Originally posted by jimmyx
ok i'll take a stab at this
1. at other rallys like this, there have been private businesses that have had their street side property damaged. and not all have been big corporate
sites.
And yet leaders decide that this is acceptable risk. They could hold these meetings by video conference, on an aircraft carrier, in a secluded area
(like one of the many "secret" places they run to when the SHTF!) They decide to hold these meetings in urban areas where they already know there
will be the desire for protesters to gather.
Even so, the presumption that there will be crimes and damage is just that, a presumption. What you are suggesting is near "thought crime"
mentality, where people are treated as criminals before any actual crime is committed simply becuase it is "assumed" that there "could" be
trouble.
Then there is the constitution, which states that all Americans have the right to free assembly in protest. This was written for a reason. They
didn't include a clause stating "unless this poses a risk to shop windows".
Originally posted by jimmyx
2. because of this, police have been tasked to take control of these streets that are being used by the protesters
That term "control" is a worry. The Police of any state and any city are there supposedly to protect and to serve the people of that community. They
are not there to control the people.
Can you not see the very basic flaw in what you have stated?
Originally posted by jimmyx
3. you obviously have leaders of protest, that egg on other protesters that they have rights to disobey police instructions. this gets the protesters
angry, and some confront the police in a physical manner.
This I don't disagree with. There is a mob mentality that I have seen first-hand in a riot situation.
However, I will also state that all of the video and photographic evidence where riot police are attacking people, the Police seem to be the
aggressors.
There is one video of a young girl being attacked and arrested after throwing her bike. Well, I would have too, the officer was constantly shoving and
goading her while she was already walking away. His job was done, she was moving, and yet he persisted in hitting her.
What also worries me about this clip, is that the reporter on the scene openly ignores this fact. Even though he just saw it unfold, and he knows
viewers would have seen the same thing, he absolutely refuses to focus on why she reacted.
That tells me that your media (at least in this case) are failing completely to be unbiased.
Originally posted by jimmyx
4. more protesters feeling emboldened by a few, ratchet up their physical presence by throwing things, or actually pushing against the police
line.
Again, I don't disagree. But perhaps if there hadn't been such a menacing show of force to begin with there wouldn't be any need for such?
It is inevitable that these situations will happen if leaders insist on bringing their meetings to such locations.
Although, I have to add, this is their job. It is expected that riot police will confront angry crowds, that's what they are there for. To begin
complaining that things are hitting their
heavily armoured bodies is quite pathetic.
Originally posted by jimmyx
5. the police knowing that in situations like this in the past, violence has escalated quickly and police have gotten hurt.
This goes both ways. Protesters in the past have been hurt too, so why should any of them show compassion or restraint?
You wish to tarnish the actions of all by the actions of a minority, then the same can be said of the opposing side.
Despite this, please explain the footage from the University, where students on a staircase and overpass were attacked. If you watch the videos,
you'll hear them talking about the "idiot" protesters below, they were doing nothing up there but watching the chaos and discussing it. Before you
know it they are being treated to that same authoritarian punishment by riot police who have attacked from both sides and blocked their escape before
gassing them, and surprise, they suddenly understand why those many hundreds below are fighting these aggressors.
Originally posted by jimmyx
6. fearing possible escalation, that could end up in many getting hurt or even killed, the police crank up the shock and awe, to near manic level.
I'm sorry, but I am not buying this at all. I have consistently seen evidence, actual photographic and video evidence of the Riot Police in this case
escalating the violence themselves. They were the ones to march down every street, attacking and arresting people, firing sonic weaponry
indiscriminately. They were the ones to attack the University campus, blocking off all exit routes and trapping masses of students within, they were
the ones attacking bystanders and treating them as criminals.
Yes, I've seen a few clips of protesters in black rolling bins down the road, but this is nothing compared to riots in the UK, where the Police level
was actually more reasonable, and guess what, no one died!
Quite simply, this was disproportionate, and the reactions of the officers were disgusting. The authority that issued the instructions is to blame as
much as those masked, booted, Nazi cops on the ground.
The sonic weapons were certainly not needed, the constant attacking and marching was not needed, the attack on the University was not needed.
This entire thing was designed to show the people who is boss, that your constitution means nothing, that you will obey or face the wrath of "Police
officers" (I use that term very loosely) more than willing to crush your rights and freedoms.
If any of you still believe that your constitution actually means anything or guarantees you any rights, you are simply deluded beyond reason. There
is consistently evidence offered to show you that successive governments have been removing the very idea of the constitution for many years, through
laws and actions that you seem to be almost happy with.
Not once have I seen a person who supports the Police brutality in Pittsburgh actually answer the question of constitutional rights. Why is this?
Because they cannot respond to that question without admitting that the constitution was usurped.