• 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

Mr. Invisible

A Man Without A Country
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
5,517
Reaction score
3,929
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
A new chapter in the annals of American police brutality has been written, as two Vietnam war veterans who joined Occupy Boston protests suffered injuries after being beaten by police and arrested along with some 50 other demonstrators.After barring protesters from occupying a freshly-planted greenway near their official encampment at Dewey Square, police pulled down the demonstrators’ tents and started confiscating their property.

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

 
Last edited:
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.



O.M.G.

It's so amusing to hear someone call this a "horrendous act." You don't know the meaning of the word.

Demonstrating? Obey the police. Don't obey the police? Get knocked down. Get roughed up. Get arrested. The guy was a Viet Nam vet, and he says he doesn't trust the police anymore. Give me a break.
 
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.



Those cops are lucky they didn't try it on OIF/OEF vets, but I suspect that these badge wearing henchmen are cowards, since they beat up old men.

The main question to be asked here, however, is what the **** happened to this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Or does the United States Constitution apply to everyone except Boston police? Don't know about anyone else, but I would call that domestic terrorism.
 
Last edited:
It'd be nice to have video of the incident before we rush to any judgments about both the protesters and the police...
 
It'd be nice to have video of the incident before we rush to any judgments about both the protesters and the police...

A video is located in the link, scroll to the bottom.

EDIT:

Here is the video

 
Last edited:
That was funny as hell. I hope we get a chance to see more people violating the law getting their ass kicked. :lamo

Those people were duly warned and told to move on, they didn't, they were manhandled when they made aggressive moves on the uniformed police.
 
Looks like they followed protocol to the letter. There is absolutely nothing the protesters can get angry about.
 
Looks like they followed protocol to the letter. There is absolutely nothing the protesters can get angry about.

with the possible exception that they were denied their right of assembly


but then neoconservatives believe that document is something only to be used to wipe their ass with
 
with the possible exception that they were denied their right of assembly


but then neoconservatives believe that document is something only to be used to wipe their ass with

Its not just scumbag neocons, there are plenty of badge licking pond scum liberals too (as long as their guy is in power of course).
 
with the possible exception that they were denied their right of assembly

No they were not. Read the story. They were told to assemble at area A because area B had new sod. They went to area B and would not leave.


but then neoconservatives believe that document is something only to be used to wipe their ass with

Funny how liberals only trot out the Constitution when it suits them. The rest of the time it is an antiquated document written by people that couldn't have possibly known what today's issues would be.
 
No they were not. Read the story. They were told to assemble at area A because area B had new sod. They went to area B and would not leave.
got it
they failed to assemble in the 'free speech' zone




Funny how liberals only trot out the Constitution when it suits them. The rest of the time it is an antiquated document written by people that couldn't have possibly known what today's issues would be.
what is not funny is how the neoconservatives wipe their asses on it
 
It'd be nice to have video of the incident before we rush to any judgments about both the protesters and the police...
I'll by that for a dollar, but I don't think a 74 year old man is much of a threat to cops. Not the kind of threat that warrants knocking the guy on his ass.
 
with the possible exception that they were denied their right of assembly


but then neoconservatives believe that document is something only to be used to wipe their ass with

Now, hold on a second. If a specific area is off-limits and you ask the assembled group to move to a different area that is hardly denying the right to assemble. The article says they were asked to move off a "freshly-planted greenway". When I went to one of the TP rallies down here, some of the attendees spilled into the street in front of the town hall, blocking traffic. Cops told them to move to unoccupied areas of grass/sidewalk and get off the roadway...hardly a denial of their rights to assemble. Sometimes, the spot a protester picks will obscure, block, or otherwise inhibit the normal activities of that particular area...or even present a potential risk to public safety. When that happens there is no denial of rights to demand that the protesters move to a different spot.

Further, the protesters do not have a right to deface, damage, or threaten the condition of the property on which they choose to assemble. If they were damaging the area the cops had a right to ask them to move to an area they were less likely to cause damage to.
 
Last edited:
Now, hold on a second. If a specific area is off-limits and you ask the assembled group to move to a different area that is hardly denying the right to assemble. The article says they were asked to move off a "freshly-planted greenway". When I went to one of the TP rallies down here, some of the attendees spilled into the street in front of the town hall, blocking traffic. Cops told them to move to unoccupied areas of grass/sidewalk and get off the roadway...hardly a denial of their rights to assemble. Sometimes, the spot a protester picks will obscure, block, or otherwise inhibit the normal activities of that particular area...or even present a potential risk to public safety. When that happens there is no denial of rights to demand that the protesters move to a different spot.

Declaring specific areas off limits and relegating demonstrations to places that are unseen and outside common areas are a useful way to minimize the impact of a demonstration, creating marginalization and thus diminishing the rights to assembly. We need to be very careful about being denied our constitution rights through these types of regulations. So I don't have a bone to pick with people who do not want to be denied their speech for legitimate grievences.

There is a good reason people have issues with things such as free speech zones and what not. Unless there is an impact on public safety (which is not the same thing as creating an inconvienence for people), these things should not be regulated away from the citizenry.
 
Last edited:
I'll by that for a dollar, but I don't think a 74 year old man is much of a threat to cops. Not the kind of threat that warrants knocking the guy on his ass.
So when exactly should the police decide the mob is out of control? After someone hits a cop in the face with a weapon? After they are on the ground being kicked and stomped? In case you missed it, the guy was screaming and resisting arrest.......that's the time when he should have had his clock cleaned.

I loved all the other pansies in the background chanting "shame". I'll bet there were some soiled underwear in that crowd once they realized they had kicked a hornets nest.
 
Its amazing watching people respond with glee at people being hurt.

Truly a sad thing.
 
Declaring specific areas off limits and relegating demonstrations to places that are unseen and outside common areas are a useful way to minimize the impact of a demonstration, creating marginalization and thus diminishing the rights to assembly. We need to be very careful about being denied our constitution rights through these types of regulations. So I don't have a bone to pick with people who do not want to be denied their speech for legitimate grievences.

Granting you your rights should not lead to the rights of others being inhibitied. When your presence in a specific spot threatens the safety of another, creates undo damage to public or private property, or inhibits the flow of commerce, travel, or access to facilities for non-protestors then there is just cause to ask those assembled to move. They were not asked to disband, go home, or discontinue their rally. They were asked to move from a spot which had been recently laid with sod (at tax payer expense) due to the damage they would cause or were causing (to be corrected at tax payer expense). If some guy is strapped to a bulldozer to prevent the removal of ancient oaks the cops can and do arrest/remove that guy...I really don't see this as much different.
 
with the possible exception that they were denied their right of assembly


but then neoconservatives believe that document is something only to be used to wipe their ass with

How were they denied their right of assembly? They were not denied that right. They were asked to vacate the area....to move off private property. If it was your front lawn, you'da had your Uzi out there.

The police acted calmly...courteously. Don't move along? Get arrested. Resist arrest? Get roughed up. Buncha' nambie-pambie crybabies.
 
got it
they failed to assemble in the 'free speech' zone

No, they just failed to have enough respect for the workers that installed the new grass.





what is not funny is how the neoconservatives wipe their asses on it

You can assert that all you want, that doesn't make it true. Plus, I doubt you even know what a neocon is. Traditionally, the title neocon has been applied to the less liberal democrats.
 
No they were not. Read the story. They were told to assemble at area A because area B had new sod. They went to area B and would not leave.

Here we go -- railing against the sodomites again.........
 
Granting you your rights should not lead to the rights of others being inhibitied. When your presence in a specific spot threatens the safety of another, creates undo damage to public or private property, or inhibits the flow of commerce, travel, or access to facilities for non-protestors then there is just cause to ask those assembled to move. They were not asked to disband, go home, or discontinue their rally. They were asked to move from a spot which had been recently laid with sod (at tax payer expense) due to the damage they would cause or were causing (to be corrected at tax payer expense). If some guy is strapped to a bulldozer to prevent the removal of ancient oaks the cops can and do arrest/remove that guy.

People do not have a right to not be inconvienced, so long as they are not harmed, so that invalidates most of your argument, especially if the demonstration is in a public space such as a park or a street. Also, there is no evidence to show that anyone has been harmed or had their safety compromised by this demonstration.
 
People do not have a right to not be inconvienced, so long as they are not harmed, so that invalidates most of your argument, especially if the demonstration is in a public space such as a park or a street. Also, there is no evidence to show that anyone has been harmed or had their safety compromised by this demonstration.

If they are causing damage to property they most certainly can be asked to move from that area where they cannot cause said damage. The right to assemble does not also grant the right to obstruct or cause damage.
 
Supreme Court says you can place reasonable limitations on the time, place, and manner of assembly. Seems that asking protesters to move from an area to which they are causing damage would fit under "reasonable":

The short answer is that the Constitution guarantees the right to public assembly, but that the government may place reasonable restrictions on the time, place and manner for using a public space.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Please note that, while the text seems to apply only to Congress, the First Amendment applies to state and local governments also by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is known as the “incorporation doctrine,” which I do not have time to discuss in detail. Suffice it to say, the First Amendment applies to your local city government.

The text of the amendment states that the government “shall make no law” that abridges free speech and peaceable assembly, so it seems that James is on to something. If the local city government enacts a rule that closes city parks at 10 P.M., this would seem to be a law that abridges free speech and assembly. But, the Supreme Court has interpreted this language to permit the government to place reasonable restrictions on the time, place and manner in which people publicly speak or assemble.
 
Its amazing watching people respond with glee at people being hurt.

Truly a sad thing.
I'll tell what is sad. When people think it's cool to break the law, threaten underpaid police officers and then whine about the perps getting a bruise on their ass after being shoved to the ground for inciting a riot.

I am loving these Pee Party tool bags ......Comedy Gold is what they are.
 
If they are causing damage to property they most certainly can be asked to move from that area where they cannot cause said damage. The right to assemble does not also grant the right to obstruct or cause damage.

i do hear you
protecting that fresh sod trumps our right of assembly
sarcasm dilbert.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom