• 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!

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

digsbe said:
I support upholding property rights and city laws. They have the right to protest within lawful parameters.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the constitution is the highest law in the land... They, unless we amend the constitution, should be able to protest anywhere at anytime, including your front yard.
 
Jryan said:
The problem is that the constitution is the highest law in the land... They, unless we amend the constitution, should be able to protest anywhere at anytime, including your front yard.
Click to expand...

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG........... WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG....... YOUR WRONG.... YOUR WRONG..... YOUR WRONGGGGGGGG..

 
FinnMacCool said:
People in this country have a right to peaceably assemble, which they did.
Click to expand...

But, they don't have the right to break the law in the process.

This is just another example of how Libbos are all about the law of the land, until those laws are no longer convenient.

I bet the Libbos wouldn't have supported oil companies ignoring the drilling ban and drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, anyway.
 
FinnMacCool said:
I agree, but thats not what the issue here is and you know it.

The issue is that once again our country attacks its own citizens because they are scared of freedom of speech. The police say rocks were thrown but they can't prove it and nobody ever will.
Click to expand...

The OWS'ers are endangering the environment. That's why they were attacked.

How much green space has been destroyed by the OWS'ers?

Free speech doesn't over-rule enviromental safety goddamit!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
FinnMacCool said:
How does posting that help you at all? It just shows that the police started the riot if anything.

And in any case, I saw nothing that would show any justification of that use of force.
Click to expand...

Police don't riot. Rioters riot. Fighting back against the police isn't protected by the 1st Amendment.
 
Jryan said:
The problem is that the constitution is the highest law in the land... They, unless we amend the constitution, should be able to protest anywhere at anytime, including your front yard.
Click to expand...

The Constitution gives us the freedom of speech.

Can I call you 127 times a day, every single day for a month? Can I publish a biographical book telling the world that you murdered someone when you were 16? Can I sit on your front step completely blocking your door singing Lady Gaga songs and reciting British poetry for as long as I want?
 
Paschendale said:
Actually, you very much can assemble where and when you want. The constitutional right to assemble and protest trumps any law. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. All others are subordinate to it. Now, in order for the first amendment to apply, you'd have to show that your protest had to happen there, but only if there's a conflict with something else, like personal property rights. If a more suitable location is available, you can be forced to move there. In the case of a public park or other location that is open for public use... there's certainly no location that is vastly more suited to host a protest, and something MUST be made available. To prevent the protest by disallowing it from having a location is infringing on that first amendment guarantee.

Would the middle of the street be better? Of course not, there are lots of safety issues. A public park is the most suitable forum for this demonstration to take place. A law that closes the park could not interfere with the right to assemble and protest. Under the constitution, the protesters have the right to be there, regardless of any laws that would ordinarily kick people out.
Click to expand...

That means I can tote a gun, anywhere I want and there's not a ****ing thing anyone can do about it, even in gun free zones. Yes?
 
apdst said:
That means I can tote a gun, anywhere I want and there's not a ****ing thing anyone can do about it, even in gun free zones. Yes?
Click to expand...


OoOooOooooOoooOoooooohhh...

Busted!
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
Some flash grenades, tear gas and rubber bullets are to expected in a protest of this magnitude. It is gaining strength and the status quo doesn't approve. Unfortunately, I doubt this will go on much longer without some deaths. This is the 1960s all over again.
Click to expand...

That's what the Libbos are hoping for.
 
Caine said:
OoOooOooooOoooOoooooohhh...

Busted!
Click to expand...

I know, huh? :lamo

I recall Libbos nuttin' up about gun control laws and how they trump the Constitution. According to the Libbos on this thread, I can tote a gun into a school house and there's not a ****ing thing anyone can do about it.

How awesome is this?

I only wish the Libbos had the nads to address my post.
 
FinnMacCool said:
I don't know, but we should all be proud of the police because as this thing blows up, the Occupy Movement will as well.
Click to expand...

Yeah, just like the anti-war movement blew up. It guaranteed Nixon's election. :rofl
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
Some flash grenades, tear gas and rubber bullets are to expected in a protest of this magnitude. It is gaining strength and the status quo doesn't approve. Unfortunately, I doubt this will go on much longer without some deaths. This is the 1960s all over again.
Click to expand...

I completely agree.
 
So.....yeah....

 
apdst said:
That means I can tote a gun, anywhere I want and there's not a ****ing thing anyone can do about it, even in gun free zones. Yes?
Click to expand...

If and only if toting the gun is 100% necessary to make your political point, yes. However I don't think you'll find many situations where that's the case. Even a protest about guns doesn't actually need guns present to make the point.

Remember, the crackdowns on the OWS protesters aren't really trying to get them to "move somewhere else". There is no somewhere else. They're throwing them out of the one place where it is practical and safe (and thus legal) to hold the protest in order to stop the protest. If there were an alternate location that the police were trying to move these people to, that would be a different story. But there isn't.
 
I have an idea, if the cops would have threatened them with soap and water they would have beat feet out of that park.
 
Jryan said:
The problem is that the constitution is the highest law in the land... They, unless we amend the constitution, should be able to protest anywhere at anytime, including your front yard.
Click to expand...
You of course can show where the constitution offers such 'rights'...right?
 
Josie said:
So.....yeah....

Click to expand...
Please oh PLEASE let there be another video!

Self important little ****heads that think they actually understands the laws...they funny!!! :lamo
 
VanceMack said:
Please oh PLEASE let there be another video!

Self important little ****heads that think they actually understands the laws...they funny!!! :lamo
Click to expand...

And some of them are on this forum.
 
Paschendale said:
If and only if toting the gun is 100% necessary to make your political point, yes. However I don't think you'll find many situations where that's the case. Even a protest about guns doesn't actually need guns present to make the point.

Remember, the crackdowns on the OWS protesters aren't really trying to get them to "move somewhere else". There is no somewhere else. They're throwing them out of the one place where it is practical and safe (and thus legal) to hold the protest in order to stop the protest. If there were an alternate location that the police were trying to move these people to, that would be a different story. But there isn't.
Click to expand...

Oh, so, the Constitution doesn't trump all other laws? As I said before, the Libbos are all about the Constitution, the law and civil rights, as long as they work in the Libbos's favor. When they don't, they're suddenly dependent on the situation.
 
FinnMacCool said:
Veteran in critical condition after police assault at Occupy Oakland — RT
Apparently the man mentioned in the article is an Iraq war veteran and is in critical condition.
Click to expand...
I'm not at all surprised. I was a protester in the 1960's for both civil rights and against the Vietnam War (while my husband was serving in Vietnam). Some of the things I saw and experienced are why I don't think the US should be trying to claim the moral high-ground in the world.
MaggieD said:
As to deaths? If any coppers are seriously injured, I hope they open fire. These people need to understand that there are rules....even as they execute their right to assembly and free speech. Who doesn't understand that you don't fight the coppers in the streets, you fight 'em in the courthouse? People who figure they're bulletproof. They're not.
Click to expand...
The use of lethal force to disperse a crowd certainly isn't justified. I got to see the police attack protesters who were not attacking them too many times to automatically assume the police were actually provoked - the police always said they were under attack as a defense. The police certainly have the right to use some force when under attack, but launching "non-lethal" grenades into in a crowd is a recipe for disaster and should be a last resort instead of a go-to solution.

Jryan said:
Yeah, the guy got shot with a projectile in the head (Supposedly non-lethal) in the head.

Olsen, 24, was apparently hit in the head with a projectile that the police say is non-lethal. “This poor guy was right behind me when he was hit in the head with a police projectile,” eyewitness Jay Finneburg writes on Indybay. “He went down hard and did not get up.”

While you'll say it is a projectile it doesn't say bullet; remember, something that causes that much damage must be moving pretty quick.
Click to expand...
Taking a direct hit from a tear-gas or flash grenade launched into a crowd could easily cause serious or fatal injuries. This is a teargas grenade launcher with two grenades.
hk69-3.jpg
Any reasonable person should realize that firing one of these devices into a crowd could result in fatalities.

Here is a video that was taken that shows the amount of firepower police were using as this man was injured. Veteran shot in the face by police projectile at Occupy Oakland protests - YouTube

This is despicable police behavior and it is now really, really reminding me of 1960s-early 1970's. This will likely do on a smaller scale what Kent State did did back in the 1970 - the antiwar movement grew by at least a third in the month after that happened.
 
Jryan said:
The problem is that the constitution is the highest law in the land... They, unless we amend the constitution, should be able to protest anywhere at anytime, including your front yard.
Click to expand...

Screw my property rights, right?

By that notion, I can shoot targets with my gun, in your yard. It's my constitutional right to keep and bear arms and that means in your front yard, too.

I bet you wouldn't be saying all that crap, if the Tea Party gathered in your front yard.
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
I'm not at all surprised. I was a protester in the 1960's for both civil rights and against the Vietnam War (while my husband was serving in Vietnam). Some of the things I saw and experienced are why I don't think the US should be trying to claim the moral high-ground in the world.The use of lethal force to disperse a crowd certainly isn't justified. I got to see the police attack protesters who were not attacking them too many times to automatically assume the police were actually provoked - the police always said they were under attack as a defense. The police certainly have the right to use some force when under attack, but launching "non-lethal" grenades into in a crowd is a recipe for disaster and should be a last resort instead of a go-to solution.

Taking a direct hit from a tear-gas or flash grenade launched into a crowd could easily cause serious or fatal injuries. This is a teargas grenade launcher with two grenades.
View attachment 67117548
Any reasonable person should realize that firing one of these devices into a crowd could result in fatalities.

Here is a video that was taken that shows the amount of firepower police were using as this man was injured. Veteran shot in the face by police projectile at Occupy Oakland protests - YouTube

This is despicable police behavior and it is now really, really reminding me of 1960s-early 1970's. This will likely do on a smaller scale what Kent State did did back in the 1970 - the antiwar movement grew by at least a third in the month after that happened.
Click to expand...

Any reasonable person should obey the law and avoid a situation where those rounds are fired.
 
It's got to be tough for police to do the job these peoples parents should have done earlier in their lives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom