Satan's Evil Twin Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 whether or not someone was coughing up blood doesn't seem to answer the question. i'm sure one or two people just had sore eyes for a few minutes too, should we focus on them to make our case? here's what i don't get, and nobody seems to answer when there's these videos of "brutality" all over youtube, with the hive mentality shouting "SHAME! SHAME! BRUTALITY! SHAME!" in response: Does the school NOT have the right to request these tent cities be removed from the school area? From what I understand, they took down the tents in the quad, but erected them elsewhere (the lawn). Can the school not request these to be removed, by law? If so, and the police go in to handle the request, do they not have the legal right to use force in the removal of locked-arm protesters who, after repeated requests to move, fail to comply to police request? If so, how does one define "excessive"? because in the one other case provided, the "excess" that's defined seems way more extreme than what is seen in the video at UC Davis. No matter what the police do in these cases, unless it's stand there and take verbal abuse, they are considered traitors, shameful, slaves to "the man" and so on. To me, it just seems like they're doing their job. And if they ignore the request of the school in their instance (does the school not have a legal right to make that request?) they are NOT doing their job, and could very well be fired. Okay, so here's where I'm confused. The police shouldn't have been called? Lierally or morally? Literally as in... they shouldn't have been called because it was unlawful? Or you morally don't think they should have been called because you support the protesters right to erect a tent city at any location they choose? Because when I watched the video, the police weren't stopping a protest, they were stopping the re-erection of a tent city, at the request of the school. A few people didn't comply with repeated police orders to stop obstructing a pathway as they escorted the handful of arredsted protesters, so they got sprayed. And so you're saying that the use of pepperspray for a few seconds is worse than literally grabbing hold of some huddled protesters and yanking them apart until they give up? You think physically grabbing and tugging at them is likely to be more peaceful than pepperspray? Seems to me that would be walking into all kinds of lawsuits and physical confrontation. If one of those protesters had bruises and a sore arm after being "pulled apart," they'd be crying "SHAME ON YOU" just as loudly and be claiming brutality all the same. It happens in every video on youtube that involves a police officer. I just don't get what the objections here are. Are they moral objections, or legal ones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harbinger Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Uploaded with ImageShack.us This sort of attack on peaceful protesters is exactly why this movement is going to keep growing. here is a video of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Don't spray me bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 1990's - War on Drugs 2000's - War on Terror 2010's - War on Occupiers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navyblue Posted November 21, 2011 Author Share Posted November 21, 2011 The police brutality seems to be a mechanism for discouraging the everyday person from participating. No one wants to get beat up (in other instances) and pepper sprayed. Being 100% peaceful is the key. Let the police be the aggressors . Take the higher ground. It's almost poetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
key2thecup Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 I saw this absolutely disgusting, protesters are just sitting and the fat cop walks back and forth just unloading a canister of that stuff. It looks like fatty has a big grin on his face too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navyblue Posted November 21, 2011 Author Share Posted November 21, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navyblue Posted November 21, 2011 Author Share Posted November 21, 2011 The President of the United States of America doesn't need direct control the exert his power and influence. He could replace "Egyptian authorities" with "Police Officers of America", releasing the same statement, demanding the police to use restraint while condemning the ones who have already crossed the line. Since you are such an intelligent guy and can add 1 + 1, please tell me, who receives the most lobby money from the financial sector? Who is no different than the cops you called out earlier for being bought by JP Morgan. I'll give you a hint, it's Barack Obama. You're better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vapourstreak Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navyblue Posted November 21, 2011 Author Share Posted November 21, 2011 I have no idea what this guy was doing. What if he was a genuine threat? Just a point, no hidden message in this post from my end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 The President of the United States of America doesn't need direct control the exert his power and influence. He could replace "Egyptian authorities" with "Police Officers of America", releasing the same statement, demanding the police to use restraint while condemning the ones who have already crossed the line. Since you are such an intelligent guy and can add 1 + 1, please tell me, who receives the most lobby money from the financial sector? Who is no different than the cops you called out earlier for being bought by JP Morgan. I'll give you a hint, it was Barack Obama. You're better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navyblue Posted November 21, 2011 Author Share Posted November 21, 2011 I am not disputing that fact. I am disputing your assertion that the photo and caption is a fail. Obama condemns violence by authority in Egypt. Authority in the US has been unnecessarily violent. While he doesn't have direct "power" over the local police, he does carry substantial influence, as the commander in chief. I don't know what his authority is when it comes to the many agencies at the country's disposal, but I am sure something could be worked out to protect the protesters from excessive violence. Obama has been lackluster, if that, in his protecting of American Citizens from excessive force by american "Authority" I don't know about you, but the hypocrisy and irony is pretty clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 If you acknowledge that Pres. Obama doesn't have the ability or control them nor the power to stop them from such violence, then posting the picture as a way to may it seem so, is a failure. Also, where in that photo are we seeing the equivalent violence by the NYPD that we comparably saw in Egypt, specifically? Aside from the restaining of the unknown male, at an unknown location, being placed under arrest or detention, for an unknown reason. Edit in response to your edit - He's the Commander in Chief of the Nation's Armed Services, not local law enforcement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navyblue Posted November 21, 2011 Author Share Posted November 21, 2011 If you acknowledge that Pres. Obama doesn't have the ability or control them nor the power to stop them from such violence, then posting the picture as a way to may it seem so, is a failure. Also, where in that photo are we seeing the equivalent violence by the NYPD that we comparably saw in Egypt, specifically? Aside from the restaining of the unknown male, at an unknown location, being placed under arrest or detention, for an unknown reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckster19 Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 POTUS>MILITARY>LOCAL POLICE There must be provisions for the president to intervene in a situation where American Citizens were being violated. Not through the FBI? Military? Could he not declare martial law? I don't think he would need martial law, but if the case is so that it is the only means to protect American Citizens, is that not his responsibility? If no one else will protect them? Sorry about all the edits. It's late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 It's the president's duty to uphold the constitution of the United States which encompasses the bill of rights, where you can find this... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Yes the President has power to intervene and is not using it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Silent Treatment eh? Didn't see that one coming. That was pretty cool Ghandi woulda been proud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.