• 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

Ever? Even if it's unjust? Abuse of power? If we see cops beating an unconscious guy to death, then just sit back and let the good times roll because we shouldn't interfere?

Were the police in Boston beating a guy to death? Or even beating a guy for that matter?

Nice straw man.. but lets stay on topic.
 
I see you keep trying to throw in "elderly" and "veterans" as if that means anything. I don't care if you are elderly or young, man or woman, veteran or civilian, you DO NOT interfere with police activities. In a video I watched... nobody was "BEAT" one guy got tossed to the ground after he walked up on an officer who was making an arrest with a freaking flag pole in his hand. You can't see the guy walk up to the police, but you do see him fall down, and when the camera finally decides to move over to where he fell from, you see police Officers finishing up making an arrest......

OooOoo... An old guy got pushed down for getting too close with a ****ing flag and pole in his hand... big ****ing deal.

Degree of force needed? Respect? Not a consideration?

I saw no interference that necessitated throwing an elderly veteran to the ground.
 
Degree of force needed? Respect? Not a consideration?

I saw no interference that necessitated throwing an elderly veteran to the ground.

but they had to protect that sod
 
Degree of force needed? Respect? Not a consideration?

I saw no interference that necessitated throwing an elderly veteran to the ground.

You get up in an Officers face during an arrest of another subject, you get pushed back.
If you happen to fall down because of it, so be it.

Do you really think that everyone knows how hard they have to push to make another person fall compared to just make them get the idea to move back?

Use common sense.... not every single thing that happens was a pre-planned "Hmm.. I think I will push this guy with X amount of force with the intent to make him fall" or maybe, JUST MAYBE (and more likely) ..
"Im going to push this guy back because he is getting too close to our arrest and we don't need him close enough to cause harm to us if he decides to do so."

Lack of common sense, and a desire to make police look as bad as possible lends to this ignorant theory of yours.
 
You get up in an Officers face during an arrest of another subject, you get pushed back.
If you happen to fall down because of it, so be it.

Do you really think that everyone knows how hard they have to push to make another person fall compared to just make them get the idea to move back?

Use common sense.... not every single thing that happens was a pre-planned "Hmm.. I think I will push this guy with X amount of force with the intent to make him fall" or maybe, JUST MAYBE (and more likely) ..
"Im going to push this guy back because he is getting too close to our arrest and we don't need him close enough to cause harm to us if he decides to do so."

Lack of common sense, and a desire to make police look as bad as possible lends to this ignorant theory of yours.

I think its a damn shame we forced our young people fight for our "right to freedom of speech" and then whey they exercise that right they are said to be interfering with the police who are themselves infringing on that right.
 
but they had to protect that sod
Yep, folks were told not to go there because they will damage property that tax dollars were spent to make upgrades to.
Doesn't seem that hard to do... don't go damaging property...

But these guys can't seem to get that right.
They were told to leave... they didn't.... they got arrested.
 
I think its a damn shame we forced our young people fight for our "right to freedom of speech" and then whey they exercise that right they are said to be interfering with the police who are themselves infringing on that right.

And... again... I have to say...

You don't have the "right" to damage property in the process....

Circular argument....
 
And... again... I have to say...

You don't have the "right" to damage property in the process....

Circular argument....

"AP reported another violent incident that occurred earlier on, quoting Matt Hollander, a Boston resident, who was among the protesters.

A group of veterans was standing in between police and demonstrators holding American flags. When officers advanced on them, one veteran was pushed to the ground.

“If they wanted to arrest us they could have done that without pushing us… without tramping the flag,” Hollander said."


Police beat [74 year old vietnam] war veteran in assault on Occupy Boston | Truth Frequency News
 
I dont understand why they were arrested?
They claimed they were "trespassing"? They were on the road...
They claimed they were "unlawful"? They were peaceful protesters....
 
Yep, folks were told not to go there because they will damage property that tax dollars were spent to make upgrades to.
Doesn't seem that hard to do... don't go damaging property...

But these guys can't seem to get that right.
They were told to leave... they didn't.... they got arrested.

no right of assembly if you walk on the grass while assembling

got it

you must have a different copy of the Constitution than the one i read
 
Were the police in Boston beating a guy to death? Or even beating a guy for that matter?

Nice straw man.. but lets stay on topic.

No, I was just questioning the absolute nature of your statement.
 
no right of assembly if you walk on the grass while assembling

got it

you must have a different copy of the Constitution than the one i read

So damaging property is peaceful.

So I can peacefully key your car while assembling against the use of motor vehicles.
Got it.
 
"AP reported another violent incident that occurred earlier on, quoting Matt Hollander, a Boston resident, who was among the protesters.

A group of veterans was standing in between police and demonstrators holding American flags. When officers advanced on them, one veteran was pushed to the ground.

“If they wanted to arrest us they could have done that without pushing us… without tramping the flag,” Hollander said."


Police beat [74 year old vietnam] war veteran in assault on Occupy Boston*|*Truth Frequency News

Can't take your article seriously, or the AP for that matter, if you/they are going to consider being pushed and subsequently falling to the ground as "beating"
 
Its because there are reasonable limits to free speech.
There is no such thing as a reasonable limit to a Constitutionally guaranteed right. The First Amendment does not say 'the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, (as long as the location is convenient for the local governing body)'.
 
There is no such thing as a reasonable limit to a Constitutionally guaranteed right. The First Amendment does not say 'the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, (as long as the location is convenient for the local governing body)'.

So you won't mind if I bring over a few hundreds people and assemble at your place for the next 30-60 days. :roll:
 
So you won't mind if I bring over a few hundreds people and assemble at your place for the next 30-60 days. :roll:

Lokiate is not the local governing body though. I think that many would have no issue with barring from private property. But overall, some are uncomfortable with the government having the unlimited ability to dictate where protest can occur.
 
Lokiate is not the local governing body though. I think that many would have no issue with barring from private property. But overall, some are uncomfortable with the government having the unlimited ability to dictate where protest can occur.

well, hell's bell's let's also complain about the govt forcing you to get a permit to have a parade.

all they would've had to do is move their protest to the other side of the street and off the newly planted sod. is that too much to ask? or, if they insisted on trampling the sod, they could have offered to cut the tax payers a check to pay to replace it.
 
Lokiate is not the local governing body though.
The Constitution doesn't state I can only assemble in response to or against a governing body. To quote Lokiate:

Lokiate said:
The First Amendment does not say 'the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, (as long as the location is convenient for the local governing body)'.

The Constitution also doesn't say (as long as the location is convenient for the local population) either. This is my way of pointing out the flaw in Lokiate's logic, hence my use of the example.

I think that many would have no issue with barring from private property. But overall, some are uncomfortable with the government having the unlimited ability to dictate where protest can occur.
I do agree don't get me wrong, I just made an over the top statement to show the argument wasn't the best one to make.
 
The Constitution also doesn't say (as long as the location is convenient for the local population) either. This is my way of pointing out the flaw in Lokiate's logic, hence my use of the example.

It certainly doesn't. But I think the point is that functionally it's becoming more and more like that. I would agree with the assessment, I do believe the government has become increasingly aggressive against protest and dissent and works in ways to hide it. I have a very large problem with that.

It's fine to discuss reasonable restrictions, surely it cannot exist in an anarchic state, there needs to be rules and regulations and protection and such. However, there seems to be no limits on the limitation. That is to say we can discuss the government moving demonstrations, arresting people, etc. under some pretense of reasonableness, but the government has never and never will be a reasonable force and there is never talk on restricting the restrictions. I already believe that under many circumstances, we are already unreasonably restrained from the exercise of our rights. And that is not a good place to be in. Certainly not what the founders fought for when the envisioned this Republic.
 
It certainly doesn't. But I think the point is that functionally it's becoming more and more like that. I would agree with the assessment, I do believe the government has become increasingly aggressive against protest and dissent and works in ways to hide it. I have a very large problem with that.
I don't see this part, so we'll just have to disagree here.

It's fine to discuss reasonable restrictions, surely it cannot exist in an anarchic state, there needs to be rules and regulations and protection and such. However, there seems to be no limits on the limitation. That is to say we can discuss the government moving demonstrations, arresting people, etc. under some pretense of reasonableness, but the government has never and never will be a reasonable force and there is never talk on restricting the restrictions. I already believe that under many circumstances, we are already unreasonably restrained from the exercise of our rights. And that is not a good place to be in. Certainly not what the founders fought for when the envisioned this Republic.
Agreed.
 
but they had to protect that sod

I don't understand......what was the big deal about staying off the new sod? What was so important that they had to trample on it? Is it really so difficult to protest, state your mind and still be respectful of the things around you?
 
Can't take your article seriously, or the AP for that matter, if you/they are going to consider being pushed and subsequently falling to the ground as "beating"

I would believe an AP reporter who was there, before I would believe an opinion of someone who wasn't there. But, that's just me............
 
None of the three videos you showed has anything to do with Boston, which is the topic of this thread. Take them to the thread on the NYC protests... unless that's where you got them in the first place.

You're doing a poor job as NetNanny, Di. Funny how you have nothing to say to all the others bringing up issues that have nothing to do with Boston, like the ones talking about riots.
 
I see you keep trying to throw in "elderly" and "veterans" as if that means anything.

I don't care if you are elderly or young, man or woman, veteran or civilian, you DO NOT interfere with police activities.

In a video I watched... nobody was "BEAT" one guy got tossed to the ground after he walked up on an officer who was making an arrest with a freaking flag pole in his hand. You can't see the guy walk up to the police, but you do see him fall down, and when the camera finally decides to move over to where he fell from, you see police Officers finishing up making an arrest......

OooOoo... An old guy got pushed down for getting too close with a ****ing flag and pole in his hand... big ****ing deal.

The police thugs always excuse their own violence, but a man walking with a flag...ooohhh, that deserves a beat down :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom