• 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

I'll stick with RECKLESS DISREGARD.

Reckless Disregard doesn't explain the implications in the language from the posts I pointed out.

Saying you cracked people's skulls open to get them to disperse shows that the act of cracking a skull open was intentional, and had a desired outcome.


Typical Protester (and/or sympathizer) Dishonesty..........
 
Yup, you continue to confirm it. If fascism ever comes to the USA, I strongly suspect right wing libertarians will be leading the parade.
And what is the lean in the city of Oakland, the great state of California?

You LOVE order...just so long as it suits your purposes. Right mr union guy? :lamo
 
This doesn't seem to be a factual statement there are numerous posts by yourself that are in fact trying to educate people what the 'correct' interpretations of rights are... in this particular thread those of the 1st amendment....

And second, the US code, the body of law that our legislature has passed, must first pass constitutional muster... i.e. the meat and potatoes of the U.S. Constitution is the U.S. Constitution itself.... not its derivative products.
Well...since those codes and laws have been on the books...Im guessing they HAVE. Or do you know something we dont know? Oh...wait...wait...you are just speculating they ARENT constitutional cuz you dont like them. You can read them yourself (I almost said 'believe me' but realize...thats silly)...every federal code and law is vetted. At the end of the day...the police are there to do what they are told by the government leaders. Peaceful protestors (like we keep being told they are) should follow the rules and directions given by said officers. Or DONT. Fight the power. Just dont be shocked when someone tackes a tactical round to the forehead.
 
Well...since those codes and laws have been on the books...Im guessing they HAVE. Or do you know something we dont know?
Then I will assume that you think the health care legislation is constitutional since it is on the books...
Oh...wait...wait...you are just speculating they ARENT constitutional cuz you dont like them. You can read them yourself (I almost said 'believe me' but realize...thats silly)...
I never made any such claim reasonable time,place, and manner restrictions are for the courts to decide not local governments
every federal code and law is vetted.
Again then I will assume you would not argue against the Constitutionality of Obama's Health Care legislation, either that or fess up to the fact that typically some time has to pass before such Constitutionality concerns are discovered and addressed.... EDIT:Also, this is about local law enforcement not federal but w/e.
At the end of the day...the police are there to do what they are told by the government leaders. Peaceful protestors (like we keep being told they are) should follow the rules and directions given by said officers. Or DONT. Fight the power. Just dont be shocked when someone tackes a tactical round to the forehead.
Is there anything the police department could order a citizenry to do that you would not agree with? just curious this is a fairly large blanket statement you just made.
 
Last edited:
310278_10150376100492398_646552397_8222211_1271150422_n.jpg
 
Reckless Disregard doesn't explain the implications in the language from the posts I pointed out.

Saying you cracked people's skulls open to get them to disperse shows that the act of cracking a skull open was intentional, and had a desired outcome.


Typical Protester (and/or sympathizer) Dishonesty..........

"Cracking skulls" is pretty common slang.

Can you honestly say you've never heard the term used by an officer of the law?

Or that it means exactly what it sounds like it means?

I understand your inclination to defend the fraternity, I do. And I think I've been pretty even handed about how the cops have behaved from what I've seen. I give them pretty good marks, actually, overall.

I think Oakland was a bunch of yahoo bull****. Too much testosterone and action movies. I've actually worked as a volunteer LE liason for the Rainbow Family. Also event work including security. I've dealt with WAY more cops than most people, and IMO police culture has deteriorated severely over the past 30 years. There are WAY too many happy to intimidate and bully. WAY too many that spend WAY too much time in the gym.

Can you honestly say you've never seen this yourself in other LE officers?

Civil disobedience MEANS not obeying. Which means actually, actively defying the lawful orders of LE.

It looked to me like they said clear the area, the protesters refused, then they lined up and advanced with less-than-lethal weapons blazing. Forty years ago they would certainly have been cracking skulls, the most likely point of impact for an overhand nightstick swing.
 
"Cracking skulls" is pretty common slang.

Can you honestly say you've never heard the term used by an officer of the law?

Or that it means exactly what it sounds like it means?

I understand your inclination to defend the fraternity, I do. And I think I've been pretty even handed about how the cops have behaved from what I've seen. I give them pretty good marks, actually, overall.

I think Oakland was a bunch of yahoo bull****. Too much testosterone and action movies. I've actually worked as a volunteer LE liason for the Rainbow Family. Also event work including security. I've dealt with WAY more cops than most people, and IMO police culture has deteriorated severely over the past 30 years. There are WAY too many happy to intimidate and bully. WAY too many that spend WAY too much time in the gym.

Can you honestly say you've never seen this yourself in other LE officers?

Civil disobedience MEANS not obeying. Which means actually, actively defying the lawful orders of LE.

It looked to me like they said clear the area, the protesters refused, then they lined up and advanced with less-than-lethal weapons blazing. Forty years ago they would certainly have been cracking skulls, the most likely point of impact for an overhand nightstick swing.

"Slang" if you want to insist that is what is being used here is very similar to a rumor.

It starts as known slang.... but by the time it gets over to these folks, they are REPORTING in the AP that THIS happened...

That is why wording a statement is very important, and to word something that shows INTENT TO HARM when the injury was a result of an attempt to control Chaos is hardly honest.

But the protesters haven't really been very honest lately have they?
 
Helz yes. I have 5 degrees...two advanced...and not a one is in constitutional law, US Code (psssst...just so's ya know...thats where you are most likely to find the actual 'meat' and muscle that details what is laid out in the constitution) and local and state law. Thats why I cede to...you know...the people that ARE and do.

Jeesshh.. What are you doing on DebatePolitics.com then?
Im on the interwebs to and i have 7 degrees! I win :mrgreen:
 
And what is the lean in the city of Oakland, the great state of California?

You LOVE order...just so long as it suits your purposes. Right mr union guy? :lamo

Yeah, no ****, huh? :lamo
 
Yup, you continue to confirm it. If fascism ever comes to the USA, I strongly suspect right wing libertarians will be leading the parade.

Right wingers posing as libertarians. Real libertarians detest militarism.
 
You are really big on following orders. I think you missed your time in history when such a toadie attitude was looked at as an asset.

The law is the law. Aren't you a law and order Liberal?

I know you've heard this before, but we can't say it enough: you're all about the law, until it no longer serves your purpose. Don't you work for the government?
 
"Slang" if you want to insist that is what is being used here is very similar to a rumor.

It starts as known slang.... but by the time it gets over to these folks, they are REPORTING in the AP that THIS happened...

That is why wording a statement is very important, and to word something that shows INTENT TO HARM when the injury was a result of an attempt to control Chaos is hardly honest.

But the protesters haven't really been very honest lately have they?

Oh, I'm totally with you on words actually meaning things.

But I notice you failed to answer both of my questions.

Have you never seen an officer of the law use the phrase "cracking skulls" or some obvious variant?

Have you never seen an officer of the law go way too far?

Behave in a grossly disrespecful fashion?

Revel in the hope of getting to hurt somebody?
 
Yup, you continue to confirm it. If fascism ever comes to the USA, I strongly suspect right wing libertarians will be leading the parade.

As usual, when Libbos feel embarressed, or the Libbo talking point no longer work, they start calling everyone a facist.
 
Have you never seen an officer of the law use the phrase "cracking skulls" or some obvious variant?
Once. He went to another division that provided him more action. The rest of the shift was glad.... we told him.. to quote the old racists, "We don't like yer kind 'round 'ere"

Have you never seen an officer of the law go way too far?
Subjective question. On youtube, yes. In my own work, no.

Behave in a grossly disrespecful fashion?
Subjective question. On youtube yes, In my own experience, no.


Revel in the hope of getting to hurt somebody?
No. On Reno 911 yes. In my own experience, no.
 
Once. He went to another division that provided him more action. The rest of the shift was glad.... we told him.. to quote the old racists, "We don't like yer kind 'round 'ere"

Subjective question. On youtube, yes. In my own work, no.

Subjective question. On youtube yes, In my own experience, no.


No. On Reno 911 yes. In my own experience, no.

I'm really not that much in disagreement with you on this subject. I've some experience with the realities of crowd control, etc. And I've made a number of posts where I came down on the side of LE since this whole thing started.

But I have also seen some HORRIFIC behavior on the part of LE first hand, with my own eyes and ears.

I actually have a fairly strong expression of the "sheriff" genetic traits. Its part of my primary nature to "watch over" others. Keep an eye on the kids and old ladies and make sure they're ok. I've met a lot of cops with these traits.

Many in our modern police forces have strong expressions of the "warrior" genetic traits.They approach the whole "problem" of policing differently by nature.

And in my opinion, when the "warrior" types strongly outnumber or outrank the "sheriff" types, serious problems arise with the entire array of issues involved in effective policing.

I say all this to explain why I am so personally offended by what appears to have happened in Oakland. Not just the incident where the vet was injured, but the entire "clearing" operation.

Civil disodedience is a ritualized revolutionary activity adopted as a means to effect revolutionary level change without the normally commensurate bloodshed and destruction of property.

The alternative is the dichotomy between capitulatory obedience or bloody revolution.

And as one who feels compelled to look out for everybody, and seek the "best" solution for ALL parties, the elimination or oppression of the techniques of civil disobedience must be opposed to prevent the dichotomy that existed before it was devised from re-imposing itself onto the world.
 
Last edited:
Right wingers posing as libertarians. Real libertarians detest militarism.

And real liberals detest the military. More 'fun with stereotypes'!
 
And what is the lean in the city of Oakland, the great state of California?

You LOVE order...just so long as it suits your purposes. Right mr union guy? :lamo

Do you even have half an idea what that is supposed to mean?
 
The law is the law. Aren't you a law and order Liberal?

I know you've heard this before, but we can't say it enough: you're all about the law, until it no longer serves your purpose. Don't you work for the government?

I do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about. And i suspect you have less than half of that yourself. Which is twice the knowledge you possess about most issues here.

That "Libbo" invention of yours is cute .... kind of like a babbling baby invents its own language between its first and second year which only it seems to comprehend. Then they get toilet trained and about the same time learn the real words. At least most of them do.
 
Last edited:
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.

You can not assemble whenever or wherever you want. You can not assemble on private property without the approval of the owner. The right to free speech doesn't "trump" that. The Constitution guarantees the right to peaceful assembly. If the assembled are not peaceful, then law enforcement must enforce the peace.
 
Yes, but they also must obey the laws. If a park closes at a certain time, you have to leave or you are breaking the law. If the property owners say they no longer want you at their house, you have to leave. You can't just assemble wherever you want, however long you want and doing whatever you want.

Could you show me where all that is mentioned in the First Amendment of the US Constitution?

As I recall, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
 
Could you show me where all that is mentioned in the First Amendment of the US Constitution?

As I recall, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

I can tote my gun anywhere, anytime I want? Gun-free zones are illegal?
 
I do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about. And i suspect you have less than half of that yourself. Which is twice the knowledge you possess about most issues here.

That "Libbo" invention of yours is cute .... kind of like a babbling baby invents its own language between its first and second year which only it seems to comprehend. Then they get toilet trained and about the same time learn the real words. At least most of them do.

You know exactly what I'm talking about. Just admit it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom