In post #150, we had this exchange:
Now the thoroughfares through waterfront park were obstructed, but it's a huge park, and Portland allowed the protesters to set up camp there. I believe still to date, there is no action taken against those at the waterfront Park camp. When Cry Havoc made indication that didn't fit his criteria, I figured there is no point in disagreeing. He says:Waterfront park, Portland, OR.
He said "obstructing commerce or blocking a thoroughfare" earlier. In guess he meant "and" instead of "or," my fault for not knowing what he meant, rather than any reading fundamentals, right? So even though he was in error rather than me, I ask this:
No clarification forthcoming from my question. He gives me a really dumb-ass response. You turn around and use the total opposite of peaceful, rather than recognizing all the grey space between. You expect me to accept that? Talk about polarized. You show you definitely are. One way or another, no center ground, or any variance.
Since you two fail to comprehend any thing not highly polarized, I took a polar view as well at times. I explain my usage of peaceful, and applied by the 1st amendment. The protesters may be peaceful, but some are breaking laws. Once they break the laws, they are not peaceable. They no longer have 1st amendment protection.
I can go on and show you guy's problems here, but continue looking at the context from where I stopped. If you still don't get it, I see no point in wasting my time farther.
WC, first off, thank you for clarifying. I don't think our posts are as clear as we think they are.
That's the problem I think we're having. You merely pointed out a dictionary reference, and when I asked if your definition of "peaceful" meant "obeying", I saw no response. Do you feel that one can be "peaceful" while still protesting?
Also, do you think the UC Davis protesters were breaking the law? (Not all Occupy protesters, just referring to the UC Davis ones in general.)
I would say it's just like the Holocaust.
Wow...
Tanks rolling over protesters, Millions of people executed...
You think it's the same?
Pregnant #OccupySeattle Protester Miscarries After Being Kicked, Pepper Sprayed
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/...carries-after-
"How Could This Happen in America?" Why Police Are Treating Americans Like Military Threats
James Madison may offer some long-range perspective. During the 1787 Cons utional Convention, arguing for forming a nation instead of retaining the confederation of states, he said that force applied to citizens collectively rather than individually ceases to be law enforcement and becomes war; groups so treated will seize the opportunity to dissolve all compacts by which they might otherwise have been bound. Madison's argued against militarism in favor not of anarchy but of a higher kind of law and order.
And in 1794, Secretary of State Edmund Randolph, advising President Washington (to no avail) to eschew military adventure against the so-called Whiskey Rebels, and to use prosecutions instead, argued passionately that the real strength of government always lies not in coercion but in the affection of the people. Randolph was facing an actual insurrection, with threat of secession, not a peaceful protest; there were federal crimes involved. Still he advised against a military operation. The loathing of military suppression as a subs ute for due process of law, going back to our first administration, runs deep in the American psyche.
But it's worth remembering that equally strong feelings have always run the other way. Long before events known as the Whiskey Rebellion had risen to any kind of crisis, Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, was urging Washington to bring military force against citizens somewhere in the country; otherwise, Hamilton believed, authority would always be in question. When Washington did so, he ignored habeas corpus and nearly every individual right set out in the new Bill of Rights, federalizing militias to bring overwhelming force to shock and awe innocent citizens of an entire region of the country. In his book Crisis and Command, John Yoo, author of the notorious "torture memo," has defended the George W. Bush administration's tactics in dealing with suspected terrorists by citing precedent -- not wrongly -- in Washington's behavior in the 1790s.
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/153170
How nice! The first amendment is contingent only on the condition of police officers choosing to "allow" it.
lololol typo smack talk. The last bastion of someone who has no decent argument left.He said "obstructing commerce or blocking a thoroughfare" earlier. In guess he meant "and" instead of "or," my fault for not knowing what he meant
The guy who calls other human beings "trash" and "s " is not speaking about other people not having any center ground or compromise. Weak.rather than any reading fundamentals, right? So even though he was in error rather than me, I ask this:
No clarification forthcoming from my question. He gives me a really dumb-ass response. You turn around and use the total opposite of peaceful, rather than recognizing all the grey space between. You expect me to accept that? Talk about polarized. You show you definitely are. One way or another, no center ground, or any variance.
But you just admitted that they are breaking laws:Since you two fail to comprehend any thing not highly polarized, I took a polar view as well at times. I explain my usage of peaceful, and applied by the 1st amendment. The protesters may be peaceful, but some are breaking laws. Once they break the laws, they are not peaceable. They no longer have 1st amendment protection.
So when I asked you this:Now the thoroughfares through waterfront park were obstructed, but it's a huge park, and Portland allowed the protesters to set up camp there.
And you said Waterfront Park. A location that you have ALREADY ADMITTED THAT OWS IS BLOCKING THOROUGHFARES
TO AND FROM. And yes, apparently the font increase is completely necessary. If you had a SHRED of logic in your head, you'd realize that when you say "they're blocking thoroughfares", it kind of disqualifies that from the question I'm asking above. You admit that OWS at Waterfront Park could be arrested at any time because they are currently in violation of laws that supersede the first Amendment.
Therefore, my question still stands:
And no, WC, Waterfront Park in Portland Oregon does not count, as you have already stated that the OWS protest is in violation of laws there.
Last edited by Cry Havoc; 11-25-2011 at 03:23 PM.
Let's emphasize this question.
I must say that when cops engage in their cosplay with their riot toys, they are much more inclined to use them.
My original answer. Waterfront park. There is no commerce to block, only the paths within the park itself. As much as I dislike mayor Sam Adams, I think he did an exceptional job of handling Occupy Portland. From day one, he said the hours would not be enforced at Waterfront park.
Why would any mayor of any city allow occupiers who block commerce and the methods of travel to get there? You see, Waterfront park is at the edge of the city center, on the Willamette river. It is separated to downtown by a busy street. Why do you keep asking me that question? Do you know of any where the cities do not take police action from blocking commerce or travel? Besides, Waterfront park is huge, and protesters can organize and get a permit and march the city from there.
Waterfront park extends several city blocks and under several bridges. Plenty of room for the protesters not to be a problem. To the east is the river, and to the west, a major city street. The two smaller areas I circled are where the occupiers illegally stayed and were forcibly removed.
Here are some pics of the park:
Where are the flaglots?
via Reason
190 pages on a pepper spray incident?
don't worry, there won't be a quiz
Probably one very brief blast would have dispersed the crowd eventually. That stuff is unpleasant, but transient.
hmm...
also, it can get expensive:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul...epper-20120712Police officers may be held liable for injuring someone with a pepper ball intended to disperse a crowd, a federal appeals court decided Wednesday.
The unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals was a setback for police agencies defending themselves against lawsuits arising out of the Occupy movement. Students from UC Davis have sued police for dousing them with pepper spray, and UC Berkeley students have sued campus police for using batons during a protest. Oakland also has been sued by Occupy protesters.
Wednesday's ruling stemmed from an April 2004 incident in which UC Davis and city police tried to disperse a crowd at a party by shooting pepper balls, which break on impact and spray a powder akin to mace or pepper spray.
About 1,000 people were at a Davis apartment complex to celebrate UC Davis' annual Picnic Day. The police wanted to break up the party because the street was congested, partygoers had parked illegally and some minors were drinking alcohol, the court said. Police in riot gear entered the complex, and an officer fired a pepper ball into an area where UC Davis student Timothy Nelson was standing with friends.
The pepper ball hit the sop re in the eye and caused permanent damage, eventually leading Nelson to lose a football scholarship and drop out of the university, the court said.
Writing for the court, Judge Stephen Reinhardt said police used excessive force. "A reasonable officer would have known that firing projectiles, including pepper balls, in the direction of individuals suspected of, at most, minor crimes, who posed no threat to the officers or others, and who engaged in only passive resistance, was unreasonable," he wrote.
These UC cops are stupid as . The school board/administrators should probably look at raising the bar on their hiring practices.
So the campus police have to have tact, and professionalism but not the students?
Seeing as the students are not police, no.
yep.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
