Page 27 of 57 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 562

Thread: Occupy Oakland Attacked By Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets, and Flash Grenades

  1. #261
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    05-01-14 @ 03:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    12,879

    Re: Occupy Oakland Attacked By Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets, and Flash Grenades

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    You may want to get a DVD of the film CAMELOT and watch that exchange between Sir Lancelot and Queen Gueniverre about humility.
    Probably wouldn't help. I had my sense of humor surgically removed as a child to allow my EGO to grow to its full size.

  2. #262
    Advisor Swit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-13-16 @ 12:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    390

    Re: Occupy Oakland Attacked By Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets, and Flash Grenades

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you've never run across my stance on appeals to the court so I will reiterate. I do not respect the appeals to the court argument since the courts tend to have a particular lean, while their decisions do in fact hold legal weight they do not always necessarily render the best and most constitutional decision.
    At the risk of being argumentative I believe both sides have equal claim that courts have leaned politically one way or another, in essence it is based off the political lean of the individual judge most of which have either been duly elected by the population or confirmed via state or federal legislative bodies. As far as to the "Constitutionality" of any particular decision, unless I am mistaken that is their most fundamental duty interpretation of the law or the constitutionality thereof. Leave it in the hands of individual opinion in society and virtually no decision could every be made due to conflicting viewpoints.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Here is the problem, yes we have freedom of speech and it is an incredibly important right but it is also prone to abuse which is why the limits of said speech and assembly have been largely tackled in the 20th century. While the protesters do have the right to peaceably assemble they do not have the right simply to assembly, peaceable assembly requires a non-violent message AND(very important) adherence to basic laws and the rights of others.
    Once again, at the risk of being argumentative, how is we are just gonna sit here until our issues are addressed somehow violent? It appears as if violence only erupted after there was police involvement, I'm sure our opinions of which parties are more responsible for said violence would be vastly different.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    On the adherence issue: "Free Speech zones" are not good, they are an abomination, this isn't the issue just an example of an unjust law. What we have here is basic laws such as obstruction, illegal camping, and sanitation issues that are not being adhered to which a city has every right to enforce. People must be allowed to speak however they cannot just use the bathroom in a public area, they cannot block streets and obstruct others who are trying to perform their duties, they cannot camp in public parks and cannot obstruct police actions(they especially cannot endanger officers in the line of duty). There is no excuse for any of the above and those actions are not within the rights of speech or assembly regardless of what an appeals court has decided, even though they have ruled on it and hold weight.
    Agreed, The city does in fact have the right to enforce its laws and ordinances.... just not at the detriment of the People's Constitutionally Protected Rights, or would you disagree? If you disagree, then why do we even have Rights in the first place. Court systems have long ruled upon reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions regarding these issues, while on an individual basis people might disagree with any particular ruling (whether on the side of upholding 1st Amendment protects or on the side of restricting them) I ask you, if not the courts then WHO should we allow to make these decisions?

  3. #263
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Occupy Oakland Attacked By Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets, and Flash Grenades

    Quote Originally Posted by GhostlyJoe View Post
    The burden is on the police to justify the use of force.

    From what I've read, some of the protesters clearly crossed the line, which undermines the claims of non-violence, but it's clear to me the city and its police force were active agents in this conflict and deserve a big share of culpability.
    1. No it's not, I'm pretty sure they covered their bases in advance and followed the plan set forth before the incident. They file reports after their shift so that is not exactly correct. 2. They clearly crossed the line, that is justification to initiate ass kicking mode, you cannot blame the police for doing their jobs especially after they issued commands prior to being assaulted. The rioters were compelled to follow the commands and if they felt they were unjustly moved along they SHOULD have filed a complaint, not engaged the police.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  4. #264
    Advisor Swit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-13-16 @ 12:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    390

    Re: Occupy Oakland Attacked By Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets, and Flash Grenades

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigger View Post
    I am a strong believer that ANY Governmental system needs to be based on Morality and Right/Wrong. That is where our system fails as it is based on what people WANT to do/have rather than what they SHOULD do/have. I have no issue with ACTION against a Government that one finds untennable. What I do have an issue with is people standing around and whining about it rather than doing something about it; which is why I have no more respect for the Tea Party than I do for the OWS crowd.
    Who gets to decide what is Moral or Immoral, Right or Wrong?

  5. #265
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    05-01-14 @ 03:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    12,879

    Re: Occupy Oakland Attacked By Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets, and Flash Grenades

    Quote Originally Posted by Swit View Post
    Who gets to decide what is Moral or Immoral, Right or Wrong?
    I believe there is an applicable Universal Standard for Morality, Swit. It's based on the common values and beliefs of the successful societies, cultures, and religions over time. It's not dissimilar to a moderated version of what most Middle Eastern states look like.

  6. #266
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Occupy Oakland Attacked By Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets, and Flash Grenades

    Quote Originally Posted by Swit View Post
    At the risk of being argumentative I believe both sides have equal claim that courts have leaned politically one way or another, in essence it is based off the political lean of the individual judge most of which have either been duly elected by the population or confirmed via state or federal legislative bodies. As far as to the "Constitutionality" of any particular decision, unless I am mistaken that is their most fundamental duty interpretation of the law or the constitutionality thereof. Leave it in the hands of individual opinion in society and virtually no decision could every be made due to conflicting viewpoints.
    Well, yes in my opinion it is open ended for all sides to raise issues which is why many decisions end up back in the courts at later dates, it's to correct or affirm prior decisions. For instance I am a constructionist to a large degree but I do agree with many decisions if they are based on the logic of necessary and proper. For instance if you are to reign in a Bill of Rights amendment there needs to be compelling public interest and it must be of immediate and provable need such as limiting free speech protections to exclude fraud, slander, incitement to riot, etc. etc.


    Once again, at the risk of being argumentative, how is we are just gonna sit here until our issues are addressed somehow violent? It appears as if violence only erupted after there was police involvement, I'm sure our opinions of which parties are more responsible for said violence would be vastly different.
    I am not opposed to the current or other protests per se. What I am opposed to are the flagrant violations of what seem to be a minor constituency amonst the protesters, there are some really nasty underground elements trying to foment some bad ideas mixed in and I really want people to acknowledge that. My position is pretty simple, and my opinion is not one that is in agreement to this movement.


    Agreed, The city does in fact have the right to enforce its laws and ordinances.... just not at the detriment of the People's Constitutionally Protected Rights, or would you disagree? If you disagree, then why do we even have Rights in the first place. Court systems have long ruled upon reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions regarding these issues, while on an individual basis people might disagree with any particular ruling (whether on the side of upholding 1st Amendment protects or on the side of restricting them) I ask you, if not the courts then WHO should we allow to make these decisions?
    I want all rights upheld in this and it's a good exercise in where rights begin and end. The courts are making decisions and they must be adhered to, however there is a right to respectfully disagree with the court so long as the law is followed. Time/Place/Manner is quite the issue here, good catch on your part and it is what I have been discussing in a roundabout way, those protesting respectfully and lawfully are perfectly within their rights as far as I am concerned though I do not feel they have a great message, where it comes to a head is in the details of those that are taking things too far from a legal perspective.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  7. #267
    Advisor Swit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-13-16 @ 12:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    390

    Re: Occupy Oakland Attacked By Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets, and Flash Grenades

    Come on...
    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    The POLICE, as emergency responders had the responsibility to tend to the injured man,...
    yet they did not
    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    ...not the protesters. After the crowd charged the police and threw things at them how were they to know what the crowd was up to?
    Yous should really go back and watch the video.... "charged the police and threw things at them"? Really.... how does kneeling around an injured man constitute "charged the police and threw things at them"?
    If someone was shot whilst they were rushing over to aid the man I might lend credibility to your argument.... the fact they were there for a decent stretch of time before some police officer causally lobbed a concussion grenade into their midst does not seem to support your stance.
    Come on...

  8. #268
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Occupy Oakland Attacked By Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets, and Flash Grenades

    Quote Originally Posted by Swit View Post
    Come on...

    yet they did not

    Yous should really go back and watch the video.... "charged the police and threw things at them"? Really.... how does kneeling around an injured man constitute "charged the police and threw things at them"?
    If someone was shot whilst they were rushing over to aid the man I might lend credibility to your argument.... the fact they were there for a decent stretch of time before some police officer causally lobbed a concussion grenade into their midst does not seem to support your stance.
    Come on...
    I dunno, from what I've seen the video was in question because of some pan aways and things like that. I don't know what the police were necessarily holding for as they may not have wanted to go in to a hostile situation and recieve injuries, they may have picked up a bad cue from the crowd. I am simply stating that if the protesters took it upon themselves to aid the man it could have been interpreted badly by the officers, while they are trained public servants they are still human and thus prone to mistakes. My point is that there is an alternative to the demonization they recieved and they do have a side to the story as well.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  9. #269
    Advisor Swit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-13-16 @ 12:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    390

    Re: Occupy Oakland Attacked By Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets, and Flash Grenades

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigger View Post
    I believe there is an applicable Universal Standard for Morality, Swit. It's based on the common values and beliefs of the successful societies, cultures, and religions over time. It's not dissimilar to a moderated version of what most Middle Eastern states look like.
    Well, I can definitely say without reservation that our two definitions of "Universal Standard of Morality" would differ greatly.

  10. #270
    Advisor Swit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-13-16 @ 12:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    390

    Re: Occupy Oakland Attacked By Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets, and Flash Grenades

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    I dunno, from what I've seen the video was in question because of some pan aways and things like that. I don't know what the police were necessarily holding for as they may not have wanted to go in to a hostile situation and recieve injuries, they may have picked up a bad cue from the crowd. I am simply stating that if the protesters took it upon themselves to aid the man it could have been interpreted badly by the officers, while they are trained public servants they are still human and thus prone to mistakes. My point is that there is an alternative to the demonization they recieved and they do have a side to the story as well.
    This video seems to paint a fairly clear picture of the situation. Admittedly the narration is definitely someone that sides with the protesters so feel free to simply watch it without sound. I am interested in your opinion of this particular video.

Page 27 of 57 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •