Video Footage of Woman In Peaceful Protest Shot In Face By Police

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
You have ZERO proof that all protests are peaceful when the are stopped by police.


I have presented plenty of evidence that protesters are unfarely abused by the police in their riot gear. You have shown zero evidence that protesters are not incited by the police into violent action, or are just reacting on past histories. As the cops get more violent, so will the protests, 'till the day comes when protests will be banned. Exactly what they want.

Now I understand your difficulty in seeing the cops as the agressors, you have a personal reason to dismiss that fact. So I could post proof till the world ends but you ain't going to get it, unless you experience it first hand.




posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I have presented plenty of evidence that protesters are unfarely abused by the police in their riot gear.


No you haven't.

From what I understand, you were probably arrested at one point in time, and now hold a grudge, because of something that was your fault. Am I right?


b.t.w unfarely is spelt unfairly


[edit on 26-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Navy... My dad is a cop... and Ill tell you what.... they are abusive... they are cruel.... now there are some good cops... no doubt... and some protests do get violent.... HOWEVER... there is substantial proof of police overstepping thier grounds.... My best friend and roomate participated in the protests during the 60's and 70's and her opinion of all of this is that things arent as bad as they were in the 60's but they aren't much better.

Police use thier "supposed" authority to keep people in check.... Protests are a legal means by which to redress the government of grievances.... and ur response about how atleast they werent in Russia or China... WTF kind of remark is that... like just because there are countries that do not respsect the right for people to assemble and protest thier illegitamate govenrment means we cant.... Thats like right wingers who say we can't allow gay marriage because some Indian woman married a snake in another country... Come on.... be serious.... and Anok is right... EVERY single time he displays evidence of the police being overly brutal you simply ignore it or make fun of him or say your going to just ignore him.

While some protests do become violent... HISTORY has shown that the police are involved and do insight violence within protests... This was welll documneted in the 60's and 70's... Do you really think that our government would not use the exact same tactic seeing as it was highly affective in totally diluting and/or covering up the true meaning of the protest.... Police and the Federal government are interested in ONE thing and one thing only... control... and while the individual police officer may not be aware of it... he/she is being used... just like the SS used local law enforcement in nazi germany..... its the EXACT same methodology used by all soon to be authoritarian dictatorships... and if you dont believe that... well... then it wouldn't matter if it was a police state... because you would more than likely be a collaborator... someone who actually thought this was for the best.


I leave you with the words of Benjamin Franklin... Those who would sacrafice liberty for a little bit of security deserve neither liberty nor security.

[edit on 26-8-2006 by Elsenorpompom]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Elsenorpompom
My best friend and roomate participated in the protests during the 60's and 70's and her opinion of all of this is that things arent as bad as they were in the 60's but they aren't much better.


So basically your saying, everything has been the same for 40 years right? Right...I know this...



Originally posted by Elsenorpompom
Police use thier "supposed" authority to keep people in check.... Protests are a legal means by which to redress the government of grievances.... and ur response about how atleast they werent in Russia or China... WTF kind of remark is that...


I never said anything about Russia or China, you may want to read the thread again.


Originally posted by Elsenorpompom
EVERY single time he displays evidence of the police being overly brutal you simply ignore it or make fun of him or say your going to just ignore him.


I didn't ignore anything, I read everything, but he doesn't have evidence that shows the protest's he is talking about were not violent. All I saw were a few words from the protesters, I didn't see video, and photographic evidence like I provided for the FTAA protest. Just single sided cries from people mad at the police.



Originally posted by Elsenorpompom
While some protests do become violent... HISTORY has shown that the police are involved and do insight violence within protests... This was welll documneted in the 60's and 70's... Do you really think that our government would not use the exact same tactic seeing as it was highly affective in totally diluting and/or covering up the true meaning of the protest.... Police and the Federal government are interested in ONE thing and one thing only... control... and while the individual police officer may not be aware of it... he/she is being used... just like the SS used local law enforcement in nazi germany..... its the EXACT same methodology used by all soon to be authoritarian dictatorships... and if you dont believe that... well... then it wouldn't matter if it was a police state... because you would more than likely be a collaborator... someone who actually thought this was for the best.


The police do not care what you are protesting about. They do want to control large crowds in a protest, because they have responsibilities to keep the streets safe. Nothing more.. You think police are there just to make people get out of control? You need to seriously wake up.

Where there is a protest, PEOPLE, get out of control on their own. They trash the place, break things, hurt people, graffiti the walls, stop traffic, set things on fire, and much more... If the police were not there, it would still happen. Now how is that fair for the businesses, and people around the area that have nothing to do with the protest? Its not fair. The police have to be there to make sure the protest does not invade anyone else's rights. And if the police had any insight on the history of protests, they would know that MANY different protests turned into violent riots. Ever herd of the Los Angeles Riot in 1992? 50 to 60 people were killed, and NOT by cops, but by the rioters. Millions of dollars of damage, and stolen property, and much more. The police do NOT want this to happen again, so they need to be present in all protests now. How hard is that to understand?


Originally posted by Elsenorpompom
I leave you with the words of Benjamin Franklin... Those who would sacrafice liberty for a little bit of security deserve neither liberty nor security.


Benjamin Franklin was a good man. Although this quote seems highly meaningful, it does not work in today's world. That quote was from the 1700's. It is now 2006...

With out security, we will loose our liberty. Just like the 3000+ lost their liberty on 911.

[edit on 27-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by seridium
they couldnt just arrest her? with handcuffs

i guess they are a bunch of scared lil men with badges.


It would take more than one cop to walk in there and arrest her. And when you get a group of cops walking in and manhandling a women protester in front of the protest, trouble is going to kick off. I'm sure a lot more people would have got hurt in this scenario.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   
First and foremost you were right you werent the one who made the China Russia remark so I apologize for that misunderstanding...


However, the people who died on Sept 11th... had nothing to do with Liberty or security... that was a government sponspored attack... but that is off topic....

I will link as many cases as I can that directly show that the Police either instigated violence amongst protesters or were truly brutal in the way they handled themselves...

Either way, I am not just mad at police.... I have thought about this critically and from the evidence that I have personally been exposed to I honestly feel that the Vast majority of police are good people... however there is a substantially large segement of the Law Enforcement community that is not as nice... they run drugs, beat confessions out of people, and are generally sadistic in the way in which the "protect" the "peace".... The LA riots is a prime example of POVERTY and what rich people sticking it to the lil man accomplishes... that was not normal protest mentality....

and since you threw up one... heres one for you... KENT STATE.... explain that one away.... you cannot... beacuse just like the LA riots it is not standard behavior, killing that is,oppression is standard.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elsenorpompom
However, the people who died on Sept 11th... had nothing to do with Liberty or security... that was a government sponspored attack... but that is off topic....


No matter who attacked us on 911, there wasn't enough security, and because of that, people lost their lives, and liberty.


Originally posted by Elsenorpompom
I will link as many cases as I can that directly show that the Police either instigated violence amongst protesters or were truly brutal in the way they handled themselves...


No evidence in the world could prove that police instigated the violence. You would have to have views from both sides of the protest, with video proof. Even then, you can not blame violence on police, people have to start taking responsibility for their own actions.




Originally posted by Elsenorpompom
The LA riots is a prime example of POVERTY and what rich people sticking it to the lil man accomplishes... that was not normal protest mentality....


The LA riots were about RACE. Between Blacks and others..




Originally posted by Elsenorpompom
and since you threw up one... heres one for you... KENT STATE.... explain that one away.... you cannot... beacuse just like the LA riots it is not standard behavior, killing that is,oppression is standard.


Are you talking about the KENT STATE shootings?

en.wikipedia.org...




Trouble erupted around midnight when intoxicated bikers left a bar and began throwing beer bottles at cars and breaking downtown store fronts including a bank window which set off an alarm. The news spread quickly and it resulted in several bars closing early to avoid trouble. Before long more people joined the vandalism and looting, with others remaining as bystanders.

By the time police arrived to restore order, a crowd numbering about 100 had already gathered and several from the crowd had lit a small bonfire in the street. The crowd appeared to be a mix of bikers, students, and out-of town youths who regularly came to Kent's bars. A few members of the crowd (believed to be bikers) began throwing beer bottles at the police, and the crowd began yelling obscenities at them. The disturbance lasted about an hour before the police restored order. By that time most of the bars were closed and the downtown and campus were quiet.



[edit on 27-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Im sorry but the LA riots were not racial... yeah they were started over the Rodney King Beating... BUT.... the issue was far deeper than superficial race... it was an inherent class dispute....


and i was talking about this kent state


Kent State the Kent State massacre, occurred at Kent State University in the city of Kent, Ohio, and involved the shooting of students by the Ohio National Guard on Monday, May 4, 1970. The shooting killed four students and wounded nine others.

The shootings were the culmination of four days of increasingly agitated demonstrations by members of the student body. The students were protesting the American invasion of Cambodia which President Richard Nixon launched on April 25, and announced in a television address five days later.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elsenorpompom
Im sorry but the LA riots were not racial... yeah they were started over the Rodney King Beating... BUT.... the issue was far deeper than superficial race... it was an inherent class dispute....


I will now ignore anything you have to say, since you don't know what you are talking about. LA riots were classified as a race riot.

en.wikipedia.org...




Originally posted by Elsenorpompom
and i was talking about this kent state
en.wikipedia.org...


Yes that is the same url I got this from...



Trouble erupted around midnight when intoxicated bikers left a bar and began throwing beer bottles at cars and breaking downtown store fronts including a bank window which set off an alarm. The news spread quickly and it resulted in several bars closing early to avoid trouble. Before long more people joined the vandalism and looting, with others remaining as bystanders.

By the time police arrived to restore order, a crowd numbering about 100 had already gathered and several from the crowd had lit a small bonfire in the street. The crowd appeared to be a mix of bikers, students, and out-of town youths who regularly came to Kent's bars. A few members of the crowd (believed to be bikers) began throwing beer bottles at the police, and the crowd began yelling obscenities at them. The disturbance lasted about an hour before the police restored order. By that time most of the bars were closed and the downtown and campus were quiet.



The Kent State riots got deadly, because the people there were violent. Throwing beer bottles at cars, the POLICE, breaking windows of a bank and setting off the alarm, setting fires... once again another classic case of people getting out of hand, and making the police use force to stop them.. I don't agree with the killings, but that was back in 1970, they didn't have the same non-lethal weapons back then..



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Dear Navy Seal,
Please take 7 hours out of your life to review this thread www.abovetopsecret.com...
You took an oath, now you need to understand what exactly is was that YOU vowed to protect.
I have read most all of your posts, and we view alot of things alike, but I fear that you really dont understand the nature of freedom.
Perhaps you were one of the people that joined the service because of love of country, like me, or perhaps (imho) you joined the service because you wanted adventure and thrills. Either way, you took an oath to defend the constitution.
When I see you saying the things you are saying here I cringe.
On a side note, Be sure to tell your grandchildren that we tried to protest the fascist police state that they live in (the coming NWO), but every time we protested the cops told us to disperse, so we did.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
I will now ignore anything you have to say, since you don't know what you are talking about. LA riots were classified as a race riot.



Well, if it's been classified as a race riot, then let's not delve any deeper into it


The LA riots were classified as a race riot because otherwise they would have to deal with the underlying social issue rather than simply adding police forces to 'certain' areas of the city.

It's much easier to blame the blacks than society.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Exactly 420... and I find it HILARIOUS Navy that you are going to ignore everything I have to say simply because my paradigm is different then yours and I see life through a much different lens...

The LA riots were not racial... I don't care who said it was... because the people who were in charge at the time would not have wanted it to come out that it was a class issue and not a race issue... By making it a "black" issue it allowed non-blacks to feel alright with themselves... it classic Large social behavioral modification... by bringing it down to Race instead of looking at actually caused people to riot... the said in essence that Blacks were pissed because they aren't as Hip/cool/rich/well-off, whatever adjective you want to use, as they're social counter parts... What you didn't see on the mainstream news at the time, and not in text books, is that while there were a lot of black people rioting there were a lot of White people Mexican people... it was LA man.... and if you are naive enough to actually believe that ONLY blacks rioted in LA... than there is really nothing that I can do for you....

And if wasnt ONLY blacks than how could it be a RACE thing... im sorry... but socio economic status trumps race any day of the week in the United States....

However seeing as I am on your ignore list.... have a nice day



[edit on 28-8-2006 by Elsenorpompom]



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Legalizer
You should be shot, with lead.

Ah I see, a fellow citizen who agrees with the law and disagrees with you should be murdered. Very enlightened.

It is every American's RIGHT to assemble

Yes, that does not mean that you have the right to assemble in public streets, block traffic, tread on public park-grounds, etc etc. All rights come with responsibilities, the public is the entity that enacted the laws that regulate the right to assemble. The police have to enfore those laws.


niteboy82
I don't even know why it mattered or came up in the first place

Feel free to review the previous posts.

Eh, symbolism, or the simple fact that they wanted to

The Law forbids it. You've got to be kidding if you beleive these kids are wearing black masks because they are making a symbolic statement. THey are wearing a mask so that they can't be id'd and charged.

Isn't a rally supposed to attract attention?

And that is precisely why there are laws controlling public assemblies, because people will make spectacular acts of violence and destruction in order to 'get the message heard'.

I wonder how that would hold up when put against a video tape

A video tape that shows what exactly? The police using rubber bullets to disperse a crowd. That is perfectly legal.

but judging by how they acted, I'm sure it could be quite biased.

How are they supposed to act? Go home and cry? Start wailing "oh lord, I had to break up a peaceful demonstration by using violence"?? Be serious, they made the decision that the group had to be broken up, the fact that they're happy about it shows that they considered it right, not that they recognize that its wrong.

Who cares if they ordered them to leave?!?

The public citizenry, speaking through the law.

If they were behaving peacefully and were within their rights then the police officers have no business telling them to leave

And if they weren't? Then they'd be correct to use non-lethal means to remove them no?


........ What a shame. No respect for your opinion here, even if you are a mod. These cops are worthless because they find self worth, and happiness thinking they "did a good job at work today" when this video demonstrates that they are nazis and horible people. These types of cops are the special kind of breed of sh!t that I take special joy in mouthing off to.

To condone police activity like this is pathetic. It's funny that you pointed out their apology, because that would be admission that they did something wrong, yet you condone what they did. I detect bullsht.

Keep up the shtty work cops, and the not so great posts Nygdan







[edit on 28-8-2006 by tha stillz]



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   
There is no excuse to how police treat protesters, with the abuse of power. I've witnessed enough of this to say it's very unneeded. It reminds me (cept my example is to a more extreme extent but same category) of the feeling I get when I watched African Americans protest in the South against segregation and the treatment they endured however peaceful they were.

Personally if I ever saw a cop do that to me I would retaliate and wouldn't care what punishment I endured afterwards, its just complete B.S. that people should be treated unfairly like that.

Never come to a protest unarmed.

But then again
remember what Gandhi said...

Civil Disobedience cept for the fact these kinds of things dont get out too far in the media.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Labeling a riot a 'race riot' is a pretty common tactic. It was used to describe every riot in the UK in the 80's and I know for a fact they weren't race riots. They were in fact organized acts of civil disobedience, by a disillusioned working class.


The riots, like those around the same time in Brixton, Handsworth, and those in 1980 in Bristol, were generally seen as "race riots", but there are many reports of similarly frustrated white youths travelling in from other areas of Liverpool to fight alongside Toxteth residents against the police[citation needed]. Blaming "race problems" allowed many people - including then Merseyside Chief Constable Kenneth Oxford - to ignore the possibility of broader social origins for the violence...
The subsequent Scarman Report (although primarily directed at the Brixton Riot of 1981) recognised that the riots did represent the result of social problems such as poverty and deprivation.


en.wikipedia.org...

(Not the best source but this one is right on)



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Either way, you took an oath to defend the constitution.


And the constitution hasn't changed. So I am doing my job right.



ITS SIMPLE PEOPLE... IF YOU PROTEST, AND YOU BREAK THE LAWS, YOU WILL BE STOPPED BY THE POLICE.

GET A DAMN CLUE.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   
withdrew post on own recognizance

[edit on 29-8-2006 by tha stillz]



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Either way, you took an oath to defend the constitution.


And the constitution hasn't changed. So I am doing my job right.



ITS SIMPLE PEOPLE... IF YOU PROTEST, AND YOU BREAK THE LAWS, YOU WILL BE STOPPED BY THE POLICE.

GET A DAMN CLUE.

Im sorry, did you say GET A DAMN CLUE?
You see, this is exactly the problem. You my friend, are the one which needs the CLUE, so I will give it to you again....
There are three types of people in the ALL VOLUNTARY military that we have.
1-Patriots, which love their country and understand that freedom is worth dying for.
2-Thrill seekers, which love adrenaline and figure they can get a rush shooting guns and jumping out of planes.
3-Poor people that see the military as an opportunity for advancement.

There are TWO types of people in law enforcement.
1-Patriots, Good, honest people that want to help and protect their fellow citizens.
2-Thrill seekers that see an opportunity to carry a gun to work and have 'authority' over others.
The second group is a serious threat to every american, and every liberty that you remain blissfully unaware of.
The police should be willing to lay down their life to protect others, not LAUGH at shooting and un-armed FEMALE AMERICAN PROTESTER.
Im not going to go as far as an earlier poster and call you a traitor, but I will tell you point blank that your concept of 'justified' is un-american.
Torture is UN-AMERICAN, Wire-Taps are UN-AMERICAN, and
Shooting ANYTHING, i dont care if it was rubber bands, at un-armed females is UN-AMERICAN.
You say you agree with WHAT they were protesting, just not HOW they were protesting.
All I can say to that is, the more the globalist screw the people of the earth, the more violent the protest will become.
As long as the police remain ignorant of their duty to serve and protect, and then people like you line up to defend them, we will continue our march towards the global police state.


As an infantry soldier I was more than willing to lay down my life to protect those that I love, including every single member of the United States, my fellow countrymen. (Even those that have NO CLUE what the U.S. or FREEDOM is about
) I was also willing to kill any man that wanted to do me or my country harm. That is why I joined the military. Rumour in my field was that Gung-ho cops like these we see in this vid were cops because they couldnt make in the military.
A police officer should be willing to lay down their life in the line of duty. To PROTECT and SERVE.
What ever happened to 'protect and serve'?
WHo are the police protecting in that footage?
Who are the police serving?
If they get such a thrill from shooting at people why didnt they join the military?

Oh yeah, they couldnt make in the military.
Do you really want to defend the actions of pigs like these?



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Yeah get a clue...lol And in caps, I can see the veins popping and steam rising from here


What you have to realize is cops are doing what they are ordered to, just a like the squady.
It doesn't matter if they're a good cop or a bad cop, if they're 'ordered' to be agressive towards the protesters they will. If they are told that 'the protesters today will be extremely violent' or 'we have to stop this protest no matter what' or something similar, then the cops will act accordingly. Some more agressively than others.
The protesters are already criminals that need to be stopped, in the eyes of the law, before the day even begins.
You also have to remember the cops are as much a 'crowd' as the protesters are.
Pls read about the psychology of crowd mentality, it might open your eyes a little.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
This is the year 2006, this is America, the police are governed by laws just as the citizens are. This isn't the 1930's and 1940's Nazi germany. Hitlers SS Henchmen sworn eternal faith to Adolf Hitler. Adolf Hitler had a religious agenda, and disliked the Jews.

You cannot compare the police of America to Hitlers Henchmen, WTF are you thinking? Do you see American police officers pin pointing the Jewish people and murdering them for being Jewish? Get a damn clue...


First, The Nazi police were also governed by laws. Laws established after the Reichstag was completly hijacked by Nazi politicians in the 1930's following the "Night of Long Knives" that cosolidated Hitler's power within his own party. Not all Germans were Nazis, and most of them (even the police) did not swear the loyalty to the Nazi political party, but most followed the suit and approved of the goverments policy.

Second, You surely must know that this goverment also has a religious agenda.

Third, no, Jews are not being murdered. Muslims are. Additionally people who fight for the freedom in this country are being bullied and persecuted.

And yes, you can make a valid historical comparison between the USA of today and the Nazi germany. This comparison as all historical comparisons is not an exact match and cannot be alone used to make predictions about future events, but there are similar traits to both governments.

Bottom line is if the people ever become complacent or intimidated by the brutality of the police and goverment crackdown on their freedoms and stop protesting against things they see as unjust this country with its beautiful history of freedom is doomed.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join