"Demonstration"

**TEA** · Posted On: 4/30/2007 11:11am

Originally Posted by Robstafarian

Many thanks do both of you for posting the above. I got so distracted by the "anarchist" that I forgot follow up on the '68 Democratic National Convention reference.

Yes, this thread was derailed by a pointless debate on symantics. What it should really be about is the right of the government to pound on the many to protect the financial interests of the few.

**Jim_Jude** · Posted On: 4/30/2007 1:28pm

Okay, riot police likening themselves to the Spartans at Thermopylae is a little off-base. The Persian Horde was an invasion force, not a group of rebelling Helots.
If you're the type that believes that protesters all need to get their heads cracked, or whatever, then you deserve all the bricks and bottles to the head that you get, since you are workin' for The Man and will probably instigate any violence that ensues...
We live in a democracy, fellas, whether you like it or not, and people find all kinds of ways to voice their discontent with the establishment.

And while I'm at it, here are some of the more popular definitions of Anarchism. All of them are right, btw:
Anarchism:
The belief that all existing governmental authority should be abolished and replaced by free cooperation among individuals.

Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority.

The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.

A doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.

The methods or practices of anarchists, as the use of violence to undermine government.

Just FYI, I'm more of a Libertarian than anything else, if I was to put a lable on it. But, I too would love TEOTWAWKI, just to see all of the whiners that still haven't prepared after 9/11 and Katrina get what's coming to them.

Also, I took the time to look it up, and here is an article on Anarcho-Socialism:
"What Would An Anarcho-Socialist Economy Look Like?"
http://www.attackthesystem.com/economy.html
Plus, most of the references to Anarchist-Sociolist that 'm finding are Noam Chomsky-esque Marxist views. Is this too far off for those of you that allign with that title?

**Equipoise** · Posted On: 4/30/2007 7:35pm

Originally Posted by Naszir

This is nothing like the 300, unless by Spartans you mean armed and trained police able to operate with a certain latitude concerning force and by Persians you mean a group of untrained and unarmed for the most part protesters who, unless you live outside the US, pose no real threat to law enforcement outside of annoyance and forcing the municipality to pay overtime. In that case, yeah, Leonidas, you're standing tall against the invaders. Future generations will sing of your brave sacrifice to ensure the country is not lost to the patchouli scented horde.

Wow. You really have no idea what you're talking about. Do some research. Several years ago there were protesters in large numbers that directly attacked the unit with bottles, rocks, and a few explosive devices. Since this protest is slated to be two to three times it's size, it should be interesting.

As for our training. The riot squads do formations and drills similar to that of the Roman legions for varying purposes whether they be crossbow formations for isolating groups for arrest or pacification or wedge formations for division. There are specialized units used for dispensing munitions, mounts, etc. We also possess shields and long poles with our riot gear.

As for the people spouting out how their liberties are being infringed. You have the right to peaceful protest, however we can regulate time place and manner of those protests. You cross the line once you start throwing munitions, rioting and destroying property. If you want something changed, do it via legally using the system in place. Pushing political dogma upon others via a show of force does nothing for whatever your cause maybe. If you come here and break the law, I will arrest you; not for your beliefs but for your actions.

**Jim_Jude** · Posted On: 4/30/2007 11:41pm

Originally Posted by Equipoise

As for the people spouting out how their liberties are being infringed. You have the right to peaceful protest, however we can regulate time place and manner of those protests. You cross the line once you start throwing munitions, rioting and destroying property. If you want something changed, do it via legally using the system in place. Pushing political dogma upon others via a show of force does nothing for whatever your cause maybe. If you come here and break the law, I will arrest you; not for your beliefs but for your actions.

The current administration and it's representatives have the legal right to defend themselves with violence, but the minority has no such right. Threat of force is what keeps their heads down, and when they get sick of trying to fight using a system that the Powers That Be have a lock & key on, & start throwing rocks, they get a visit from you, the Roman Legions of the United States of America, to violently quell any resistance that isn't crushed by the legal system. You are a hero.
"To Protect and Serve", isn't that right? What in the world are you protecting and serving anymore?
I liked that: "Pushing political dogma upon others via a show of force does nothing for whatever your cause maybe." When you're waiting around defending The Man from the plebs THAT MY FRIEND IS A SHOW OF FORCE.

**Naszir** · Posted On: 5/01/2007 12:55am

Originally Posted by Equipoise

Wow. You really have no idea what you're talking about. Do some research. Several years ago there were protesters in large numbers that directly attacked the unit with bottles, rocks, and a few explosive devices. Since this protest is slated to be two to three times it's size, it should be interesting.

As someone who has lost friends to the police's monopoly on violence as well as having family in what most would call a 3rd (or developing) world country, I respectfully disagree. Earlier this year 2 Alabama policemen were tried for beating to death a man near 60. The indictments of the Atlanta police officers who murdered the elderly woman in her home while serving a no-knock warrant and the fact that most of my exposure to police was in a place notorious for police corruption make me more than a little wary of your brother officers. Combine that with your seemingly cavalier attitude about standing in the phalanx dropping a beatdown on the barbarian hordes and you see how you crying victim here doesn't exactly wash.

For every Daniel Faulkner there is an Amadou Diallo. For every every "innocent" officer who has been injured protecting the populace and their possessions from mobs there is at least one "innocent" civilian who has been pepper sprayed, water cannoned, batoned or shot. Once again, in the numbers game the Police have dealt vastly more damage then they have suffered.

Also bottles and rocks=/= body armored troops with a legal monopoly on violence. The few explosive devices you mentioned, could you go into more detail? There is a vast difference between an M-80, a molotov cocktail and an IED.

As for our training. The riot squads do formations and drills similar to that of the Roman legions for varying purposes whether they be crossbow formations for isolating groups for arrest or pacification or wedge formations for division. There are specialized units used for dispensing munitions, mounts, etc. We also possess shields and long poles with our riot gear.

I know quite a bit about LE training as I have worked out with two instructors who officially train both municipal and state police as well as having studied under a sworn officer who served under 2 different LE organizations.

As for the people spouting out how their liberties are being infringed. You have the right to peaceful protest, however we can regulate time place and manner of those protests.

This is where we disagree. The US Constitution makes no such allowances and any municipality which does, hearkens back to England's Riot Act of 1714 which this gem was a reaction to

"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.

It seems that you would argue that by virtue of assembling, people are a threat. I would argue that the presence of hypervigilant officers who seem, no offense intended if I am wrong, to be psyching themselves up for a problem, actually agitates a situation and creates unnecessary tension.

You cross the line once you start throwing munitions, rioting and destroying property. If you want something changed, do it via legally using the system in place. Pushing political dogma upon others via a show of force does nothing for whatever your cause maybe.

I wholeheartedly agree. I hope that you and your fellow officers will live up to this standard as well. If everyone on that line held to this ideal and cooler heads prevailed then I am sure
that LEOs would earn a far better image than the one most have right now.

If you come here and break the law, I will arrest you; not for your beliefs but for your actions.

This statement shows a far more professional view of the situation. In your original post you seemed almost giddy about the prospect of you and your fellow officers getting to fight a mob. It appeared that you were psyching yourself up for a self-fulfilling prophecy. This coupled with the experiences of several in this thread escalated things. I sincerely hope things are handled peacably and cooler heads prevail on both sides of the line.

**Equipoise** · Posted On: 5/01/2007 10:32am

Originally Posted by Naszir

As someone who has lost friends to the police's monopoly on violence as well as having family in what most would call a 3rd (or developing) world country, I respectfully disagree. Earlier this year 2 Alabama policemen were tried for beating to death a man near 60. The indictments of the Atlanta police officers who murdered the elderly woman in her home while serving a no-knock warrant and the fact that most of my exposure to police was in a place notorious for police corruption make me more than a little wary of your brother officers. Combine that with your seemingly cavalier attitude about standing in the phalanx dropping a beatdown on the barbarian hordes and you see how you crying victim here doesn't exactly wash.

The old woman opened fire and shot one of the officers, this is why they returned fire. Don't try to create sensationalism for your point. If you're going to tell a story, tell both sides.

For every Daniel Faulkner there is an Amadou Diallo. For every every "innocent" officer who has been injured protecting the populace and their possessions from mobs there is at least one "innocent" civilian who has been pepper sprayed, water cannoned, batoned or shot. Once again, in the numbers game the Police have dealt vastly more damage then they have suffered.

Diallo was told not to move repeatedly while the officers had their guns drawn. If we see a suspect reach into his back pocket after telling him not to move, then that is considered a furtive movement. As a result we have the right to defend ourselves from the imminent threat of death or serious physical injury. Since you know how police work in third world countries, the chances of him even being warned in another country are minimal. The officers were justified in their actions. Your statements about innocents being sprayed, struck, etc is an emotional plea rather than a logical argument with sound facts.
[QUOTE]

Also bottles and rocks=/= body armored troops with a legal monopoly on violence. The few explosive devices you mentioned, could you go into more detail? There is a vast difference between an M-80, a molotov cocktail and an IED.

So from your logic, no one has ever been killed by a rock or bottle. As persons who protect you while you sleep, we are in need of protective equipment from those that pose a threat of injury to us or others. It's the same reason that we wear body armor.

I know quite a bit about LE training as I have worked out with two instructors who officially train both municipal and state police as well as having studied under a sworn officer who served under 2 different LE organizations.

No you don't. Unless you do the job, you don't know.

This is where we disagree. The US Constitution makes no such allowances and any municipality which does, hearkens back to England's Riot Act of 1714 which this gem was a reaction to

"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.

Whether you disagree or not, The first amendment is regulated by Time, Manner and Place

Review: Warner v. New York

Feiner v New York (1951)

Forsyth County v Nationalist Movement (1992)

Watchtower Bible v Stratton (2002)

City Council v Taxpayers for Vincent (1984)

City of Ladue v Gilleo (1994)

Madsen v Women's Health Center (1994)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...ment01/20.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment

It seems that you would argue that by virtue of assembling, people are a threat. I would argue that the presence of hypervigilant officers who seem, no offense intended if I am wrong, to be psyching themselves up for a problem, actually agitates a situation and creates unnecessary tension.

We stand guard, that's it.

I wholeheartedly agree. I hope that you and your fellow officers will live up to this standard as well. If everyone on that line held to this ideal and cooler heads prevailed then I am sure
that LEOs would earn a far better image than the one most have right now.

We have a bad image because we ruin people's days that commit crimes. No one else does this, so all the anger gets funneled to us.

This statement shows a far more professional view of the situation. In your original post you seemed almost giddy about the prospect of you and your fellow officers getting to fight a mob. It appeared that you were psyching yourself up for a self-fulfilling prophecy. This coupled with the experiences of several in this thread escalated things. I sincerely hope things are handled peacably and cooler heads prevail on both sides of the line.

I am excited about dealing with an angry mob and using the training that I've recieved, however within the boundaries of the law and only when necessary.

**Naszir** · Posted On: 5/01/2007 12:28pm

Originally Posted by Equipoise

The old woman opened fire and shot one of the officers, this is why they returned fire. Don't try to create sensationalism for your point. If you're going to tell a story, tell both sides.

In the middle of the night an elderly woman's home was broken into and she fired on the intruders. The no knock warrant and the time it was served basically created the situation. The police did not identify themselves. Had this been a normal search warrant served with identification I highly doubt this would have happened.

I agree the Diallo incident has been played up however the response doesn't seem overwhelming in the least? It still seems like a good shooting in light of how many rounds were fired? If that is so then the doctrine of overwhelming response is something that needs to be dealt with. Hopefully Police Oversight committees will be able to help undo this conditioned response.

And yes there is quite a bit less warning depending on where you are. Usually the army tells you to leave and if you don't things go south.

So from your logic, no one has ever been killed by a rock or bottle. As persons who protect you while you sleep, we are in need of protective equipment from those that pose a threat of injury to us or others. It's the same reason that we wear body armor.

No, people have been killed by them, just far fewer when in body armor and far fewer police die in demonstrations than you seem to be suggesting.

Also, you don't protect me while I sleep. You primarily investigate crime after the fact and act as first responders. If I relied on the police to protect me, chances are by the time you arrived I would already be dead. Now the threat of the police may help to keep honest men honest, or at least smart criminals cautious, but you aren't my bodyguard.

No you don't. Unless you do the job, you don't know.

Fair enough. I was referring to your hand to hand subject pacification training. But I see how could have mistaken my intent.

Whether you disagree or not, The first amendment is regulated by Time, Manner and Place

Review: Warner v. New York

Feiner v New York (1951)

Forsyth County v Nationalist Movement (1992)

Watchtower Bible v Stratton (2002)

City Council v Taxpayers for Vincent (1984)

City of Ladue v Gilleo (1994)

Madsen v Women's Health Center (1994)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...ment01/20.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment

You left out Crayton v Natchitoches (2006) Which you could argue had no standing as no traffic would be impeded due to the size of the protest. Also your main case deals with the main speakers seeking to incite a riot. This is not peaceful protest and not the assembly I am speaking of. You know this by the content of my previous posts. Also the First Amendment is limited by municipalities. I do disagree and I would like to see the law changed and so I vote accordingly.

We stand guard, that's it.

Apparently not all of you.
Tennessee cops weren't just there to protect the citizens and their property.

We have a bad image because we ruin people's days that commit crimes. No one else does this, so all the anger gets funneled to us.

Wayne Ellis, 54 of West Monroe, LA would disagree with you. While picking up a hitchhiker on his way from Ouachita Parish to Nashville, TN he picked up a hitchhiker and stopped at a Burger King. Lincoln, AL cops saw out of state tags and requested a breathalyzer. Mr. Wayne refused and he died a few days later from the cracked skull they gave him.
http://www.jaxnews.com/news/2003/as-...-3g13x1801.htm
However, one of the officers was sentenced to 22 years and the other had a mistrial declared due to a witness for the defense having previously recanted a statement made while he was in police custody.

I am excited about dealing with an angry mob and using the training that I've received, however within the boundaries of the law and only when necessary.

This is almost like two different statements. I am excited about using the training I have received seems to go counter to your caveat. That would be like me saying I am excited about the possibility I'll be able to use my kali training, but only as it applies lawfully in Texas and only when necessary. It almost seems false but I am admittedly inferring a lot based on the fact that you and I don't quite see eye to eye on this.

Please understand I have the highest respect for the law and those I disagree with I seek to change peacefully. My great-grandfather had a cousin who was the Chief of Police in Houston who was fired for refusing to arrest peacefully protesting civil rights activists. He said they hadn't broken any laws and paid the price for obeying the law rather than just acting as an arbitrary instrument of social control.

All that said, again, I hope you have a good day with no problems out there and I hope everyone comes home safe from the march, the fellows in body armor included.

**feedback** · Posted On: 5/01/2007 12:44pm

Originally Posted by Killbot

Hey! I'm kind of an anarchist at heart. But I won't wear black hoodies and show up at protests. Protests suck in general. But I think Democracy is the worst political system.....except for all the others....still to close to mob rule to me like, but it'll do.

Besides, I'd love it if the world went batshit Mad Max crazy. :5nuclear: :5nuclear: :5nuclear:
But I'm a little nutz anyway...:bduh:

If the post-apocalyptic world is like Fallout, sign me up.

**Neildo** · Posted On: 5/01/2007 2:07pm

Originally Posted by Naszir

Wayne Ellis, 54 of West Monroe, LA would disagree with you. While picking up a hitchhiker on his way from Ouachita Parish to Nashville, TN he picked up a hitchhiker and stopped at a Burger King. Lincoln, AL cops saw out of state tags and requested a breathalyzer. Mr. Wayne refused and he died a few days later from the cracked skull they gave him.
http://www.jaxnews.com/news/2003/as-...-3g13x1801.htm
However, one of the officers was sentenced to 22 years and the other had a mistrial declared due to a witness for the defense having previously recanted a statement made while he was in police custody.

He didn't deserve the cracked skull resulting in death, but when you refuse to do something a cop asks you to do, better prepare to have your **** ruined.

I mean....it's just a breathalyzer. If he was drunk then the cops had every right to pull his drunken ass off the road.