'm taking the ant-protesters side.

I'm not, you're sure to see me speak when the cops or their bosses **** up too. I have already.
 
Tigger said:
We will have to disagree on the amount of tolerance that should be shown to these SQUATTERS. It dawned on me a couple minutes ago that these people aren't Protestors, they're Squatters. If they're Protestors, what's their message? If they don't have a message then they're just derilicts and squatters and should be treated as such.

I'd have no more issue running them down than I would a squirrell or chipmunk.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you. I find your attitude sociopathic. But I would never run you down in the street.
 
1Perry said:
Sort of like what some liberals did concerning the Tea Party.
Click to expand...

Indisputable.


Did you ask this question of those who slammed the Tea Party?
Click to expand...

Not on this board, no. But my political sympathies are with the other side most of the time. I didn't attack them, either. The tea party rallies were legitimate demonstrations. That's worthy of respect, even if I disagree with the message.
 
What if...? said:
You are correct as far as I can tell.

However, bear in mind that abuses do occur.

The whole, "ots illegal to sit down and hold an umbrella" bit in Washington was going too far.

There's lots of places where structures are forbidden. Even a beach umbrella.

It dickish to forbid in an area with regular heavy rainfall, but they wouldn't allow an EZUp on a sunny day/clear night either. (Assuming they aren't selectively enforcing)

But calling out the wording of the law to ticket people for sitting down while holding an open umbrella is assinine.

And from what I've seen, individual conduct notwithstanding, and subject to revision on further information, I have to give this one to the cops.

If, as it appears, the protesters were instructed to stay off the fresh sod, to prevent costly damage (a legitimate concern if true), then did so anyway, then the cops were doing as instructed and the protesters got arrested.

"Its a fair cop." in keeping with the Monty Python theme.

I've worked a lot of events and actually served as a LE liason for the Rainbow Gatherings.

Crowd control is complex and unpredictable. A little leeway on the side of LE is appropriate. Watching all the videos posted from the demonstrations show all the things I've seen before. Cops being dicks standing right next to cops comporting themselves respectfully. (Note this as you watch videos, polite, respectful cops get better compliance than rude, bullying cops. Check it out for yourself, its real clear in one of the videos I've seen posted here)

And as a liason, LE would provide me with instructions regarding whatever the issue is and it became our responsibility to get everybody to comply. With that event it was usually something like a trail too close to a stream is damaging the bank so a crew would have to deal with it or traffic would have to be re-routed. One year they suited up in riot gear to move on a parking area, but we had enough warning and had so many people standing about awaiting instructions on how to comply that their operation failed miserably, leaving a whole lot of cops standing around in the hot sun in riot gear with no hippies to beat. Which they had clearly been eager to do at the beginning. It was pretty funny, actually.

So lss, while I support the protests i also understand the problems being addressed by LE as well, so I'm sure its going to sound like I'm taking the ant-protesters side.

I'm not, you're sure to see me speak when the cops or their bosses **** up too. I have already.
Click to expand...

I definitely understand that cops can get out of line. I'm not even saying that there was no behavior in this instance that wasn't out of line. From the articles I've found, though, it seems that "beating up veterans" may be an exaggeration of what actually happened (can't watch the video at the moment). The umbrella issue seems to me to have been an over-reach by the cops, but, again, I haven't looked much into that one. My only issue in this thread is the insistance that one right out of hundreds trumps every other right of every other person, and any legal obligation as well. There are limitations on everything we do, and for (usually) good reason. If a law exists and you violate it in the exercise of your rights you're still breaking the law...probably the simplest way I can make my point.

I mean, if you rob a bank, you can't argue that you're simply in the process of pursuing happiness and expect to get out of trouble. If you block in cars at an abortion clinic you can't argue that you're exercising your free speech and expect to get out of trouble. So why should these people be able to argue that their right to assemble trumps their legal obligation not to destroy property that belongs to another (or the collective)?
 
Police will do their job no matter who is protesting, veteran, homeless person, nurse, it matters little. What matters is the breaking of the law, but for those who feel these protests have merit, you really don't care about the law anyway.
 
What if...? said:
You are correct as far as I can tell.

However, bear in mind that abuses do occur.
Click to expand...

I didn't post your entire thread because I do not have a problem with it. Yes, a little leeway should be given. I'm sure overall it is. Other times, not so. Get off the new sod though.

It's not an unreasonable request.
 
1Perry said:
Sort of like what some liberals did concerning the Tea Party.
Click to expand...

You mean like pointing out that their messages were largely selfish, often racist, and quite frequently contradictory? That's an attack, right? Criticizing the violence of their messages, that's just being partisan. I think "selfish prick" was the worst thing I ever said about Tea Partiers.

On the flip side, discussion of the OWS protesters seems largely to be about their hygiene and attire. People who don't know what socialism is call them socialists, but those same people call Obama a socialist, which is absurd. The OWS protests certainly have a coherent message, and it's centered around the huge gap between the middle and upper classes in this country. Unemployment soars, while corporate leaders line their own pockets, regardless of the economic, social, or environmental consequences for the rest of us. The system that allows this to happen is the target. The only real criticism I've seen leveled towards the OWS' actual message is "nuh uh, the recession isn't the fault of business practices that elevate greed and selfishness to saintly virtues, it's the democrats!"

The criticism leveled at the two groups has hardly been equal.
 
haymarket said:
the irony of reading the words of somebody on the right complain about "underpaid police officers" is sweet indeed.
Click to expand...
Call it underpaid or low pay, whatever. I think most LEO's are critically underpaid for the risks they take on our behalf. Would I cruise the inner city streets of ATL for the paltry salary our cops receive, hell no. We waste to much money on unimportant crap while starving the very folks we need to maintain public safety.

Contrary to liberal dogma, not all conservatives despise every government function.
 
Paschendale said:
You mean like pointing out that their messages were largely selfish, often racist, and quite frequently contradictory? That's an attack, right? Criticizing the violence of their messages, that's just being partisan. I think "selfish prick" was the worst thing I ever said about Tea Partiers.

On the flip side, discussion of the OWS protesters seems largely to be about their hygiene and attire. People who don't know what socialism is call them socialists, but those same people call Obama a socialist, which is absurd. The OWS protests certainly have a coherent message, and it's centered around the huge gap between the middle and upper classes in this country. Unemployment soars, while corporate leaders line their own pockets, regardless of the economic, social, or environmental consequences for the rest of us. The system that allows this to happen is the target. The only real criticism I've seen leveled towards the OWS' actual message is "nuh uh, the recession isn't the fault of business practices that elevate greed and selfishness to saintly virtues, it's the democrats!"

The criticism leveled at the two groups has hardly been equal.
Click to expand...

As you plainly point out, you are correct. The OWS has been called "dirty hippies". Those like yourself as you acknowledge have gone far further in demeaning those who have complained in large part the very same things as the OWS crowd.
 
conservativeguy said:
Call it underpaid or low pay, whatever. I think most LEO's are critically underpaid for the risks they take on our behalf. Would I cruise the inner city streets of ATL for the paltry salary our cops receive, hell no. We waste to much money on unimportant crap while starving the very folks we need to maintain public safety.

Contrary to liberal dogma, not all conservatives despise every government function.
Click to expand...
Glad to hear it is not universal. I do know the primarily GOP (1/3 are Tea Party) county councilmen here not only cut the size of our police force, but they also cut the benefits of those who remained. Our better officers got jobs elsewhere and now we have LEOs that are constantly in trouble for overuse of force and case after case is lost at trial due to sloppy police work.
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
Glad to hear it is not universal. I do know the primarily GOP (1/3 are Tea Party) county councilmen here not only cut the size of our police force, but they also cut the benefits of those who remained. Our better officers got jobs elsewhere and now we have LEOs that are constantly in trouble for overuse of force and case after case is lost at trial due to sloppy police work.
Click to expand...
candidly, I can not offer an opinion on those decisions since I do not know about the fiscal condition of your county. If these councilmen have truly screwed up, they will be easily replaced in the next elect cycle.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Read more here: Police beat war veterans in assault on Occupy Boston — RT

So, the cops are now beating up war veterans. This is really disgusting and just goes to show the heartlessness of the cops that did this horrendous act.
Click to expand...

I haven't read the thread yet, but frankly I didn't see anyone getting "beat up" in the video. I did see a crowd of people being repeatedly warned to move back to the area where they permission to gather. Clearly, they didn't plan on doing that, preferring instead a confrontation. As for it being a "horrendous act", that's ludicrous. A "horrendous act" is when six Fullerton policeman beat a mentally ill homeless man to death in front of dozens of screaming witnesses.

This whole thing is a big, fat nothing-burger. According to a Boston Globe article... Boston mayor says he sympathizes with protesters, but they can’t tie up the city - Metro Desk - Local news updates from The Boston Globe ...police offers were being attacked, hit, punched, and one man said that he never saw any of the police use their batons but he complained that they were "rough" with protestors as they dragged them away. So they never used their batons, and not a single protester arrested had serious injuries. Real "horrendous."

As for the 74-year-old veteran, I couldn't see anything on the video and according to the above article, his complaint was that he was knocked down during the arrest. Well then, bunky, maybe you should have gone back to the place where you were supposed to be... y'know?

Like I said, a non-story, a big, fat nothing-burger. :shrug:
 
Ikari said:
No, this is how we get "protest zones". We already have "free speech" zones which are bull****. As I said, America is a free speech zone. But now the authority gets to tell people when and where they can exercise their rights, and thus can push them off to the side. Which is EXACTLY what they do at things like the RNC and DNC conventions. Push the protesters blocks and blocks away so the press doesn't have to cover them, so the politicians don't have to see it. It's incredibly destructive to our rights and our ability to keep hold of the government such that we may preserve the Republic.

Big government is never good, it is always harmful to our rights. If there is no way to limit what the government can call "legally restricted land", then it IS a stripping of our rights.
Click to expand...
I think that's an important point. From what I've seen of the negative responses to you, justabubba and others' comments, the common sentiment seems to be "it's the law, just follow it" which rests on the implication that the law is just and reasonable. However, what none of these responses take into account is the spirit of the law and purposes that they serve. What many government officials advertise as laws made for "safety concerns" are simply laws made so that protests don't attract attention, get noticed and have a real impact.

"It's the law" has never been and never will be a sufficient response to criticisms of the laws themselves.
 
Tigger said:
We will have to disagree on the amount of tolerance that should be shown to these SQUATTERS. It dawned on me a couple minutes ago that these people aren't Protestors, they're Squatters. If they're Protestors, what's their message? If they don't have a message then they're just derilicts and squatters and should be treated as such.

I'd have no more issue running them down than I would a squirrell or chipmunk.
Click to expand...

No, not me. I celebrate their right to demonstrate. What I don't abide is not listening to law enforcement who's obviously doing everything it can to defuse "situations." They aren't squatters. They're exercising a right that our soldiers die for.
 
Ikari said:
That's how we get "free speech" zones, which are horse****. America is a free speech zone.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly think that people have the right to pitch a tent anywhere in America, and exercise their right of free speech? Anywhere? How about the middle of an intersection? On a freeway overpass? How about blocking access to public buildings, like city halls, libraries, schools? Is it okay to block access to a hospital to protest nurse's salaries? Block fire vehicles inside fire stations to protest a new fire tax?

Is it okay for them to pitch tents in your front yard, block access to your house and protest you?

Sorry but your statement is ridiculous on its face. There always have been and always will be limits to how, where, and what can be exercised as free speech.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Read more here: Police beat war veterans in assault on Occupy Boston — RT

So, the cops are now beating up war veterans. This is really disgusting and just goes to show the heartlessness of the cops that did this horrendous act.




EDIT: Here is the video of the incident

Click to expand...


Everytime the police over-react with violence, the OWS will get more attention and support
fivethirtyeight-1007-occupy1-blog480.png
 
DiAnna said:
Do you honestly think that people have the right to pitch a tent anywhere in America, and exercise their right of free speech? Anywhere? How about the middle of an intersection? On a freeway overpass? How about blocking access to public buildings, like city halls, libraries, schools? Is it okay to block access to a hospital to protest nurse's salaries? Block fire vehicles inside fire stations to protest a new fire tax?

Is it okay for them to pitch tents in your front yard, block access to your house and protest you?

Sorry but your statement is ridiculous on its face. There always have been and always will be limits to how, where, and what can be exercised as free speech.
Click to expand...

Rightwing authoritarian types just dont get non-violent civil disobedience. They think the "disobedience" part of it means "obey every law" :lol:
 
Tigger said:
Welcome to New England. Only here does North Brookfield road in Brookfield, MA become Brookfield Road in North Brookfield, MA. Oh, and they're both parts of State Route 67. Did you get to go through Kelly Square? You'd remember it.... Seven roads converge into a single intersection and there's only one traffic signal (a stop sign) anywhere in the intersection.
Click to expand...

I missed that. After taking two hours to get from the airport to the Hampton Inn (the one on Southbridge) I just went to restaurants with in 1/4 mile of the hotel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom