Is this the USA you know and love?

Police tactics used to disperse a large student assembly at the University of Pittsburgh on Friday evening have become the focus of an Internet media firestorm.

Multiple videos of the police action against apparently peaceful students have surfaced on the Internet. Confirmed details apart from recordings are scarce at this hour, but the first clip included below shows two officers in riot gear hitting a young female with batons, while others show numerous seemingly random arrests taking place as students were forced out of the public areas on campus by police firing tear gas and other projectiles.

rawstory.com...









I know that we sometimes don't like what Alex Jones has to say. Perhaps though he's right about us becoming more and more of a police state.

The right to a protest is guaranteed under the first amendment. Yet these people were oblivious of that and they used force to disrupt a peaceful student assembly that weren't doing anything wrong.

This kind of stuff makes me ashamed to be an American sometimes.


Well, is this the America you know and love?

[edit on 26-9-2009 by Frankidealist35]

reply to post by Frankidealist35

The right to a protest is guaranteed under the first amendment. Yet these people were oblivious of that and they used force to disrupt a peaceful student assembly that weren't doing anything wrong.

They didn't acquire a permit to hold a public demonstration, and the police were justified in removing them until a permit was obtained. Remember, that's not just the protesters property. That property belongs to all the tax payers of Pittsburgh, and some citizens might not want protesters there. That's why you need a permit. The permit also establishes boundaries so traffic and emergency services aren't hindered.

They don't like being harassed by the cops? Then don't break the law! Which IS what America is founded on. Rule of Law. Welcome to the Republic Cupcakes. Sides, you think protesting means a jack-s* to anybody? It's a way to get your voice heard, but it doesn't mean you have the right to get your way, nor that anyone will care.

Public safety officials said Friday night that 83 people were arrested at protests and other events and about $50,000 in property damage was done during the two-day summit, which ended Friday. They said a man who smashed store and business windows in the city's Oakland section on Thursday night was responsible for about $20,000 in damage.

$50,000 in property damage... Breaking shop windows out in Oakland? Yeah. Nothing wrong. They knew damned well they needed a permit to demonstrate, and they just refused. Matter of principle, whatever. What the hell did people expect would happen? Cops show up, try to disperse the crowd, crowd gets angry, somebody pushes, somebody pushes back... and then people here try to compare those police officers to the Gulag or Nazis or whoever?

reply to post by Lasheic


These people weren't even protesting. Did you watch the video? These students were just assembling peacefully and the police came and then arrested them. If they weren't protesting they had the right to be there. They were just sitting there. If they were protesting though that would be a problem but they weren't.

[edit on 26-9-2009 by Frankidealist35]

reply to post by Lasheic


A permit to exercise your First Amendment rights. You would probably be happy if people had to have permission to travel.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


1. Did they have permission to be there?

2. Would that event with the student have even occured if the protesters got a permit and didn't set things up to be a cluster*@#$?

If they didn't want to deal with the stink, they shouldn't stir the S###-pot. No, I didn't watch the video with the student. That's not the point I'm trying to make. I'm trying to get someone to explain why the protesters purposefully and (I highly suspect, knowingly) broke the law by not obtaining a permit. Those officers have highly stressful jobs, and when you put them in a highly stressful position - it's like poking the hornets nest. Only a matter of time before someone gets stung.

reply to post by Lasheic


1. They were students and they probably lived around there
2. They weren't protesting

I advise you to watch the video. They were just assembling. They didn't have signs up. They weren't doing anything wrong. Since they weren't protesting they didn't need a permit. You don't need a permit to assemble.

[edit on 26-9-2009 by Frankidealist35]

Man this is like in those movies, exactly! its sick

Looks to me that the police are the agressors in these videos. Such intimidating tactics are designed to inflame a situation, rather than to disperse a peacefull demonstration. It is increasingly obviouse that freedom of speach through demonstrations is no longer a right anymore.

i did feel a bit bad for the PoPo in the beginning of all this G20 mess they had to keep control of. but it seems they don't deserve sympathy in the least...did they really take that girl down at the end of the first video? i bet they feel like big men now.

what really got me is that it seems in the first video, at least, there are a good amount of students not involved in the protesting...just doing what they would on any old friday night...and are getting gassed and worse because of it??!!

things like this should outrage the average american...and sadly it does...but that outrage is instead taken out on their fellow american and doesn't go where it belongs...big brother and his henchmen.

reply to post by SpacePunk

A permit to exercise your First Amendment rights. You would probably be happy if people had to have permission to travel.

It has nothing to do with your freedom of speech, press, or religion. What it applies to, in this case is.....

the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Ok, now follow me here. Nobody infringed on those protesters right to assemble peaceably. But think, (please, god.. THINK), how would you feel if you had a group of protesters on your front yard raising banners for a topic you strongly opposed. You'd be well within your rights to kick the hell off your property.

If the protesters want to rally on privately owned property without the owners permission, they can be removed and assemble elsewhere.

If the protesters want to rally on PUBLICLY owned property - they would need a permit - as they are using OTHER PEOPLES, as well as their OWN property. It's a social agreement to manage the use of public property for JUST SUCH EVENTS... as well as mitigate traffic obstructions, ensure open lanes for emergency vehicles, etc.

Just because you have a federally guaranteed right to assemble, doesn't mean you can exercise it where you want, when you want, how you want. You live in a SOCIETY with other citizens who may or may not support or care about your protest. The first amendment right does not grant you the freedom to be a jackass to the rest of society in the exercise of your rights and ONLY your rights regardless of others.

reply to post by Lasheic


Please explain to me, where in the constitution does it say a permit is required to protest?

So protesting doesn't achieve anything?

What about Martin Luther King and Gandhi?
Did they have no effect? Should they have just sat on their backsides like the rest of the American population is doing now and has been doing for the past eight years, or do you think standing up for your principles and what you believe in is actually worth something.

The police in the video reminded me of these guys

Combine

reply to post by Kram09

Please explain to me, where in the constitution does it say a permit is required to protest?

(**Note**: Correction in interpretation of federal vs. state law provided by finemanm below.)

The Federal Constitution applies to Federal guarantees. The Federal Government could not deny those protesters the right to public assembly. And the Federal Government, did not have a hand in it. This occurred in City of Pittsburgh, located in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Each state has their own Constitution which you live under that lays out the power and reach of the State government.

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Article 1: Section 20. The Right to Petition.

You also have levels of government on the County and Township level.

As this is a STATE ISSUE, and not a Federal Issue - the State of Pennsylvania is the one granting the Right to Petition.


~~~~The Permit the Protesters were lacking was NOT A PERMIT TO PROTEST. It was a permit for the USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY FOR AN EVENT~~~~~~

This now, falls under the Pittsburgh City Code of Ordinances.

Should be under Title Four: Public Places and Property IIRC.

So protesting doesn't achieve anything?

I never said that. I said that just because you are guaranteed a voice of protest, doesn't obligate anyone to give a rats ass about you or your protest. If can you turn heads in a peaceful manner, great. If not, suck it up and keep marching.

Protest against social injustice, unfair trade embargoes, frivolous deficit increases, and other issues. Express you views with conviction. Just don't EXPECT a response, or get the idea that they're required to meet your demands.

[edit on 26-9-2009 by Lasheic]

reply to post by Lasheic


Okay thanks for that.

I have to admit the intricacies of your government seem a little confusing to me.

thids makes me sick..

you hear the announcers voice?

Could it be anymore monotone? Its like a movie...

What in the hell is going on?

I wish someone woul dmake a poster sign saying:

Authorities: Obey the CONSTITUTION. Not the politicians.

No where in the US Constitution does it state that you need a permit to assemble; however, the Courts have ruled that the States can regulate when and where a group may assemble out of a concern for public safety and convenience.

The Courts have stated that a city or state can require you to ask for a permit and for the city or state to act within the Constitution, it must grant to permit or deny it for a legitimate reason. The city or state cannot deny requests for permits arbitrarily or on the basis of a discriminatory reason.

That being said, on an individual level, these are public streets and sidewalks. People can walk the streets and be free of unreasonable search and seizure under the 4th Amendment.

If I just happened to be walking through the middle of these protests, I should have a right to stand to the side and watch what happens without fear of being hit with rubber bullets and tear gas, like those kids I saw in another video watching from an outdoor stair case on their college campus.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


Star and flag btw..

As loud of a vocal and detractor I am about Alex jones and his profiteering off peoples idealisms, he should be there being the voice he supposedly is.

before i count him out, does anyone know if he has been there?

this is one time his bullhorn should be let loose...

reply to post by open_eyeballs


Perhaps they can make their own monotone recording of "Authorities: Obey the CONSTITUTION. Not the politicians." Then play it through a megaphone.

Originally posted by colloredbrothers
Man this is like in those movies, exactly! its sick

I'm pretty sure it's supposed to remind us of those. It's predictive programming in action.

reply to post by Lasheic


Just to correct you on your interpretation of federal vs. state law:

The US Constitution sets a minimum floor on civil liberties. The states are free to grant more rights that the federal constitution - which several do - however, a state does not have the power to infringe of federal rights.

Initially, the first ten amendments where interpreted as to only apply to the federal government; however, the 14th amendment imposes federal law on the states to create a certain minimum level nationally recognized rights.

Just one simple example of the above: 6th Amendment right to counsel.

Federal Rule: When a person in custody requests to speak to his lawyers before answering questions, the Federal Courts have held that if law enforcement persuades the prisoner to talk to them subsequent to the initial invocation of the right the counsel, so long as that person is read his rights and subsequently waives his right to counsel, the statement given to law enforcement is admissible at trial against him.

New York Rule: When a person request to speak to his lawyer prior to answering any questions from law enforcement when that person is in custody, he cannot effectively waive that right without his lawyer actually present in the room with him.

As you can see, the New York Rule sets a higher standard than the federal rule. In the federal courts, the person can change his mind and speak to law enforcement without actually consulting with an attorney while in New York, he cannot, and anything he says to the cops outside the presence of his lawyer that is in response to questioning will be suppressed.

On the other hand, if the federal rule was the New York rule, then all fifty states would have to make the invocation of the right to counsel irrevocable. However, under federal law it is revocable and that is the minimum standard.

reply to post by finemanm


Ah, thank you for the correction. I can't believe I borked that point.

For what it's worth, I'm gonna blame my cousin and the convoluted gun laws in Chicago for throwing me off. (All handguns purchased must be registered, but you cannot register a handgun - meaning you can only own a registered handgun if it falls under the... (I think) Grandfather clause) I still don't understand how that effective ban has thus far stood without some kind of major momentum to remove it.

On the bright side, I might get a dirt cheap .500 Mag on the caveat that he gets to fire it as much as he wants at the range over here.

[edit on 26-9-2009 by Lasheic]