Pepper-Spray by a Cruel and Cowardly NYC Cop

[Oldstyle]

I was using hyperbole to make a point. Look it up if you do not know what it means.

What you're doing is using gross exaggerations to make a point because you can't make your point with what actually happened. You know as well as I do that the police didn't treat anyone as a "punching bag" just as you know they didn't bounce anyone's head off a parked car but you repeatedly try to portray that as what happened. It's frankly dishonest.

Like I said before, look it up. Hyperbole is, by definition, exaggeration.

By the way, you are off in your version of events. According to Bologna he was aiming at some men who managed to not only escape from arrest after he sprayed them, they somehow managed not to show up in any of the videos, including the long one you loke to parse in a vain attempt to prove the others are edited.

A law enforcement official familiar with Inspector Bologna’s account of what occurred, however, said he was not aiming at the four women who appeared in videos to have sustained the brunt of the spray. Rather, he was trying to spray some men who he believed were pushing up against officers and causing a confrontation that put officers at risk of injury, the official said.
“The intention was to place them under arrest, but they fled,” the official said.

New York Police to Examine Pepper-Spray Episode - NYTimes.com

I know you want to coordinate your defense of these idiots with the official story, but my guess is even you will find it hard to swallow that he was aiming for people who were not there. Especially since you have argued from the beginning that the reason the women got sprayed was because they were disrupting arrests that were on the other side of the barricade and down the block.

Got to love the once vaunted New York Times now using second hand accounts from an unnamed source for their proof of wrong doing. Did you happen to notice that the Times story blows a major hole in you liberals contention that pepper spray regulations prohibited officers from using it in circumstances like that? In that article police representatives state that pepper spray can be used to regain control of an unruly crowd. Oops!!

And you're the one who is "off". Bologna didn't state he was trying to spray some men. Some unknown source "familiar" with Bologna's statement said that was what he said. Any reputable news agency would have gotten a statement from either Bologna himself or identified the unknown source. Just one more example of why the New York Times is a shadow of what they used to be.

 

[Oldstyle]

Why do you insist on repeatedly peddling this blatant fucking lie?

There is exactly ZERO video evidence to support your claim, and in fact, there is AMPLE video evidence that proves you are full of shit.

What evidence do you have that those girls didn't cross police barricades? Since you now claim that you have "AMPLE" evidence then produce some.

You would have us believe that these women "magically" appeared on that sidewalk and just "spontaneously" started yelling at the police because people were being arrested? That they were not a part of the march that earlier broke through police barriers and were trying to proceed further when they ran up against a police presence that wasn't letting them past? You expect us to believe THAT while you accuse me of peddling a blatant lie? That's quite amusing.

How about the fact that Bologna is not trying to say they did?

Do you actually HAVE Bologna's statement? Because I don't nor does anyone ELSE seem to have it. What we HAVE is an unnamed source who SAYS that's what Bologna's statement will say. That and three bucks will get you a Mochachino at Starbucks.

 

[manifold]

So your contention is that they were always there? Perhaps you'd like us to believe they'd been teleported to that very spot? No shit the video shows them standing on the sidewalk! How did they come to be there? Is it your contention that they were not part of the march? That they didn't cross the police barricades like the rest of their group? You "say" that you have AMPLE evidence of that? Then produce some.

There is no video evidence that places them in the street.

There is no video evidence that every protester present crossed or attempted to cross the police barricades.

But even if they did march in the street as you speculate, your best argument is that even though they are peacefully and legally protesting on the sidewalk at the time they were sprayed, ten minutes ago they were j-walking therefore the cop was justified in pepper-spraying them. That's preposterous on it's face.

Did you even watch the 9 minute clip? What do you call that footage of the marchers screaming out "Fuck the fishnet!" and another yelling at the marchers to all "head over that way...hurry...hurry" because they've broken through the barriers. Then the protester's own footage shows the crowd streaming past barriers lying on the ground.

If you HAD watched the full clip you'd know that at 4:58 of that clip the police block off that section of the side walk and tell the protesters there that they have to vacate the area. It's at that point (5:10) that the older woman with the short blonde hair politely asks where it is the police want them to go. At 5:30 the police arrest the fat, potty mouthed girl and at 5:56 the girls get pepper sprayed. They weren't legally protesting from the get go since they A) didn't have a permit for the protest, B) crossed police barricades and C) ignored an order by police officers to clear the side walk. That's not protesting legally. It's not even CLOSE to protesting legally.

I've seen every clip available, more than once.

You're a piece of shit liar peddling an agenda. Go fuck yourself.

 

[Oldstyle]

There is no video evidence that places them in the street.

There is no video evidence that every protester present crossed or attempted to cross the police barricades.

But even if they did march in the street as you speculate, your best argument is that even though they are peacefully and legally protesting on the sidewalk at the time they were sprayed, ten minutes ago they were j-walking therefore the cop was justified in pepper-spraying them. That's preposterous on it's face.

Did you even watch the 9 minute clip? What do you call that footage of the marchers screaming out "Fuck the fishnet!" and another yelling at the marchers to all "head over that way...hurry...hurry" because they've broken through the barriers. Then the protester's own footage shows the crowd streaming past barriers lying on the ground.

If you HAD watched the full clip you'd know that at 4:58 of that clip the police block off that section of the side walk and tell the protesters there that they have to vacate the area. It's at that point (5:10) that the older woman with the short blonde hair politely asks where it is the police want them to go. At 5:30 the police arrest the fat, potty mouthed girl and at 5:56 the girls get pepper sprayed. They weren't legally protesting from the get go since they A) didn't have a permit for the protest, B) crossed police barricades and C) ignored an order by police officers to clear the side walk. That's not protesting legally. It's not even CLOSE to protesting legally.

I've seen every clip available, more than once.

You're a piece of shit liar peddling an agenda. Go fuck yourself.

Looks like somebody just ran up the white flag! Can't argue against what I'm saying so you're going to call me a piece of shit liar and tell me to go fuck myself? You might as well post "I DON'T HAVE A COMEBACK TO WHAT YOU JUST SAID AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO!!!" Manifold.

Get back to me when you want to dispute what's there in the video clip. I took the time to go through it carefully and note when and how things happened. You? You resorted to insults because that's all you've got.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What you're doing is using gross exaggerations to make a point because you can't make your point with what actually happened. You know as well as I do that the police didn't treat anyone as a "punching bag" just as you know they didn't bounce anyone's head off a parked car but you repeatedly try to portray that as what happened. It's frankly dishonest.

Like I said before, look it up. Hyperbole is, by definition, exaggeration.

By the way, you are off in your version of events. According to Bologna he was aiming at some men who managed to not only escape from arrest after he sprayed them, they somehow managed not to show up in any of the videos, including the long one you loke to parse in a vain attempt to prove the others are edited.

A law enforcement official familiar with Inspector Bologna’s account of what occurred, however, said he was not aiming at the four women who appeared in videos to have sustained the brunt of the spray. Rather, he was trying to spray some men who he believed were pushing up against officers and causing a confrontation that put officers at risk of injury, the official said.
“The intention was to place them under arrest, but they fled,” the official said.

New York Police to Examine Pepper-Spray Episode - NYTimes.com

I know you want to coordinate your defense of these idiots with the official story, but my guess is even you will find it hard to swallow that he was aiming for people who were not there. Especially since you have argued from the beginning that the reason the women got sprayed was because they were disrupting arrests that were on the other side of the barricade and down the block.

Got to love the once vaunted New York Times now using second hand accounts from an unnamed source for their proof of wrong doing. Did you happen to notice that the Times story blows a major hole in you liberals contention that pepper spray regulations prohibited officers from using it in circumstances like that? In that article police representatives state that pepper spray can be used to regain control of an unruly crowd. Oops!!

And you're the one who is "off". Bologna didn't state he was trying to spray some men. Some unknown source "familiar" with Bologna's statement said that was what he said. Any reputable news agency would have gotten a statement from either Bologna himself or identified the unknown source. Just one more example of why the New York Times is a shadow of what they used to be.

The NYT is not a reputable news source? When did that happen?

 

[Xchel]

no assemble peacably means to be peaceful in your protest and not make an ass of yourself.
To peacebly assemble means that we can protest as long as it doesn't harm or hinder the freedom of others. If you are running down the street blocking traffic and interfering with pedestrians you have violated someone else's rights and thus you have violated the principal of assembly in a peaceful way....

 

[Unkotare]

[

The NYT is not a reputable news source? When did that happen?

Gradually over the past 20 years.

 

[Xchel]

You have a constitutionally protected
right to engage in peaceful protest in “traditional
public forums” such as streets, sidewalks or parks.
But, the government can impose "time, place and
ma n n e r " r e s t r i c t i o n s o n s p e e c h b y r e q u i r i n g
p e r m i t s . T h e s e r e s t r i c t i o n s a r e g e n e r a l l y
permissible as long as they are reasonable and
not based on content. The government cannot
impose permit restrictions simply because it does
not like the message of a certain speaker or group.

key here is they need a permit..everyone does...so they didn't have one, thus it fell out of constitutional protection at that point..

The First Amendment does not protect speech that is
combined with the violation of established laws such as
trespassing, disobeying or interfering with a lawful order by a
police officer

Since they disobeyed and interfered with police officers there speech was not protected..oops..

If you endanger others while protesting, you can be
arrested. A protest that blocks vehicular or pedestrian traffic
is illegal without a permit.

again they did this so their speech was not protected..no permit, not permitted to block pedestrians or traffic.....

http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/right_to_protest_brochure.pdf

 

[Quantum Windbag]

no assemble peacably means to be peaceful in your protest and not make an ass of yourself.
To peacebly assemble means that we can protest as long as it doesn't harm or hinder the freedom of others. If you are running down the street blocking traffic and interfering with pedestrians you have violated someone else's rights and thus you have violated the principal of assembly in a peaceful way....

What is Peaceable Assembly or the Right of Assembly? « islandsofla.org

 

[Xchel]

I think I will believe the ACLU before I bother with your links...after all they are the ones who fight issues on the constitution every day....in courts and win...they are very clear as to what is and is not permitted..they did NOT have a permit, thus their speech rights were excluded..they blocked traffic, both pedestrian and vehicular thus not protected....yeah I will stick with the pros at the ACLU.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think I will believe the ACLU before I bother with your links...after all they are the ones who fight issues on the constitution every day....in courts and win...they are very clear as to what is and is not permitted..they did NOT have a permit, thus their speech rights were excluded..they blocked traffic, both pedestrian and vehicular thus not protected....yeah I will stick with the pros at the ACLU.

The people in Tahrir Square did not have a permit, should the police have pepper sprayed them?

What the ACLU explained is current law and how the Constitution is applied. Permits were not required to assemble for most of the history of the US. Until 1937 you could get together and walk down any street in the country legally, now you can't.

What changed?

 

[MikeK]

no assemble peacably means to be peaceful in your protest and not make an ass of yourself.
To peacebly assemble means that we can protest as long as it doesn't harm or hinder the freedom of others. If you are running down the street blocking traffic and interfering with pedestrians you have violated someone else's rights and thus you have violated the principal of assembly in a peaceful way....

The purpose of a protest demonstration is to call attention to an issue.

The advertising industry has established that with few exceptions the more annoying a radio or television commercial is the more effective it ultimately will be because it calls attention to a product which otherwise would remain obscure. Complying with the rules laid out by the power establishment to regulate public protest demonstrations would be completely counterproductive. Consequently, for a demonstration to be effective the participants must be willing to subject themselves to arrest.

 

[Synthaholic]

[

The NYT is not a reputable news source? When did that happen?

Gradually over the past 20 years.

You'll stick with Breitbart instead, right?

 

[Unkotare]

[

The NYT is not a reputable news source? When did that happen?

Gradually over the past 20 years.

You'll stick with Breitbart instead, right?

Who?

 

[Xchel]

I think I will believe the ACLU before I bother with your links...after all they are the ones who fight issues on the constitution every day....in courts and win...they are very clear as to what is and is not permitted..they did NOT have a permit, thus their speech rights were excluded..they blocked traffic, both pedestrian and vehicular thus not protected....yeah I will stick with the pros at the ACLU.

The people in Tahrir Square did not have a permit, should the police have pepper sprayed them?

What the ACLU explained is current law and how the Constitution is applied. Permits were not required to assemble for most of the history of the US. Until 1937 you could get together and walk down any street in the country legally, now you can't.

What changed?

Tahrir Square is not the US and we don't make the laws in Egypt so I can't opine on their laws compared to what ours are...I can only opine on what the US Supreme Court has already said..it is perfectly legal to require permits when a group is protesting and it is against the law to do what they did. So you can whine all you want...their speech was not protected under the constitution because they violated the requirements for permits and they violated other people's rights in the process...blocking traffic is not a right.

 

[Xchel]

no assemble peacably means to be peaceful in your protest and not make an ass of yourself.
To peacebly assemble means that we can protest as long as it doesn't harm or hinder the freedom of others. If you are running down the street blocking traffic and interfering with pedestrians you have violated someone else's rights and thus you have violated the principal of assembly in a peaceful way....

The purpose of a protest demonstration is to call attention to an issue.

The advertising industry has established that with few exceptions the more annoying a radio or television commercial is the more effective it ultimately will be because it calls attention to a product which otherwise would remain obscure. Complying with the rules laid out by the power establishment to regulate public protest demonstrations would be completely counterproductive. Consequently, for a demonstration to be effective the participants must be willing to subject themselves to arrest.

So they should have gotten a permit, then they could have called attention all they wanted..the police would have shut the street down for them to do so...they didn't have a permit thus they violated the law. Actually no an effective demonstration does not mean you have to subject yourself to arrest let me show you what an effective demonstration and peaceful one was..not a single person was arrested....over 1 million marched..

 

[editec]

I find it amusing watching you folks inventing narratives to mitigate the crime that that cops did.

Now imagine what most of those folks would be saying, if that cop had attacked a TEA PARTY protestor.

Think that these people would still be inventing reasons why it is okay for that cop to have attacked a person who was doing nothing more than standing there and yelling?

I rather doubt it.

Hypocrites.

 

[peach174]

I find it amusing watching you folks inventing narratives to mitigate the crime that that cops did.

Now imagine what most of those folks would be saying, if that cop had attacked a TEA PARTY protestor.

Think that these people would still be inventing reasons why it is okay for that cop to have attacked a person who was doing nothing more than standing there and yelling?

I rather doubt it.

Hypocrites.

Tea Party Protesters would not be protesting without a permit in the first place.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Pepper-Spray by a Cruel and Cowardly NYC Cop



Occupy Wall Street Protesters Maced / Pepper Sprayed by NYPD Police - YouTube

Funny how cops do their jobs people feel sorry for the ones breaking the law. The women refused to move so they got pepper sprayed, GOOD!

 

[AmericanFirst]

I find it amusing watching you folks inventing narratives to mitigate the crime that that cops did.

Now imagine what most of those folks would be saying, if that cop had attacked a TEA PARTY protestor.

Think that these people would still be inventing reasons why it is okay for that cop to have attacked a person who was doing nothing more than standing there and yelling?

I rather doubt it.

Hypocrites.

The cop did not commit a crime. The crime was committed by the women when they refused to move. The cops did their job.