Originally posted by Rasobasi420
police know that head shots from rubber bullets can be fatal, so just aiming at head, or shoulder height shows intent to do serious harm.
FWIW, she was hit in the head when she was crouched behind her sign. Argueably, they shouldn't be firing at a person they can't see. But, at the
same time, she's on tv being interviewed a few days later.
It looked violent, BUT, those people weren't in anything like the condition that hte civil rights marchers were after getting beaten.
public display was protected by our constitution, and should not result in murder
There was no one killed. The police have the legal ability to break up protests, if they are violent, if they dont' have the proper permits, if
they're illegally blocking the streets, or if they fail to respond to police orders. These police opted to break up the protest, and they did it
with rubber bullets that leave bruises, not bodies.
Honestly... how could you think that?
Because I'm an evil muthaeffer? *shrugs*
if the woman had any sense at all she would have left but she seemed quite content to let them fire at her.
Why? She got smacked right in the head with one and was able to give TV interviews, where her biggest complaint seemed to be that they were laughing
at her. She had a point to make, thats what the protest was about, and she was willing to take her lumps to make it. I might not agree with her
point (whatever it was), but that's certainly admirable.
They should have backed off? They should have listened to the police officers that were about to shoot them?
Um, yeah. Thats usually about the time to listen to someone. I don't know the specifics of that day, the video just cuts to the cops shooting at
people, we don't know what the circumstances were. Were they told to clear the street, did they have a permit, had some people in the crowd started
looting stores, etc? Who knows. The point is, the police have a legal right to give orders during a protest, and those orders have to be followed. If
they aren't, then rubber bullets and tear gas are certainlly permissible.
I don't remember who it was that made the comment that the civil rights movement was for "something more than Iraq". Sorry that means
absolutely nothing. It was important to these people, and no where in the right to assembly does it specify a sliding scale for the "importance" of
Legally, of course it doesn't. But if the public is to be expected to sympathize, then, hell yeah, it does matter. THe police at this protest
didn't do anything illegal, the police in the 60's did. The people protesting in the 60s were trying to fight a revolution for human rights and
equality, the people at that protest were disagreeing with a particular aspect of foreign policy. Of course the two situations are different.
issued their apology. They wouldn't have done that if they thought they were in the right.
Come on man, they issued an apology because it softens the public reaction against them, while costing them nothing.
What is even more sad is that people will defend this madness
What maddness? The police used non-lethal means to disburse a crowd.
Them congratulating each other and stuff...that was just sick....
I don't understand this, these guys are cops, their job was to disperse that crowd, why shouldn't they be happy over it and have zeal in their job?
They murdered a young woman
Who? No one was killed at this miami protest that we have video of. As far as the boston riot, that crowd was out of control, the police were using
force to control a violent mob. Yes, someone died there, thats a good reason to not riot over a baseball game. Especially a red sox game.
they were totally bang out of order
How? For using rubber bullets on a crowd? Thats what those rubber bullets exist for, thats why they were assigned them, in case they had to use them.
Yes, a squad of men firing is a violent sight, violence is not illegal.
Thats like saying its ok to blast protesters in the face who are not doing anything but protesting.
No, if they are doing something illegal.
there are no laws against wearing masks or shouting at police
Part of the issue is, who wears masks at peace gatherings, people intending to commit crimes, OR, cointel agents for that matter.
Further, it is
illegal to wear masks in public, criminals (and kids on halloween), wear masks in public. Thats why the KKK wear masks, to hide
their identity to permit them to carry out crimes. A 'protest' crowd with a bunch of people wearing masks, that alone begs to be hit with rubber and
gas. Just look at the WTO protests and all the masked aggitators.
. The fact they gain pleasure from using this kind of force on non-violent people shows us they are at the very least, sadists
Well, yeesh, who isn't? Schadenfreude is a very satisfying emotion no?
Its HER fault because of her choice in clothing.
Fault? No, I don't think you can put fault upon any individual within a crowd, in most circumstances. A mob/crowd/protest/riot has a mind of its
Still, pretty stupid get-up for a person to wear, it will especially draw fire. Thats why, for example, Richtoven painted his plane red, to draw
attention and fire. Even without malice, firing squads are going to tend to be drawn to it over neutral and dark colors.
How about this, maybe the cops should exercise some form of control, eh
Looks like they did. They fired rubber bullets into a crowd, thats not lack of control, thats a viable and accepted police tactic. People are just
mortified now because they saw that violence is, well, violent.
now I could understand if they were throwing rocks, and such, but this was a peaceful gathering,
What are you basing this on? We already know that there were people in the crowd that were hiding their faces, why assume that the protestors video is
a netural viewpoint?
I am not saying that they necessarily were throwing stones or attacking the police during that day, they might well not have been, by why assume that
they weren't? Because they said so? No one that organizes a protest has control over everyone that attends.
[edit on 18-8-2006 by Nygdan]