Pepper-Spray by a Cruel and Cowardly NYC Cop

[peach174]

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..

When there are a million protesters there is no need for disorderly conduct. But when there are only a few hundred no one pays attention without some hell-raising.

You can't seem to understand that the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

That is exactly how the few did it and has gotten to the few extreme far left (liberals) ruling the many (moderate to conservative).

 

[Intense]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/187376-my-buddy-confronted-by-cops.html

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlSh_6xqUAE&feature=related]Crocodile Rock-Elton John (lyrics) - YouTube[/ame]
Crocodile Rock-Elton John (lyrics)

You could do Flash Mob Protests around the Country to protest the Protest, of the Protest, of the Protest. Be creative. Everyone could dress up as Elton. Maybe SNL will even support you.

 

[MikeK]

“People have a right to protest, and if they want to protest, we’ll be happy to tell them when and where they can do it. And if they don't like that we'll be happy to pepper spray them and bash their heads into parked cars, etc."

 

[peach174]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/187376-my-buddy-confronted-by-cops.html

you must fear cops because they are arme in public.

Your little buddy is not sporting weapons like a fashion statement because he is trained and paid to protect the people.


He is some smuck off the street.

How many cops are killed by some smuck off the street with a gun?

Lawbreaker smucks kill cops.
The guy in the video is not breaking the law. He is a law abiding citizen and law abider's do not kill anyone unless they or someone else's life is in danger.
I'm sure he knows how to use that weapon

 

[bigrebnc1775]

you must fear cops because they are arme in public.

Your little buddy is not sporting weapons like a fashion statement because he is trained and paid to protect the people.


He is some smuck off the street.

How many cops are killed by some smuck off the street with a gun?

Lawbreaker smucks kill cops.
The guy in the video is not breaking the law. He is a law abiding citizen and law abider's do not kill anyone unless they or someone else's life is in danger.
I'm sure he knows how to use that weapon

He's a former Marine any questions?

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

A demonstration of a few hundred people in a city of millions would be ineffective without forcing arrests, hence the need to push the police until arrests were made. It isn't the "power establishment's" rules that make the protest counterproductive, it's that without manufactured "conflict" only having a few hundred demonstrators in a city the size of New York makes it obvious that the public in general doesn't care about your cause. The reason the protestors on Wall Street deliberately broke the rules and sought to be filmed being arrested for doing so, was because that was the only way that they would receive any coverage. Once you realize THAT...the whole concept that these people have been "brutalized" by the police becomes farce. The activists sought out that conflict and would have kept on escalating their behavior until the police did something that could be construed as a violation of the marcher's first amendment rights. That was the entire idea behind the march in the first place.

 

[peach174]

There are so few of them because they believe the lies that they are being told.

The movement, an offshoot of online magazine AdBusters, is angered by what it calls the principle of “profit over and above all else,” which it says has dominated not only America’s economic policies, but also the way in which Americans view culture and humanity.
These people are anti capitalism.

The majority of Americans do not believe the lies.
If they would have educated themselves more on the issues instead of what they were being told, they would not have done this protest.
Since their protest did not work, now they are marching with the postal workers.
This is what they are all about causing mayhm and destruction, nothing but rabble rouser's, and trouble makers.
‘Occupy Wall St.’ joins postal workers in budget protest | Raw Replay

 

[Intense]

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.

A demonstration of a few hundred people in a city of millions would be ineffective without forcing arrests, hence the need to push the police until arrests were made. It isn't the "power establishment's" rules that make the protest counterproductive, it's that without manufactured "conflict" only having a few hundred demonstrators in a city the size of New York makes it obvious that the public in general doesn't care about your cause. The reason the protestors on Wall Street deliberately broke the rules and sought to be filmed being arrested for doing so, was because that was the only way that they would receive any coverage. Once you realize THAT...the whole concept that these people have been "brutalized" by the police becomes farce. The activists sought out that conflict and would have kept on escalating their behavior until the police did something that could be construed as a violation of the marcher's first amendment rights. That was the entire idea behind the march in the first place.

That may be true in part. A very long time ago I used to be involved in Demonstrations. We incorporated Legal Demonstration, Marches, Blockades, and Invasions. We had a very strict code on Non Violence, including Non Violence Training. We were coordinated, we went out of our way to succeed in that. Bottom Line, you don't know if what you do directly will get other People hurt, or to what degree. My group did have 2 people hurt one time, lassoed and dragged by Ranchers. Shit happens. I've personally seen Cop's invade the ranks of support personnel and arrest them over the Blockaders. There was a strategy by Law Enforcement to disrupt the Support mechanism.

On the Protester side, by Vigilant. Document what you can. If you can take it, do not resist, that will only make matters worse. Mind games are involved. Don't think the Cops aren't human, they make mistakes and lose it too.

Civil Disobedience meas you are breaking the law to serve a higher purpose, and are willing to take risks, be subject to fines and or Arrest for Principle. You don't serve the principle by abandoning it. Keep to Non Violence.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Boo hoo hoo, protestors breaking the law got maced, maybe next time we should just shoot them.

Protestors in detention maced by a cop who then runs away so he doesn't get caught and charged with assault?

You sir, are an ass.

Correction---Ass-hole.

 

[Intense]

There are so few of them because they believe the lies that they are being told.

The movement, an offshoot of online magazine AdBusters, is angered by what it calls the principle of “profit over and above all else,” which it says has dominated not only America’s economic policies, but also the way in which Americans view culture and humanity.
These people are anti capitalism.

The majority of Americans do not believe the lies.
If they would have educated themselves more on the issues instead of what they were being told, they would not have done this protest.
Since their protest did not work, now they are marching with the postal workers.
This is what they are all about causing mayhm and destruction, nothing but rabble rouser's, and trouble makers.
‘Occupy Wall St.’ joins postal workers in budget protest*|*Raw Replay

Maybe part of the problem is they have no real alternative to The Free Market System, the Capitalist System, and they are frustrated by that. It's nice to be able to buy what you can afford, borrow in moderation, and live your life Freely. If there were real places on Earth that embraced their Philosophy, I'm sure they would be welcome there with open arms. I'm not big on Government Subsidies, and I don't think Government should be bailing out Wall Street, so I'm with them there, provide they keep it peaceful.

 

[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?

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.

They do not have rights because they are in a different country? Can you explain how that works? In detail?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Editec, the US Supreme Court has upheld permit requirements under most circumstances because of questions of public safety during marches.

Not the first time SCOTUS was wrong, nor will it be the last.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bottom Line. When You Protest, there is risk. The System doesn't always play fair. It is naive to expect it to. Another good reason to be well schooled in Non Violent Protest and Civil Disobedience. You need to be better than the opposition, prepare for the worst, and hope for the best. The potential for things to escalate is always there.

True.

But the police are the ones who should be better. The side that initiates violence is almost always the side that is wrong.

This time it was the NYPD through a couple of officers that started it.

 

[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....

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.

A demonstration of a few hundred people in a city of millions would be ineffective without forcing arrests, hence the need to push the police until arrests were made. It isn't the "power establishment's" rules that make the protest counterproductive, it's that without manufactured "conflict" only having a few hundred demonstrators in a city the size of New York makes it obvious that the public in general doesn't care about your cause. The reason the protestors on Wall Street deliberately broke the rules and sought to be filmed being arrested for doing so, was because that was the only way that they would receive any coverage. Once you realize THAT...the whole concept that these people have been "brutalized" by the police becomes farce. The activists sought out that conflict and would have kept on escalating their behavior until the police did something that could be construed as a violation of the marcher's first amendment rights. That was the entire idea behind the march in the first place.

I understand now.

Cops have the power to beat the crap out of anyone who gives them a hard time, or breaks the law, because they deserve it.

 

[peach174]

Quantum
We are a nation of laws.
If you break the law and resist the authority (the police) they have the right to take you down and arrest you.
Your consequences have actions.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Quantum
We are a nation of laws.
If you break the law and resist the authority (the police) they have the right to take you down and arrest you.
Your consequences have actions.

They have the power, not the right, to arrest you. They do not have the power, or the right, to take you down simply because you break a law.

 

[Xchel]

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.

They do not have rights because they are in a different country? Can you explain how that works? In detail?

Who said they don't have rights? They are given the rights afforded by THEIR country...they are not protected by US laws and rights...if their law prohibits them marching then they have to abide by that law or face the consequences.

 

[Xchel]

The SCOTUS is not wrong, because requirements of a permit protect SAFETY of the other people not protesting..which is important...because a protester does NOT have the right to harm or endanger others or block others from free movement also a right in the US. You can say what you want..but for instance if you come in my living room and shout about your freedom of speech don't be surprised when you are kicked out the front door and told to hit the road...shout free speech and I will laugh..you only have free speech in your yard when it doesn't interfere with me.

 

[peach174]

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?

And who was in charge in 1937? Republican liberals. Big Government just like we have in the Senate and White House right now, liberals.

 

[peach174]

Quantum
We are a nation of laws.
If you break the law and resist the authority (the police) they have the right to take you down and arrest you.
Your consequences have actions.

They have the power, not the right, to arrest you. They do not have the power, or the right, to take you down simply because you break a law.

Yes they do. They have the power and the right to do so.
We are a nation of laws. By being a nation of laws you have police to enforce the laws.
The police order them to disperse when they did not obey the police had the right to arrest them.
They became a mob and that is against the law.
Our Constitution says we can protest peacefully, not protest by mob rule and mentality.