Pepper-Spray by a Cruel and Cowardly NYC Cop

[Intense]

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.

you only have free speech in your yard when it doesn't interfere with me.

That can go either way, especially in crowded areas.

 

[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.

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.

Rights belong to individuals, not governments.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Where in all the video footage of that protest did the police "beat the crap out of anyone"? I'm sorry, Quantum but every time one of you makes that charge I have to laugh. The police acted very professionally throughout that march. They didn't "beat" anyone. The protesters went there looking for media coverage and got it by being arrested. The police did their jobs...the activists did theirs. So stop with all the drama queen theatrics.

 

[Xchel]

They keep arguing about on sidewalk or not..it does not matter...they were subject to arrest and their protest was illegal because they were in that area without a permit..they had already been provided a different area with a permit..they violated that.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Rights belong to individuals, not governments.

Society also has rights over individuals. Just as you're not allowed to blare your stereo at three in the morning keeping up all your neighbors, you're not allowed to block the sidewalks or roads so your neighbors can't get to work. Yes, individuals have rights...but they also have to follow the basic rules that society dictates.

 

[Xchel]

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.

Rights belong to individuals, not governments.

Society also has rights over individuals. Just as you're not allowed to blare your stereo at three in the morning keeping up all your neighbors, you're not allowed to block the sidewalks or roads so your neighbors can't get to work. Yes, individuals have rights...but they also have to follow the basic rules that society dictates.

Yep, their rights stop where they violate another person's rights..

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Where in all the video footage of that protest did the police "beat the crap out of anyone"? I'm sorry, Quantum but every time one of you makes that charge I have to laugh. The police acted very professionally throughout that march. They didn't "beat" anyone. The protesters went there looking for media coverage and got it by being arrested. The police did their jobs...the activists did theirs. So stop with all the drama queen theatrics.

You have a serious problem with hyperbole, don't you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They keep arguing about on sidewalk or not..it does not matter...they were subject to arrest and their protest was illegal because they were in that area without a permit..they had already been provided a different area with a permit..they violated that.

They were on the sidewalk without a permit?



What next? Will people need a permit inside their own house?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Rights belong to individuals, not governments.

Society also has rights over individuals. Just as you're not allowed to blare your stereo at three in the morning keeping up all your neighbors, you're not allowed to block the sidewalks or roads so your neighbors can't get to work. Yes, individuals have rights...but they also have to follow the basic rules that society dictates.

If I blare my stereo at 3 in the morning, and there are no individuals around to be disturbed, then society has no rights, does it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Rights belong to individuals, not governments.

Society also has rights over individuals. Just as you're not allowed to blare your stereo at three in the morning keeping up all your neighbors, you're not allowed to block the sidewalks or roads so your neighbors can't get to work. Yes, individuals have rights...but they also have to follow the basic rules that society dictates.

Yep, their rights stop where they violate another person's rights..

I agree.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Where in all the video footage of that protest did the police "beat the crap out of anyone"? I'm sorry, Quantum but every time one of you makes that charge I have to laugh. The police acted very professionally throughout that march. They didn't "beat" anyone. The protesters went there looking for media coverage and got it by being arrested. The police did their jobs...the activists did theirs. So stop with all the drama queen theatrics.

You have a serious problem with hyperbole, don't you?

Are you kidding? "You" accuse the police of beating the crap out of people and I ask you to show where that occurred and it's "me" that has a problem with hyperbole?

 

[Oldstyle]

Rights belong to individuals, not governments.

Society also has rights over individuals. Just as you're not allowed to blare your stereo at three in the morning keeping up all your neighbors, you're not allowed to block the sidewalks or roads so your neighbors can't get to work. Yes, individuals have rights...but they also have to follow the basic rules that society dictates.

If I blare my stereo at 3 in the morning, and there are no individuals around to be disturbed, then society has no rights, does it?

If you blare your stereo and there is nobody around then obviously you aren't infringing on anyone's rights. Pretty stupid scenario actually, Quantum. Are you saying there weren't any people around when the Wall Street protest was taking place and therefore society's rights weren't infringed upon? You might want to rethink that premise.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where in all the video footage of that protest did the police "beat the crap out of anyone"? I'm sorry, Quantum but every time one of you makes that charge I have to laugh. The police acted very professionally throughout that march. They didn't "beat" anyone. The protesters went there looking for media coverage and got it by being arrested. The police did their jobs...the activists did theirs. So stop with all the drama queen theatrics.

You have a serious problem with hyperbole, don't you?

Are you kidding? "You" accuse the police of beating the crap out of people and I ask you to show where that occurred and it's "me" that has a problem with hyperbole?

Where did I say that they did?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Society also has rights over individuals. Just as you're not allowed to blare your stereo at three in the morning keeping up all your neighbors, you're not allowed to block the sidewalks or roads so your neighbors can't get to work. Yes, individuals have rights...but they also have to follow the basic rules that society dictates.

If I blare my stereo at 3 in the morning, and there are no individuals around to be disturbed, then society has no rights, does it?

If you blare your stereo and there is nobody around then obviously you aren't infringing on anyone's rights. Pretty stupid scenario actually, Quantum. Are you saying there weren't any people around when the Wall Street protest was taking place and therefore society's rights weren't infringed upon? You might want to rethink that premise.

No, I am saying society does not have rights, people do.

 

[Xchel]

If I blare my stereo at 3 in the morning, and there are no individuals around to be disturbed, then society has no rights, does it?

If you blare your stereo and there is nobody around then obviously you aren't infringing on anyone's rights. Pretty stupid scenario actually, Quantum. Are you saying there weren't any people around when the Wall Street protest was taking place and therefore society's rights weren't infringed upon? You might want to rethink that premise.

No, I am saying society does not have rights, people do.

society does have rights...society is a collective group of PEOPLE. The people driving down the street and trying to walk down the street have the right to continue down the street without being interfered with..which the protesters were doing...you can't shut down streets in your protests without a permit....that is the problem...and they weren't simply standing on the sidewalk..they were blocking traffic as well.

 

[Xchel]

Saturday's protest became disruptive, bringing chaos to the busy Union Square area and forcing the closure of streets.

The New York Times quoted one protester, Kelly Brannon, 27, of Ridgewood, Queens:

They put up orange nets and tried to kettle us and we started running and they started tackling random people and handcuffing them. They were herding us like cattle.

The Vancouver-based activist media group Adbusters organized the weeklong event. Word spread via social media, yet the throngs of protesters some participants had hoped for failed to show up.

Vancouver? Vancouver is in fn CANADA...they need to keep their tails in Canada and protest THERE.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you blare your stereo and there is nobody around then obviously you aren't infringing on anyone's rights. Pretty stupid scenario actually, Quantum. Are you saying there weren't any people around when the Wall Street protest was taking place and therefore society's rights weren't infringed upon? You might want to rethink that premise.

No, I am saying society does not have rights, people do.

society does have rights...society is a collective group of PEOPLE. The people driving down the street and trying to walk down the street have the right to continue down the street without being interfered with..which the protesters were doing...you can't shut down streets in your protests without a permit....that is the problem...and they weren't simply standing on the sidewalk..they were blocking traffic as well.

Remember that the next time some argues corporations do not have rights. The people who make up society have rights, not society as an aggregate. If you start assigning rights to the majority simply because there are more of them no one will have any rights.

 

[Oldstyle]

You have a serious problem with hyperbole, don't you?

Are you kidding? "You" accuse the police of beating the crap out of people and I ask you to show where that occurred and it's "me" that has a problem with hyperbole?

Where did I say that they did?

So now you're saying the police "didn't" beat the crap out of anyone? Do you even remember what you've posted previously? I was under the impression that your whole beef with the NYPD was that they "brutalized" poor innocent protesters?

 

[Oldstyle]

If I blare my stereo at 3 in the morning, and there are no individuals around to be disturbed, then society has no rights, does it?

If you blare your stereo and there is nobody around then obviously you aren't infringing on anyone's rights. Pretty stupid scenario actually, Quantum. Are you saying there weren't any people around when the Wall Street protest was taking place and therefore society's rights weren't infringed upon? You might want to rethink that premise.

No, I am saying society does not have rights, people do.

That's one of those sayings that sounds half way intelligent at first but the more you think about it makes less and less sense. Society "is" people.

 

[Oldstyle]

"The people who make up society have rights, not society as an aggregate."

That's nonsensical. Because society is made up of people, of course society has rights because people have rights. If people didn't have rights then neither would society.