• 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

Ikari said:
Hmm...I took it to mean that one does not have a right against being inconvenienced.
Click to expand...

Oh... maybe. It was confusing to be sure.
 
Ockham said:
Oh... maybe. It was confusing to be sure.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. I've certainly made statements of similar construction and depending on how you read it, it could appear to say the opposite of intended. But given the context of what Mega was saying, in response to essentially an argument of "you can't protest where it inconveniences others", it seems more logical that the assertion was that you don't have protections against being inconvenienced. In other words, you do not have the right to not be inconvenienced, if we are to properly take out the double negative would say you have the right to be inconvenienced. Which, ok, that's not a right but more just a fact of reality.
 
If that's the case, apologies to Mega for my premature smarmy remark.
 
Ockham said:
If that's the case, apologies to Mega for my premature smarmy remark.
Click to expand...

I mean, that's just my take on it. I could be wrong too, not the first time.
 
Ikari said:
Perhaps. I've certainly made statements of similar construction and depending on how you read it, it could appear to say the opposite of intended. But given the context of what Mega was saying, in response to essentially an argument of "you can't protest where it inconveniences others", it seems more logical that the assertion was that you don't have protections against being inconvenienced. In other words, you do not have the right to not be inconvenienced, if we are to properly take out the double negative would say you have the right to be inconvenienced. Which, ok, that's not a right but more just a fact of reality.
Click to expand...

Actually I do. It's why the people were arrested for blocking the bridge. It puts people's lives at risk.

This does not reach that level but as I said, protest but have a little respect.
 
1Perry said:
Actually I do. It's why the people were arrested for blocking the bridge. It puts people's lives at risk.

This does not reach that level but as I said, protest but have a little respect.
Click to expand...

LOL!!!

No one's life was at risk. If that were the case, the police wouldn't have led the protesters onto the roadway of the bridge

protest but have a little respect
Click to expand...

You really don't understand civil disobedience, do you?
 
DiAnna said:
Enough of your bull**** generalizations. My generation invented "civil disobedience." I personally marched to protest the VietNam war and to support Civil Rights. And I knew, as did we all, that when we broke the law with our protests, we'd be subject to arrest.

Nothing has changed. You want to protest illegally? You're subject to arrest. Whining about it, like these wussies are doing, is for babies. Back in the day, being arrested was like a badge of courage for our convictions.
Click to expand...
Sing it loud, sister. (And if you get arrested for disturbing the peace, I'll bail you out)

I marched in the Civil Rights, Women's Rights and anti-Vietnam War marches. As DiAnna says, getting arrested was part of it if you were doing something illegal (and sometimes even if you weren't). Whining about doesn't make any sense. You either believe in what you are doing and are willing to put yourself in in a position to be arrested if needed to advance the cause or you don't /aren't willing.

I remember going to an organizational meeting from a civil rights march and hearing this: "If don't have the cojones to do this, stay home. Those of us with the cojones don't have time to baby-sit you."

BTW, you cannot camp anywhere without getting arrested. I have friends that do something called extreme hammocking....
Extreme Hammock - YouTube
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
It never was. Being arrested was never meant to boost the protesters ego and street "cred". It is a tool to draw attention to the injustice of the law, the abuse of power by the govt and the overreaction of the govt also made the states fear of the protesters power evident
Click to expand...

So then... yes... Being repressed as a result of protest does lend credence when the protest is about repression. I wasn't saying anything about ego, but about what people demonstrating, and continuing to demonstrate, even in the face of arrest and other consequences, suggests greater conviction on the part of the protesters. That conviction aids in the respect the public will give to the protester and thus affect the strength of their message.

Regardless of how the arrested person feels, suffering for your cause makes your cause look better.
 
Paschendale said:
So then... yes... Being repressed as a result of protest does lend credence when the protest is about repression. I wasn't saying anything about ego, but about what people demonstrating, and continuing to demonstrate, even in the face of arrest and other consequences, suggests greater conviction on the part of the protesters. That conviction aids in the respect the public will give to the protester and thus affect the strength of their message.

Regardless of how the arrested person feels, suffering for your cause makes your cause look better.
Click to expand...

Yes, I didn't mean to imply that you said that arrests were about ego and individual cred. I was referring to the poster you responded to who mentioned how their arrests were a "badge" for the arrested.

In this case, the arrests gives the movement a lot more credibility than the teabaggers who held a picnic on the weekend, listened to some speeches, held up signs, threatened violence, and then went home, taking no risks, and sacrificing nothing
 
sangha said:
Police are prohibited from using excessive force. They are required to calibrate their use of force to the level of the threat. It's the law

But most people know that the police are unlikely to obey the law
Click to expand...

As long as the force used is commensurate with the force it is being met with, then it is perfectly legal.

If a "woman" is attempting to stab an Officer with a knife... she will be met with the same amount of force that a "man" attempting to stab an officer with a knife will be met with.

If a "woman" is punching an officer in the face... she will be met with the same amount of force that a "man" punching an officer in the face with be met with.

The amount of force used is not dependant upon the age or gender of the person it is used against...... but the level of force of which they are using.
 
Caine said:
As long as the force used is commensurate with the force it is being met with, then it is perfectly legal.

If a "woman" is attempting to stab an Officer with a knife... she will be met with the same amount of force that a "man" attempting to stab an officer with a knife will be met with.

If a "woman" is punching an officer in the face... she will be met with the same amount of force that a "man" punching an officer in the face with be met with.

The amount of force used is not dependant upon the age or gender of the person it is used against...... but the level of force of which they are using.
Click to expand...

And we all know the awesome power of this senior citizen. Just look at the muscles!! :roll:

And look at how they use "commensurate force" on this guy, who commits the viscious crime of waving a flag and shouting!! How despicable!


Now watch as the cops pepper spray two dangerous young girls in response to their dangerous screaming "Oh, my god!!"
 
sangha said:
And we all know the awesome power of this senior citizen. Just look at the muscles!! :roll:

And look at how they use "commensurate force" on this guy, who commits the viscious crime of waving a flag and shouting!! How despicable!


Now watch as the cops pepper spray two dangerous young girls in response to their dangerous screaming "Oh, my god!!"
Click to expand...


State sponsored terrorism in an attempt to silence a political movement.
 
Here's guy who listens to the cop when the cop tells him to step back, so the cop throws him to the ground for the crime of obeying a cops command
 
dirtpoorchris said:
State sponsored terrorism in an attempt to silence a political movement.
Click to expand...

And the idiot cops don't realize it only helps us gain support by exposing them for the state thugs that they are

fivethirtyeight-1007-occupy1-blog480.png
 
Last edited:
DiAnna said:
Enough of your bull**** generalizations. My generation invented "civil disobedience." I personally marched to protest the VietNam war and to support Civil Rights. And I knew, as did we all, that when we broke the law with our protests, we'd be subject to arrest.

Nothing has changed. You want to protest illegally? You're subject to arrest. Whining about it, like these wussies are doing, is for babies. Back in the day, being arrested was like a badge of courage for our convictions.
Click to expand...

even though I agreed with some of the peace protesters claims back in the day... I still fought with them, sometimes as a victim of aggression, sometimes as an aggressor... bloody and brutal fights.... good fun, good times.

...and we got along pretty well in jail as well.

i've no love for cops, to be sure... but i've really no love for sissies.
some of the folks back in the day ,even though they knew it was futile, would go right after the cops... I respected their aggression and guts, even if their judgement wasn't sound.
now it seems to be all about being able to play a victim on TV or Youtube.


that all said, it was not an unreasonable request for them to move the protest down to a different area of the park, they should have done so.... and it was an unreasonable response to get violent with the protestors.
all in all... the cops and protestors are a bunch of sissies.
 
And yet we can't do anything about the Fred Phelps family of inbreds.......
I know, I know that Phelps knows their legal rights but for once,, just once I love to see a NYPD grab a Phelps supporter and slam his ass to the ground.
 
sangha said:
Here's guy who listens to the cop when the cop tells him to step back, so the cop throws him to the ground for the crime of obeying a cops command
Click to expand...


Everyone else was walking back... this guy was not.

EDIT:
After watching it a few more times keeping an eye out for the douche in the blue bandanna, You can clearly see he is getting PUSHED back and each time he doesn't get the hint so he is arrested.

Your idols in "peaceful" protests could use some work.
 
Last edited:
Caine said:
Everyone else was walking back... this guy was not.

EDIT:
After watching it a few more times keeping an eye out for the douche in the blue bandanna, You can clearly see he is getting PUSHED back and each time he doesn't get the hint so he is arrested.

Your idols in "peaceful" protests could use some work.
Click to expand...

LOL!!

Another rightwing authoritarian who won't believe his own lying eyes!

Funny how you didn't mention the other two vids. Let me guess....."No comment"

But it's alright! The violent thugs in blue are gaining us more sympathy and support than any march ever could. Those criminals with badges just don't get how their thuggery is backfiring. If this keeps up, and it probably will, we'll be back to the days when nearly everyone called them "pigs"
 
Last edited:
It'd be pretty cool if Anonymous leaked the info of the Boston Police so they have to live in fear of reprisal.
 
DiAnna said:
Enough of your bull**** generalizations. My generation invented "civil disobedience." I personally marched to protest the VietNam war and to support Civil Rights. And I knew, as did we all, that when we broke the law with our protests, we'd be subject to arrest.
Click to expand...

For the record, Ghandi's generation beat you to it...
 
Khayembii Communique said:
It'd be pretty cool if Anonymous leaked the info of the Boston Police so they have to live in fear of reprisal.
Click to expand...

Just remember something.... most, if not all of those cops take a sidearm home with them every night. Somehow I don't see too many of these panty-waisted liberals having the nerve to start something with an armed individual.
 
War vets will obey our laws (which they give their lives to sustain our way of life) in the same manner as non-vet civilians. Any questions?
 
Crosscheck said:
And yet we can't do anything about the Fred Phelps family of inbreds.......
I know, I know that Phelps knows their legal rights but for once,, just once I love to see a NYPD grab a Phelps supporter and slam his ass to the ground.
Click to expand...

I thoroughly enjoy the stories that describe private citizens peacefully drowning out the Phelps clan. Whether it's blocking their vehicles in at hotels so they can't drive to funerals, encircling them with flag-adorned motorcycles so their signs and shouts cannot be seen or heard, or lining up in front of their protest ranks when the funeral procession comes by. It's really satisfying to know they're being made completely impotent without violence.

Not that I would oppose some violence in their case, but...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom