- Joined
- May 19, 2009
- Messages
- 28,721
- Reaction score
- 6,738
- Location
- Redneck Riviera
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Police in military gear = military grade police?
It's actually called tactical gear.
Police in military gear = military grade police?
These G-# summits should be held in a country with a real dictator in power.
Then lets see if the anarcho-communists have any balls.
In both cases, it's really legitimized by color of law...
Seriously, you're saying that Obama's security is not acting under 'federal' control??
Of course, it was the police trained to ask for national guard for anything... jaws of life at car wrecks and other 'reasonable' uses of the guard.
Almost all the G-8/20 summit protest turn out the same way. I'm not about to defend the anarchists, but the riot police in charge look for any pretext whatsoever to shut down the protests. The government leaders don't want there being protests in the first place during the G-20 meetings, and are wiling to suppress activists for any little reason.
I'd like to know why the police asked them to disperse in the first place. That is a key piece of information we are missing.
Because they didn't have a permit to march into this part of the City, it's in the article if you care toi go and read it.
You shouldn't need a permit to exercise your rights. The riot police and security were in place to prevent the crowd from going further, as they usually are. Dispersing them for lack of a permit is anti-democratic.
The groups involved clearly expressed their desire to attack and/or shut down the meetings. There's a reason that the military feels they are under attack.
There is a huge difference between infiltrating to collect intelligence on groups that have a history of engaging in criminal acts, and being "agent provocateurs," which is what you're alleging.
Because they didn't have a permit to march into this part of the City, it's in the article if you care toi go and read it.
No it isn't even in Washington DC you need to get a permit to hold March's the Supreme Court has ruled it no 1st Adm Violation requiring Large Groups to get Permits.
This is true, the permit is to allow you to violate the laws against blocking traffic. So, without a permit, if the people had stuck to sidewalks, and allowed pedestrians to pass, and (just to be extra safe) without bullhorns, then the army and police would be acting unconstitutionally.
First off you need to get off your little kick about the Guard Units they aren't under the contol of the Federal Govn. the State(s) in this case Penn. control them always have controlled them.
No they were issued a permit to gather and march in a certain area they violated the terms of the permit hence they were odrer by the Police to break up or be arrested. Please Note I said the Police under both Federal and State Laws and US Codes the National Guard have no authority to arrest Citz. of the United States what they do have is the right to help the Police which in this case was with traffic control and Delegate Protection.
You really need to go and understand what the Guard can and can't do once again I suggest you start with the US Code I posted in this thread already and then go from their till you do this then I will not discuss this with you anymore because it is clear you have no idea what your talking about.
No it isn't even in Washington DC you need to get a permit to hold March's the Supreme Court has ruled it no 1st Adm Violation requiring Large Groups to get Permits.
I was stating my belief, not a fact.
Do you seriously think that the government would give protesters a permit to demonstrate at the G-20 summit so blatantly? Yeah right.
Yes they actually gave them the permit but they broke that by marching in an area that they weren't allow to go into. See here in the USA we still have these things called freedom(s) you might have heard of ity, I understand you are living in one of those great Commie Countrys so you migh tnot understand this but back when Pitt. was picked to be the host city many group filed permit and all but three were allowed (No I'm not sure which groups and why those permit weren't allowed) so yes the permit(s) were issued sorry you can't understand how things work here in the USA.
You missed the point. If you want to protest, you shouldn't need a permit. It's your freedom to take to the streets. I know that a permit is required, it's the same in "commie" Canada where I live. That's not my point at all. Even having to apply to get permission to hold a protest is unacceptable.
Not according to the Supreme Court and that is the final say here in the Land of the Free.
If you acquire a permit to protest you are not protesting.
You missed the point. If you want to protest, you shouldn't need a permit. It's your freedom to take to the streets. I know that a permit is required, it's the same in "commie" Canada where I live. That's not my point at all. Even having to apply to get permission to hold a protest is unacceptable.
You do not need a permit to protest. You do need one to block off a street. Protesting is not an excuse to ignore the law.
Actually it is, its called civil disobedience:2razz:.
Not in the United States of America it's call getting your arse stomped by PO Police and Folks who live in the area.
Actually it is, its called civil disobedience:2razz:.
I was joking. I'm a misunderstood genius...honest.And civil disobedience is a ticket to jail. If you break the law, you got no room to bitch when you suffer the consequences.