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.

Rockpuck
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*

TG
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.

niteboy82
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 a rally

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.

thatsjustweird
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.

marcopolo
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.

skadi
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 own.
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.

the_time_is_now
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]

Originally posted by Nygdan
Also, the civil rights movement was a far greater cause than 'no more war in iraq' is.

It’s not like people are protesting because Barbie's boobs are too big. People are dying in Iraq and Americans are funding that death at a huge cost, so however you feel about the war you have to understand why some people would protest against it.

THe modern 'peace protests' and 'anti-WTO" protests aren't peaceful protests, in general, either. I don't recall seeing MLK walking around with a mask during those marches.

So the mask makes it a violent protest? The constitution does not apply to those who wear masks? It looked pretty peaceful to me, as I am sure it probably would to a jury.

You have to file a request for a permit in order to have an event on a public street. If you go over capacity, become violent, or dont' have any kind of permit

Well then, did they go over capacity, become violent (you know, other than wearing a mask), or not have permit? Not that the constitution reads anything about those things, other than the peaceful part, but did you know if any law was actually broken before you made up your mind about the situation or are you simply defending your position?

your right to speak your mind does not over-ride the public's right to conduct their business.

Actually, it does.

Originally posted by cavscout
so however you feel about the war you have to understand why some people would protest against it.

Sure. But its still entirely different from the civil rights movement.

So the mask makes it a violent protest?

Legally? No. Sensibly, sure, why not? Who goes to a perfectly peaceful protest with pacifistic intent and hides their identity??

The constitution does not apply to those who wear masks?

Lets not get too hyperbolic.

It looked pretty peaceful to me, as I am sure it probably would to a jury.

That video would hardly be the only peice of evidence entered for a jury or anyone else to review. The police reports would also be considered.

Well then, did they go over capacity, become violent (you know, other than wearing a mask), or not have permit?

I find it unlikely that the protest was absolutely peaceful and non threatening and the police just hauled off and started firing at people. I seriously doubt that that police, looking at the several big honking video cameras in teh crowd, didn't at least order the protestors to leave before firing. We see nothing, other that the red jacket woman being pegged, then a cut, and then the police firing.

but did you know if any law was actually broken before you made up your mind about the situation

I am assuming that they did something to provoke the response other than having a perfectly legally constituted protest. I could be wrong. Feel free to demonstrate as such.

your right to speak your mind does not over-ride the public's right to conduct their business.

Actually, it does.

Clearly it doesn't. Assemblies of people legally require permits, they can be given restrictions, such as not blocking vehicle traffic, or even foot traffic. THey can be held to keep it below certain decibel levels, they can be required to keep clear of stores and businesses and all sorts of things. And when there are large numbers of peopel running around with identity hiding masks, sense dictates that they are there for trouble.

Well girls and guys that is a perfect example of what are world has turned into. Its so sad sometimes i just wanna cry from all this bull# going on in are world. How is are government trying to protect us when police are allowed to shoot us, beat us up and taz are ass! well we all have to fight because it will only get worse as it does all the time. WWJD.

This is what kills me to death, since 9/11 all I ever hear in the mainstream media is how wonderful the police are and what great heros they are to the American public. There is always this broad stroke of the paint brush that defines ALL law enforcement as the great public servants and they can do no wrong. It's as if they have somehow become worshiped, their pride and egoes are fed every day until they are intoxicated with this false sense of power. Or at the very least, they are looked upon as being infallible to the general public.

You wait, there is going to come a time where you will be put in jail for just saying something openly negative about any member of the law enforcment.

I always hear "Never Forget", and I don't, but I also will never forget the Waco incident or Ruby Ridge. It just seems like the people of the U.S. are setting themselves up for this type of behavior from our militarized police again. If nothing is being done now or no consequences are enforced by our judicial system or our elected officials say nothing publicly about this type of violent law enforcement, then this WILL get worse!

Wait until the second amendment becomes totally extinguished out of existence, then you will know what it is to be a slave to these heros.

Remember, they have drawn first blood, not me.

wow that lady was COWERING IN THE STREET ON HER KNEES
and got SHOT in the HEAD!

and then they congradulated themselves!

thats nuts that there is actually men who get off to shooting cowering innocent helpless women...

whats even more nuts, is that theres deluded people DEFENDING their actions on these forums!!

Did you flush the constitution after u wiped Nygdan? lolz

Originally posted by Nygdan
Sure. But its still entirely different from the civil rights movement.

I don't even know why it mattered or came up in the first place.

Legally? No. Sensibly, sure, why not? Who goes to a perfectly peaceful protest with pacifistic intent and hides their identity??

Eh, symbolism, or the simple fact that they wanted to. Seems sensible to me to get as much symbolism as possible to the people that saw this rally. Isn't a rally supposed to attract attention?

That video would hardly be the only peice of evidence entered for a jury or anyone else to review. The police reports would also be considered.

Of course the police reports would be considered. But I wonder how that would hold up when put against a video tape of the incident if the possibility arises that the police were wrong and possibly lied? Not sure yet, can't source it, but judging by how they acted, I'm sure it could be quite biased. However the video is not really. What you see is what you get. If it hasn't been altered, then it will be pretty hard to argue with against the "word" of a police officer involved in this.

I find it unlikely that the protest was absolutely peaceful and non threatening and the police just hauled off and started firing at people. I seriously doubt that that police, looking at the several big honking video cameras in teh crowd, didn't at least order the protestors to leave before firing. We see nothing, other that the red jacket woman being pegged, then a cut, and then the police firing.

Who cares if they ordered them to leave?!? Who cares? If they were behaving peacefully and were within their rights then the police officers have no business telling them to leave. That, in my opinion, is also one of the biggest ifs of this whole story. Were they legally permitted (i'm against paying for permits, but hey, that's the law) and were they within their rights?

I am assuming that they did something to provoke the response other than having a perfectly legally constituted protest. I could be wrong. Feel free to demonstrate as such.

You're often skeptical, and you leave yourself available to sensibly debate an issue, so I thought I would give you props here. Thanks for that.

Clearly it doesn't. Assemblies of people legally require permits, they can be given restrictions, such as not blocking vehicle traffic, or even foot traffic. THey can be held to keep it below certain decibel levels, they can be required to keep clear of stores and businesses and all sorts of things. And when there are large numbers of peopel running around with identity hiding masks, sense dictates that they are there for trouble.

I think this is a long shot to defend it that way, but hey, it would be a long shot for me to go against your defense. This is where we both need more information to make our better judgement, imo.

I'm still angry, I still have the suspicion, and almost full belief, that these officers were wrong in this situation. However, I can leave it up to time to tell anything further before I set anything in stone, if ever.

I would like to thank Nygdan, though. I like debating someone that can carry their own sensibly, and I always appreciate it.

Nygdan, maybe you do not realize that here in America we still value our right to protest without being shot(I did not see any violence that provoked a single shot), maybe your arguments for the actions of the officers would be welcomed if we didn't live in a country where our rights are single-handedly taken away with every partiot act reformation. What you are hearing are people trying to speak without much of a voice. ATS is one of those voices. I would suggest that you listen for a minute. You are drowning out the revolution. (or what could potentialy save us from having to form one). I still value my rights, and even though I may not exercize them on a daily basis, that does not mean that they should be taken away. And for what? So Bush can save me from another terrorist threat?
Please, You trying to justify the actions of those officer is like justify the last 3 wars we have been in, starting with Vietnam. If that is the case, then nevermind. Lost Cause. Unless it is your belief that we should repsect all authority, in that case Mr. Mod, please refrain from using the rubber bullets on me



[edit on 18-8-2006 by kleverone]

Wow,

I can't get over what people think constitutes a "right". Is getting a permit to have a demonstration legal. Yes it is legal but not lawful to prohibit that activity.

If this difference is not understood by those hearing these two words, we educators are not doing our job. If wiretapping is said to be legal and woops it is found to be unlawful then guess what?

By the way who said "only" cars can be in a public thorough fair. When actually pedestrians have the right of way.

The constitution states that we have the "right" to use the public thorough fairs, and a permit or license is permission to do something that is otherwisse illegal to do. If no one gets a permit, who is the damaged party if one is not obtained, no one.

And it is presumtive to "assume" that they would not let emergency vehicles by.

Welcome to facism folks. Where you own it and they tell you what to do with it.




[edit on 18-8-2006 by The Water Man]

This video is just a "little" bit edited and closed captioned for the hearing impaired. Why no warning?

Originally posted by Rockpuck

Originally posted by Kruel
This is like your parents telling you to defend yourself against bullies, but if they hurt you, you're just supposed to take it.

Had I been there protesting next to that woman, I would've gone ape**** on that cop.

Had most of our population not gone soft, and used to sitting on their couch growing more obese and so used to seeing "peaceful" protesting, the police in that video would have had a full scale riot.

We lost our fighting spirit, we dont even get out of our cars to look someone in the face at the local mc donalds, let alone confront abusive police men..

They shot at truly peaceful people, like you said, had I been there when a women was shot in the head that cop would have hell to pay.

I wonder if that pig would love a molotov cocktail in the face?

BAD PIG!!!

Originally posted by Nygdan
If you don't leave when the police tell you to, you get shot with rubber bullets. If you don't want to get blasted in the face, don't go to a protest.

Yeesh, one of these idiots is wearing a mask and screaming at the police.

In the interview afterwards, she says she thinks they shouldn't be happy about it, that they shouldnt applaud it. Is she kidding? Of course they are going to applaud it, they pretty clearly specifically targeted her and we glad that they hit her. Maybe next time she won't wear a bright red jacket to draw their fire.

[edit on 18-8-2006 by Nygdan]

This response caught me off gaurd...reason being I thought it was sarcastic. How could you possibly not feel any empathy for these protesters, especially the woman shot in the face, head, whatever? Legal or not, it's obvious that the balance of power during this protest was unequal and unfair, to say the least. There's a wall of about 50 + armored cops looking like they're ready to launch an attack on some guy holding a vile of biological weapons, when instead theres just a couple of innocent citizens protesting (quietly, mind you). What if it was you out there on the street protesting about an issue you feel really strongly about and these so-called law enforcers sprayed you and your cohorts with rubber bullets?? Imagine that.

This reminds me of the famous quote that goes something similar to this (I remember hearing it years ago)

"People will tolerate and accept injustice towards other people until those injustices affect them personally."

(I totally chopped that quote up. If anybody knows what the heck I'm talking about, please correct that quote. I believe it's a quote from Gandhi.)

[edit on 8/19/2006 by jeepin4x4girl]

Too bad the bullets were not lead IMO.
We have a equal freedom in this country to VOTE.
Protests in that regard infringe on my civil rights to communte and go where I wish. If you don't like things, vote for your guys and try to convince others to do the same.

We are too easy on "protesters" in this country. She and they got less than they deserverved.


[edit on 19-8-2006 by Apoc]

[edit on 19-8-2006 by Apoc]

Originally posted by The Water Man
Wow,

I can't get over what people think constitutes a "right". Is getting a permit to have a demonstration legal. Yes it is legal but not lawful to prohibit that activity.

If this difference is not understood by those hearing these two words, we educators are not doing our job. If wiretapping is said to be legal and woops it is found to be unlawful then guess what?

By the way who said "only" cars can be in a public thorough fair. When actually pedestrians have the right of way.

The constitution states that we have the "right" to use the public thorough fairs, and a permit or license is permission to do something that is otherwisse illegal to do. If no one gets a permit, who is the damaged party if one is not obtained, no one.

And it is presumtive to "assume" that they would not let emergency vehicles by.

So you are saying they had a permit to block traffic like that? I doubt it. If they had a permit they wouldn't have the police there in full riot gear.

Pedestrians have the right of way, but they can NOT abuse that right. In the video shown, it is very clear the police had their orders, to clear the street from protestors. There are many reason why this could be...

1) disturbing the peace

2) disrupting the near by business's by loitering

3) obstruction of the flow of traffic

much more...

If you want to protest, there are parks and other facilities you can rent, to gather together.

To think you are free from all laws because you are protesting is wrong. And these cops did what they are trained to do in order to clear these people out. She is lucky she didn't get hit with a stun gun, those are worse. To think these police didnt warn them to leave would be wrong. You don't get 100+ police in riot gear without at least one of them telling you to leave the area. These protesters knew what they were getting into, one of them had a gas mask on, ready for tear gas.

These people were in the wrong. They are not supposed to protest in the middle of the street.

Also, I said nothing about emergancy vehicles, even then, you totaly missed the point. If someone was late for work, and the road they take to work was filled with protestors, and couldn't pass, you are disturbing the peace. If a pizza place that guarantees their delivery within 30 minutes was there, and the delivery guy ran into these protestors, made them late, that is disturbing the peace and the flow of business's.

If this was TRUELY a PEACEFULL PROTEST, the police wouldn't have ever showed up.



[edit on 19-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]

Originally posted by Apoc
Too bad the bullets were not lead IMO.

Oh? And how do you go about justifying killing protesters?

Are you just saying that to get a rise out of ppl? Or does it make you feel tough saying such things?

Do you think you live in a free country? Well guess what?
It wouldn't be much of a free country if they took your advice now would it?

I've been to many, many protests, even organized a few, some not so peace full, you think I should be shot also?

Do you realize a big majority of the freedoms you do have came about because of protests? Segregation is a good example, unless of course you wish it was still like the old days? The pole tax in the UK in the 80's, another good example. I'm sure there's some Brits here who will remember that one.

If it wasn't for people protesting we would already be living in a totalitarian society.

Who's side are you on?

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
If this was TRUELY a PEACEFULL PROTEST, the police wouldn't have ever showed up.

Not true, I have never seen a protest where there are no cops in riot gear. And yes they do need permission to protest. If they didn't get permission how did the cops know to be there?

The cops are there to intimidate and a show of power by the state. What good would protesting in a park do? Protests are supposed to be a nuisance, an inconvenience.
They're not just a day out. How would anybody be effected by a protest in a park? Instead of picking on the protesters how about looking into what is being protested?

All you care about is your own selfish inconvenience. Take the day off. Better yet join the protest. Maybe with enough voices we could actually make a change, cause we all know voting doesn't do anything but waist our time, and give the sheep the illusion of control.

One thing I thought looked bad was when the guy was running away with his back turned and the police were still firing on him for ages. But then as you say, the video is edited so maybe he had just been throwing something or provoking them.

The thing is, not much will be done about this and there's not much any of us can do about it except complain on internet forums. It's ok to say "there's more of us than them" but so what? If people were to ever revolt against the authorities there would only be about 3 people while everyone else sat at home watching it on TV and complaining.

If this were in the UK there would have been an investigation or that police chiefs house or car would have recieved some damage...