It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Disturbing Video from Pittsburgh

page: 9
80
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 



If you want a black and white answer it is this - peaceful demonstrations will not suffice - people need to assemble in force and fully armed with automatic weapons.


Yes of course! That will work out well!


First off where are you supposed to get that many automatic weapons? Secondly do you really trust anyone else with a loaded gun? Especially the people that attended the G-20 Protest? After all these people looked like they were a week without a shower and probably know the "deep meaning of Burning Man"


That will ensure that the police will not try anything - a few hundred thousand people with guns is not something the police have any chance against - and those kind of numbers are required.


Yea, I see bad things happening with your plan. First off a few hundred thousand armed morons with no clue about tactics running around a city, many of whom started the day at an impromptu 4:20 meeting.


The police in this Pittsburg thing were quite possibly hired from third world regions - don't expect that these thugs are Americans.


Of course there were. Do you have ANY evidence to that effect or are you talking out of your keester?

Yes of course! That will work out well!




[edit on 11/18/2009 by whatukno]




posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
After watching these vids posted I am reminded of the protests in late '60's. There were massive amounts of people gathered peacefully and marching and protesting. Most people behaved. They did their business and moved on. Not a big deal.

Then the powers that be decided that indeed they are a threat and started dispatching riot police to "protect". The next thing you know you have what happened at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. So was it the protesters or the overzealous police? I guess that answer can go either way.

Anyrate, I still feel if you just left these guys alone, they would be over and done with in a few hours. Its setting the stage for a fight.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
I can guarantee that the TEA party protests were much more influential than you give them credit for, and it was done with no violence whatsoever.


I'm not sure I am aware of any policy changes taking place due to the Tea Parties, and according to Wiki, it appears that even the Tea Party protesters are developing stronger tactics in their movement, I would say that the aforementioned frustration and passion will inevitably get the better of them as they realise, controlled law abiding protests fall on deaf ears.


Some Tea party organizers have stated that they look to Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals for inspiration. Protesters have also appropriated left-wing imagery; the logo for the 9/12 March on Washington featured a raised fist design that was intended to resemble those used by pro-labor, anti-war, and black power movements of the 1960s. In addition, the slogan "Keep Your Laws Off My Body", usually associated with pro-choice activists, has been seen on signs at tea parties and has also been used by Representative Michele Bachmann.



If they had remained peaceful I could understand their point of view, I could even agree with it.


I believe the point of view can still be understood, you just hate the idea of it having to turn physical, I don't believe anyone really wants that but real change is not going to come peacefully.

[edit on 18-11-2009 by Koka]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Amagnon
 



If you want a black and white answer it is this - peaceful demonstrations will not suffice - people need to assemble in force and fully armed with automatic weapons.


Yes of course! That will work out well!


First off where are you supposed to get that many automatic weapons? Secondly do you really trust anyone else with a loaded gun? Especially the people that attended the G-20 Protest? After all these people looked like they were a week without a shower and probably know the "deep meaning of Burning Man"


That will ensure that the police will not try anything - a few hundred thousand people with guns is not something the police have any chance against - and those kind of numbers are required.


Yea, I see bad things happening with your plan. First off a few hundred thousand armed morons with no clue about tactics running around a city, many of whom started the day at an impromptu 4:20 meeting.


The police in this Pittsburg thing were quite possibly hired from third world regions - don't expect that these thugs are Americans.


Of course there were. Do you have ANY evidence to that effect or are you talking out of your keester?

Yes of course! That will work out well!

[edit on 11/18/2009 by whatukno]


I never said it would work out well, I said this is the real response that is necessary. The problem is this - you are never going to get a majority of people who really oppose the government/NWO.

As for where can you get the weapons - I am not American - but I thought you guys can buy AK-47's at the 7/11 - at least that what Micheal Moore would have us believe from his movie Bowling for Columbine. I have no idea where - but I think they are not expensive - and I was under the impression that they are legal?

If you want to protest peacefully, unless there are millions - its not going to have any effect.

There are only two ways - passive resistance by a majority of people - not paying tax, not buying crap from corporations, growing their own food, collecting water - using alternative currency, blocking roads and airports, generally being disruptive - but you literally need millions for this to be effective.

Or - if you want to protest effectively with smaller groups - then come armed. It is likely to end in violence - perhaps severe violence - perhaps war. Personally I think it should have come to war already - are people just waiting to be killed?

I applaud the guys in the video for doing it - but as you can see - the NWO are escalating their tactics of intimidation. They don't want protests - tear gassing people for no reason - hitting people for no reason - the message is clear .. if you want to protest you are going to get hurt - so don't - just accept what your told, and stay at home.

As far as foreign police officers - I can't remember where, but read it on a couple of sources that numbers were bolstered by private security agents hired from south America. Quoting sources is irrelevent - because I am not insisting its true - I am raising it as a possibility.

What I am saying is don't depend on them being Americans - because there is a chance that they are not - and if not, then don't expect much mercy.

[edit on 18-11-2009 by Amagnon]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by spliff4020
 


That's interesting, you might just have a point.

Let's look shall we?


(a 1960's era protest against the Vietnam War)


(the G-20 Pittsburgh Protests)

Note the first part of the video was the actual Permit protected protest.


Vs



Vs


I wonder what the difference is?



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Koka
 


The TEA party protests were extremely effective as it got a nation talking. Which is the entire point of an effective protest. I still believe that they were a huge success and did not fall on deaf ears. They did the protest right and the right way and for that they should be commended. THAT is how you protest. That was the ideal protest. and believe it or not it does make a difference, not immediately but it will in the elections of 2010. That is where you will see the full effect of the Tea party protesters.

 

reply to post by Amagnon
 


I cannot disagree with your stance more. I believe your plan will not only cost a lot of people their lives (which was absent in the violent protests during the G-20 but it will be counterproductive.)


As for where can you get the weapons - I am not American - but I thought you guys can buy AK-47's at the 7/11 - at least that what Micheal Moore would have us believe from his movie Bowling for Columbine. I have no idea where - but I think they are not expensive - and I was under the impression that they are legal?


Yes guns are legal here, no you cannot buy full auto assault rifles at a 7-11
Fact is you can't as a normal citizen buy any full auto assault rifles legally.

Besides the fact that No one in their right mind would trust these morons with a pea shooter let alone a full auto assault rifle, they would blow each other away.


As far as foreign police officers - I can't remember where, but read it on a couple of sources that numbers were bolstered by private security agents hired from south America. Quoting sources is irrelevent - because I am not insisting its true - I am raising it as a possibility.


If you don't have hardcore facts, and are just speculating than your just adding rumor to a discussion that is already way too slanted towards lies.






[edit on 11/18/2009 by whatukno]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by spliff4020
 


That's interesting, you might just have a point.

Let's look shall we?


(a 1960's era protest against the Vietnam War)


(the G-20 Pittsburgh Protests)

Note the first part of the video was the actual Permit protected protest.

Your video is the DNC video from Chicago.. which went quickly to hell. Could it be because of the massive police presence, LIKE I SAID?


Vs



Vs


I wonder what the difference is?




posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
As a frequent participant in protests over the last decade have seen more then my fair share altercation with various police departments. In some cases I will admit it is the fault of the protesters, and in some the fault of the responding police department. This being said, a pattern has become apparent in the "crowd control tactics" being used at protests especially in major cities.

First, the police target the perceiving "leaders" of the protest. For example in during the 2003/2002 protests in New York they went after organizer for groups such as No Blood For Oil, Not In Out Name and various other organizers. Basically doing their best to ensure the voices of reason are removed from the event.
The next step is to arrest as many of the independent journalists as possible.
After the independent journalists or anyone with a decent camera have been taken out of the picture they begin to target "aggressive" pockets of protesters. This includes drunk, or particularly eloquent protesters who could spark the mob into a frenzy. Though I do not agree wholeheartedly with this particular tactic, I would rather a peaceful protest then a riot any day, though this applies more to the drunk schmucks then those with the gift of gab.
After this has been done they begin to disrupt the parade route, in the hopes the crowd will take the bait and instead of calmly going along with the detour, go wild. This can be as subtle as splitting the protesters into different groups, or as brazen as arresting a woman and smashing her head in after the cuffs are on (I've seen both). If the bait is take then simply close off both ends of the street with that orange net crap they have, and arrest everyone there. Or move in with the horses and tear gas. or my favorite, fire the tear gas, rush in on foot with riot gear and kick the # out of everything that moves.

The last and final step is to block off exits at the end of the protest route. Trapping large crowds of tired people into one space. This is usually followed by announcements on loud speakers that "you must leave the area now, if you do not you are subject to arrest and imprisionment." With more people coming in, the space gets smaller and smaller, and eventually with the police proclaim that it is too many people, and people are not leaving of their own accord. Which is followed by arrests, or the crowd gets pissed and begins to break though the blocked off exits, resulting in arrests.

I am not saying these tactics are used by all police departments nationwide or even that these tactics are standard for any given protest. I am however saying I have witnessed them being used, and judging from the Pittsburgh videos, they are using the same play book.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
I'll be the last person to say that the police never, ever do anything wrong, but...

I find it remarkable that so many cops surrounded so many peaceful folks who weren't doing anything. Maybe it did happen, but I think we're only getting half the story.

For one thing, was this public gathering legal? Are there limits to the hours during which the parks may be used? The city has a right to make such limitations. Did these folks have a permit to gather? Again, the city has a right to require one (though they do *NOT* have a right to deny one without cause). I didn't see even a hint of violence by the protesters, nothing that would indicate that anyone misbehaved. However - I didn't see the whole thing, and neither did anyone else. Were there unruly people fighting, throwing things, etc.?

It's fun to think of the police as a bunch of mad dogs who love to stomp unarmed, helpless citizens, and unfortunately, there are a few such goons in any large police force. But... so many? Acting like this without any provocation, without anyone breaking the law? Maybe, but I'll certainly need more than one aggrieved person complaining about it.

BTW, I've been in the middle of quite a few demonstrations. I have never yet seen one in which *everyone* behaved themselves. There always seems to be at least a few knuckleheads who think it's OK to taunt the police, throw rocks and bottles, and otherwise act stupid. For every 100 decent, calm, law-abiding citizens, there's bound to be one or two who are just looking for trouble. So the notion that the whole crowd was all innocent and light just doesn't sit well with me. I have never seen it happen.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by spliff4020
 


And the single lesson to learn from all of this is that the right of the Second Amendment ensures that you retain all other rights. Period.

Just make very sure that if you are going to enact your Second Amendment right to protect your other rights that you are doing so for the correct reasons and that you are correct to take this sort of forceful action.

Now before the flames come out, let me explain.

  • No politician is going to authorize a massacre or bloodbath
  • Even if the police in riot gear out number you 5 to 1, the odds of an individual officer being shot are going to be calculated quickly. It is a rapid demoralizer.


Now obviously the point is not to plan on "shooting a cop". If that is the plan, you are in the wrong position to begin with then. But for the point of view of the officers, breaking a riot/group is a very serious situation. To know that the group is armed and many of the members may not have their guns visible means that their focus has to remain on everyone at once instead of focusing on small groups to use as an example to the rest of the crowd.

Since your group has a bullhorn use it to directly address the officers. Say something along these lines:
"It is the right of every US Citizen to have Freedom of Speech and to Peacefully Assemble. It is the duty of every US Citizen to defend these rights by force from those that would take them away. As US Citizens, we order you to Stand Down and Disperse before we must enact the Second Amendment to defend our rights. You have one minute to Stand Down and Disperse."

After 30 seconds say something like the following:
"Your Orders are to Stand Down and Disperse...Gentlemen, Ready Arms..."

At the 45 sec mark: "This is your final warning. Disperse or I will give the order to fire... Gentlemen, Take Aim."

At the time limit: "You have violated your Oath and have Failed your Duty to the People. Fire at Will."



I cannot stress enough that it is very important that you are sure that you are right in taking such an action. Be very aware that people can and will die and it is a responsibility that you will have the rest of your life. It is not a game. This course of action is a life changing event. This is not a situation that I would willing take unless I was completely ready to die and my back was against the wall. They can take my home, my car, my money and I could still bounce back and not have to resort to this kind of action.

But there are reasons to take such an action. This not a guide for when to use it but for how to go about such an action. My best advice is to be your own person for determining the why. And don't let me or anyone else tell you otherwise.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
We now, have Paramilitary police forces in western countries, how soon before people are sent to "the Gulag" and we are asked for our ID when we enter different sectors of our own country?

The disturbing image, of rows of riot police, soon quells the notion of freedom i.m.o.

[edit on 18-11-2009 by mtok7]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
this is disgusting to watch!!!..gives me a vision of how its going to be when marshal law is declared.!



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Sigh... such a complex issue.

I don't trust 3 minute videos lol.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


Threatening a police officer is illegal. If I were in a protest with someone stupid enough to follow that advice I would have to leave immediately. I am not going to die because some gun ho pseudo vigilante thinks it's his right to open fire on police.

There is a time and place for everything and a peaceful protest is not the place to bring small arms with the expressed intent on opening fire on police. (Thus undermining the message and violating the 1st amendment right your trying to uphold.)

I know you said that isn't your intent. But then quickly turned around and wrote what countdown you would use to justify to yourself how it would be ok to use live rounds on police officers.

Your idea would get a lot of people killed. It's supposed to be a peaceful protest not an excuse to take out cops.

If that is your idea of supporting your 2nd Amendment rights your too immature to hold a firearm.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Which is exactly why I stated it.

The reality is that there was nothing that was worth taking it to the extreme that I described.

Think of the post as a reality check of how strong is the cause and the person's conviction.

Heck, one time I awoke to a stranger that had broke into my house and had crawled into bed. The worst thing that he received was me asking who he was and how he got in. It didn't even warrant a call to the police in my book. In the end I even shook his hand and introduced myself. There are not too many people that would have done that because I realized that he was just a drunk college kid that made a mistake. Yes, I had the means and the legal ability to have held him at gunpoint until the police came or even to have shot the guy if he made a "wrong move."

As for the question of my maturity to have a gun, Wuky; if you knew me personally as opposed to what you think you know of me from postings you have read. I would bet you would be more than confident to hand me a gun and trust that I knew when and how to use it when the time was right.

As for Luke's (We Are Change) video, this is by no means his first time stirring the pot and being in the thick of things. Far too many people are swayed by his theatrics in such matters based on their perception of his misrepresentation of reality. What I wrote was the exact same thing just from 180 degrees.

I am personally very glad that you looked at what I presented and said to yourself "Dude, that is #ed up." Far too many people get caught up in the moment and would have followed such a "leader" in lockstep. History is full of many examples. And that is where we are today. The government only really cares if you fall in absolute line with the thinking be it left-wing or right-wing. Their only desire is that you follow and don't stop and say "Dude that is #ed up." to them.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Amagnon
 


After all these people looked like they were a week without a shower and probably know the "deep meaning of Burning Man"


That will ensure that the police will not try anything - a few hundred thousand people with guns is not something the police have any chance against - and those kind of numbers are required.


Yea, I see bad things happening with your plan. First off a few hundred thousand armed morons with no clue about tactics running around a city, many of whom started the day at an impromptu 4:20 meeting.



Mmmm, personal attacks and baseless assumptions. You stay classy Whatukno. It was neat how you made it seem that every protestor was an anarchist, when it was clearly the minority. But please, tell us more about how they love burning man.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Exemplar
 


The ones that were confronting the police sure were. The ones that were at the peaceful permitted protest might not have been. But you don't see that many videos about the peaceful protest that happened now do you? Of course you don't. Why? Because that would ruin the slant and spin people want to put on this as to show what meanies and bullies the police were.

I'm not saying all of the people involved with the protest were that way. Of course we haven't been discussing the legal and permitted protest this entire time either, we have however been talking about the idiots who don't quite understand peaceful protests, (personal hygiene), and what it's like to actually have a job. People are way too PC nowadays. I refuse to sugar coat things.

I know if your one of those people who think that all cops are bad guys that go around tazing people for kicks and giggles, there is nothing that I can say that is going to make you change your mind. I accept that.

But ponder this. What would happen if you had a ton of people that had no permit and had no other business in an area all masked holding signs and chanting along with their pet flaming dumpster? Wouldn't that be a cause to worry? What if these same people were smashing up windows, and in general causing a ruckus? Would you just allow them to destroy your town? If the police did nothing don't you think this thread would be about the lack of action during horrific riots and how the government failed to act even though a violent riot was burning down half of Pittsburgh? I think it would.

So the cops get to take the heat as bad guys once again and the people of Pittsburgh can at least know that they have their businesses intact.

[edit on 11/19/2009 by whatukno]



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   
its ridiculous...you need a permit to protest??? so...the government bring out a crazy unjustified inhumain law one day and a unch of people want to protest it....they need to ask that government for the permission to protest the law theyve just enforced so they can try and overrule it? this law is insane...it just means the government can do anything they want and then ban you from arguing against it...wtf????



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
So, this is one of those odd cases where a really good journalist would come in handy.
From what I see there looks to be a disproportionate police presence, but one thing I can't be sure of is the number of protesters so it's impossible to say.
If you read up on the event in question the police were on site because the protesters were blocking a "major highway" and the arrests on those charges and disorderly conduct followed.
The local paper says the police laid down a protective wall of tear gas, so who knows what really happened.
From what I read as well, there were 72 people arrested, in total and most of those cases have gone away. So ultimately I can't know the real story here. I wish I could, which is another reason to be frustrated by the rise of advocacy journalism and the decline of real who, what, where, when, why journalism.
Here's one thing to think about in a broad sense: the Constitution guarantees you freedom of speech and assembly but there is the reasonable (I think) falsely shouting 'fire in a crowded movie house' caveat.
So in any situation like this citizens and the courts have to ask themselves were the protesters putting other citizens at risk by their actions or were they truly 'threatening' to police.
Ultimately, a cop can arrest anyone for anything as long as he thinks he has probable cause. The potential for abuse on the front end is HUGE. Problem is that for regular old citizens defending ourselves against these charges and proving that there was no probable cause is expensive, and risky.
So if you're dealing with an angry cop who decides he's had enough of you and throws the cuffs on, you're looking at a months (years) long hassle in getting yourself cleared.
That explains why so many people in this case decided to go for 50 hours of community service in exchange for having the charges dropped. It's unfair but one thing we all still get is our day in court, and if you can prove there wasn't probable cause, your fellow citizens will clear your name.
Democracy is messy, and ultimately this guy may have been mistreated but he is going to get his day in court, and his fellow jurors will clear him if he was arrested unfairly. I have to believe that system works on that level (the whole celebrity, high level govt. justice system is another case entirely).



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Silicis n Volvo
 



its ridiculous...you need a permit to protest??? so...the government bring out a crazy unjustified inhumain law one day and a unch of people want to protest it....they need to ask that government for the permission to protest the law theyve just enforced so they can try and overrule it? this law is insane...it just means the government can do anything they want and then ban you from arguing against it...wtf????


The states are the ones that require a permit.

Listen, it's simple. While yes you have the absolute right to protest (freedom of speech) you don't have the right to disrupt traffic. You don't have the right to block the entrances of buildings public or private. This is the reason for the permit. It's not to stop you from protesting, its to cover the city for having to divert traffic around your protest spot.

I have pulled permits for block parties. It's not that hard. The city just wants to know what is going on. A good protest is planned months in advance. That way you have all your ducks in a row beforehand so that you have the location you want, the personnel you want, the people you want protesting with you etc. It's a large undertaking to plan and host a large protest. That is why the permit is required. It's not to stop you from exercising your 1st amendment rights it's more to plan to move the city around your activity.

When you go outside of this protest area especially in a large city it causes a lot of problems. It causes problems with traffic, it causes problems with emergency personnel that may have to try and get through where you have decided to protest. This is the problem that happened during the G-20 protest. They not only decided to protest in areas they did not have a permit for, they decided to start breaking windows, overturning or lighting dumpsters on fire and generally they decided to be Jack Asses about the whole thing.

This is why the police decided to use less than lethal force against them. If they had stuck to the scheduled protest they wouldn't have had any problem.



new topics

top topics



 
80
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join