|
errantgeek -> RE: Current raid on Atlanta...another in Oakland (10/26/2011 8:39:28 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror
Well golly gee. I guess your side's point is moot since here it is 7:04 am and the first topic mentioned on the national news was that the tear gas and such was used by police after "peacefully gathering protesters" started throwing rocks and bottles at cops.
I watched the whole thing go down live last night, and I'll throw in my two cents on this.
The protesters were already being kettled by SWAT and riot-geared officers, and being told to disperse well before objects were being thrown. It's also interesting that having watched the whole thing live on about three different news networks and the protests' own live streams, I didn't see any objects thrown first; unless you can provide evidence that supports the assertion the protesters were getting violent first, it remains a matter of hearsay. Yesterday morning, the police had already surrounded and infiltrated the camp (in pre-dawn hours when protesters were asleep and unaware of imminent police action) and were taking down tents prior to objects being thrown. The police actions, not the protesters', initiated the escalation of the encounter to violence.
Furthermore, one must also consider proportionality of the response. Rocks and bottles were thrown at officers wearing riot control gear and carrying shields; outside thrown objects, the protesters were completely unarmed. No guns, and no explosives or incendiaries. The police responded as if the crowd were armed.
quote:
Peaceful gathering my ass. As I said, the "potential" for violence in large groups of people when it's already confirmed that 31% believe in using said violence is more than enough reason to order a crowd to disperse.
If what the crowd believes is key opposed to how the crowd acts, then why are riot suppression tactics not used against the tea party protests? After all, a large percentage of them support violence as well (ignore the Olbermann stuff, the key is the poll result that shows the percent of tea partiers that support violence) and the tea party has a well-documented history of advocating violence and using violent language, but have actually armed themselves during protests as well.
I also noticed you discussed the limitations to the First Amendment. An astute observer would know the Constitutionally-protected right to speech and assembly stops with imminent lawless action (Brandenberg v. Ohio). Moreover, as elaborated within that case the imminent lawless action must be violent. In other words, civil disobedience is still Constitutionally-protected given it may involve violation of law but is fundamentally non-violent.
quote:
But hey...I kinda just wish the cops would have waited until the riot got going full-swing, then they could have let the bullets fly and thinned the "stupid" herd a bit.
Stay classy, bro.
|
|
|
|
