< 1 2 3 4 > 
 
   
 

Peaceful Protests

 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  908
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
28 July 2020 19:37
 

No, the police should not be using their batons on someone who is not a threat.  This isn’t hard.

You seem way too comfortable with the government abusing its citizens in violation of the ideals this country was founded on.

And, like buffalo said, if he was breaking the law he should have been arrested, not beaten.

[ Edited: 28 July 2020 20:30 by mapadofu]
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  908
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
29 July 2020 06:47
 

Dgen, post 30 reads to me like you endorse the idea that the order of operations should be first commence with the beatings and then, optionally, actually arrest the person when faced with a non-violent person defying a disperse the area order.

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  351
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
29 July 2020 08:45
 
DEGENERATEON - 28 July 2020 07:28 PM
weird buffalo - 28 July 2020 05:32 PM

What behavior in your mind justifies law enforcement officers breaking someone’s bones but NOT arresting them?  What could this man have done to deserve that specific reaction (beating, and NOT arresting)?

We know the broke his hand.
We know they didn’t arrest him.

Please tell me why law enforcement SHOULD behave this way.

If I get a speeding ticket, I get to contest the punishment for my behavior in court.  That is how our system is supposed to work.
If this man was doing something illegal, he should have been taken to court to stand charges.  But he wasn’t.  Therefore, these officers punished him with no form of judicial review.

If he was threatening the officers, that would be illegal and justify arresting him.
If he attacked an officer, that would be illegal and justify arresting him.

They didn’t arrest him though.  This has to be made really clear.  Officers don’t get to punish people.  They are to arrest them, and present evidence for prosecutors to press charges in a court of law.  That is how our system works.  If he did something wrong, the officers had a DUTY to arrest him.  It is literally their job.  Literally.

Your argument right now rests on this man committing a crime, but the officers failing to do their actual job.

The video I linked in the other thread shows the interaction.  It also shows several other scenes where you can hear over megaphone or PA system “this is the Portland Police, this area has been deemed a riot.  Move out of this area.  If you do not move out of this area you will be subject to arrest and or use of force.”
Do the police have the authority to use force on people who refuse to leave the area?  Is it within the realm of possibility that this warning preceded the interaction with navy-shirt guy?  Is it possible that protocol is to remove the person from the area using less-lethal means, and if that is not successful to then make an arrest?

Stop calling him “navy-shirt guy”.  You are trying to avoid calling him a veteran.  He is a veteran.  He graduated from the US Naval Academy as well.  You are trying to discredit who he is.  Remember when I mentioned that all you do is play games?  You are playing a game right there.

What specifically do you think he did to justify having his hand broken and NOT be arrested?  Are you right now claiming that if you don’t comply with an officer’s orders immediately, that the officer is then allowed to break your bones?

You are twisting yourself into knots trying to justify this.  You are saying that the government has the authority to beat citizens even if they haven’t done anything bad enough to be arrested.

[ Edited: 29 July 2020 08:51 by weird buffalo]
 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  556
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
29 July 2020 08:49
 
mapadofu - 29 July 2020 06:47 AM

Dgen, post 30 reads to me like you endorse the idea that the order of operations should be first commence with the beatings and then, optionally, actually arrest the person when faced with a non-violent person defying a disperse the area order.

Commence with the beatings?  That’s your spin.  Here’s what I said at the get go:
” Navy-sweatshirt looks excessive, but what led up to the force used against him?  I heard that is under investigation- so if the force was not warranted then the officer(s) should be charged.”

But to address your the gist of your uncharitable phrasing - when a crowd is told to disperse and some time has passed, is the use of tear gas acceptable?  There may be many non-violent persons in that crowd who are disobeying the lawful order.  Shouldn’t they just be arrested and not subject to the gas?
There may be a logical answer to why the police don’t go into a crowd to try an arrest everyone in said crowd.  Hence, less lethal means to enforce the ‘clear area’ order. 
This same logic could be applied to navy-sweatshirt.  He refuses to leave the area.  Making an arrest could take up resources needed to address other and/or more serious threats.  So maybe the order of operation is to get this person to follow the law using less-lethal force.  Maybe the baton was excessive, and only pepper spray should have been used. 

 

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  351
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
29 July 2020 08:52
 
DEGENERATEON - 29 July 2020 08:49 AM
mapadofu - 29 July 2020 06:47 AM

Dgen, post 30 reads to me like you endorse the idea that the order of operations should be first commence with the beatings and then, optionally, actually arrest the person when faced with a non-violent person defying a disperse the area order.

Commence with the beatings?  That’s your spin.  Here’s what I said at the get go:
” Navy-sweatshirt looks excessive, but what led up to the force used against him?  I heard that is under investigation- so if the force was not warranted then the officer(s) should be charged.”

But to address your the gist of your uncharitable phrasing - when a crowd is told to disperse and some time has passed, is the use of tear gas acceptable?  There may be many non-violent persons in that crowd who are disobeying the lawful order.  Shouldn’t they just be arrested and not subject to the gas?
There may be a logical answer to why the police don’t go into a crowd to try an arrest everyone in said crowd.  Hence, less lethal means to enforce the ‘clear area’ order. 
This same logic could be applied to navy-sweatshirt.  He refuses to leave the area.  Making an arrest could take up resources needed to address other and/or more serious threats.  So maybe the order of operation is to get this person to follow the law using less-lethal force.  Maybe the baton was excessive, and only pepper spray should have been used.

An arrest is not a lethal use of force.
They are arresting lots of people.  We have videos of them arresting people.

You are right now claiming that breaking people’s bones is less significant than a night in jail and you seem to think that this is the better order.

 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  556
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
29 July 2020 09:08
 
Cheshire Cat - 28 July 2020 06:33 PM

From an article in todays Politico:

PORTLAND, Ore. — The Wall of Moms — a group of self-described mothers — and the Don’t Shoot Portland group filed the lawsuit late Monday against Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf and other federal officials.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. after Portland’s mayor and the leaders of five other major U.S. cities appealed to Congress to make it illegal for the U.S. government to deploy agents to cities that don’t want them.

“This administration’s egregious use of federal force on cities over the objections of local authorities should never happen,” said the letter sent to U.S. House and Senate leaders from the mayors of Portland, Seattle, Chicago, Kansas City, Albuquerque, New Mexico and Washington.

https://tinyurl.com/yygsg6gt

Strange.

If there is out of control “rioting,” why would the mayors of five major cities send a letter to congress demanding federal officers leave their cities?

Is it because these federal troops were sent by a weak president to specifically stir up trouble so that he could frighten and enrage his white base in an attempt to look like the “Law & Order President”?

Perhaps if the federal officers simply left, and let local police authorities take care of the situation, then things would become peaceful again?

So the riots weren’t the result of the death of George Floyd?  Well then get the feds out of there and Portland can return to normal!

 

 

Image Attachments
 
family.jpg
 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  351
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
29 July 2020 09:20
 

If I get a speeding ticket, I get to go to court to defend myself if I choose (or I can abdicate that right and just pay the fine).

 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  908
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
29 July 2020 09:27
 

The person in the video wasn’t a crowd.  He was one person, and if I recall correctly there were three agents.  They should have arrested him, not beat him (if in fact he was breaking the law).

In post 30 you put the order as first get the people to leave, which in this instance involved a beating with batons, and then arrest people.  You quoted yourself from a different post, which is fine, it’s just that in the more recent post, you seem to be endorsing a policy where the first option is the use of force and actually using our legal system is only considered if that doesn’t work.

[ Edited: 29 July 2020 09:40 by mapadofu]
 
Cheshire Cat
 
Avatar
 
 
Cheshire Cat
Total Posts:  1613
Joined  01-11-2014
 
 
 
29 July 2020 11:20
 
DEGENERATEON - 29 July 2020 09:08 AM

So the riots weren’t the result of the death of George Floyd?  Well then get the feds out of there and Portland can return to normal!

The protests were originally because of George Floyd’s killing.

But things had calmed down after a few weeks. The city had peacefully taken back that part of the city that the protestors had held.

Then Trump did his showboating and sent in the paramilitary Border Patrol agents to stir things up again for purely political reasons.

And yes, if the Border Patrol left and let the local police handle the situation, things would become peaceful again.

 
 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  556
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
30 July 2020 13:45
 
mapadofu - 29 July 2020 09:27 AM

The person in the video wasn’t a crowd.  He was one person, and if I recall correctly there were three agents.  They should have arrested him, not beat him (if in fact he was breaking the law).

In post 30 you put the order as first get the people to leave, which in this instance involved a beating with batons, and then arrest people.  You quoted yourself from a different post, which is fine, it’s just that in the more recent post, you seem to be endorsing a policy where the first option is the use of force and actually using our legal system is only considered if that doesn’t work.

He was one person, but there were other people around and an assumption I made was that a ‘clear area’ alert preceded the interaction.  It seems to me that the “use force then arrest” policy may be standard in a riot situation - hence tear gas before trying to arrest everyone.  I stated I wasn’t sold that this was an unjust use of force - not that it was obviously justified.  What if they just used the pepper spray?  Would you still be convinced this was an egregious use of force?

 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  908
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
30 July 2020 14:13
 

If he was merely standing in front of them, then yes, it is inappropriate to use pepper spray on him.

Have you watched the video again?  It was about eight of them, and as far as I could tell, their only action was to come up to the guy and start beating him (followed up with some pepper spray).

https://youtu.be/HQ_moOtDqvk


Do you think that a “use force then arrest” policy is consistent with our ideals as a freedom living nation bound by laws?

In a civilized country peaceful civil disobedience, which this individual was performing, should result in a lawful arrest. 

http://www.haparchive.org/civilliberties.org/sum98role.html

[ Edited: 30 July 2020 14:37 by mapadofu]
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  908
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
31 July 2020 12:28
Cheshire Cat
 
Avatar
 
 
Cheshire Cat
Total Posts:  1613
Joined  01-11-2014
 
 
 
31 July 2020 13:59
 
mapadofu - 31 July 2020 12:28 PM

Well, what do you know?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/portland-protest-mostly-peaceful-state-local-officers-replace-federal-agents/

Gee, who would have thought?

 
 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  556
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
31 July 2020 21:56
 
Cheshire Cat - 31 July 2020 01:59 PM
mapadofu - 31 July 2020 12:28 PM

Well, what do you know?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/portland-protest-mostly-peaceful-state-local-officers-replace-federal-agents/

Gee, who would have thought?

I’ll be happy to eat crow if the city returns to normal.

 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  5445
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
01 August 2020 10:49
 
DEGENERATEON - 30 July 2020 01:45 PM
mapadofu - 29 July 2020 09:27 AM

The person in the video wasn’t a crowd.  He was one person, and if I recall correctly there were three agents.  They should have arrested him, not beat him (if in fact he was breaking the law).

In post 30 you put the order as first get the people to leave, which in this instance involved a beating with batons, and then arrest people.  You quoted yourself from a different post, which is fine, it’s just that in the more recent post, you seem to be endorsing a policy where the first option is the use of force and actually using our legal system is only considered if that doesn’t work.

He was one person, but there were other people around and an assumption I made was that a ‘clear area’ alert preceded the interaction.  It seems to me that the “use force then arrest” policy may be standard in a riot situation - hence tear gas before trying to arrest everyone.  I stated I wasn’t sold that this was an unjust use of force - not that it was obviously justified.  What if they just used the pepper spray?  Would you still be convinced this was an egregious use of force?

Regardless of differences in politics or allegiances to institutions or how people interpret the information in short video clips you are simply wrong on point of fact. Riot police and especially the federally deputized riot police instigate violence against people posing no physical threat all the time. Most commonly they attack people for filming them. This happens nightly. It’s not out of fear but out of anger. They don’t like the exposure. Ask them about it. You have the luxury of refusing to accept that. The people who live there do not.

 
 < 1 2 3 4 >