reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
I am not confused at all. First I do not condone violence as a solution to problems. All sides lose in confrontations, in some way or some
Then what exactly do you plan to do about such 'grave injustices?'
Second we aren't talking about these forums, we are talking about a very specific block party.
It's one in the same. If the event were isolated, then you and I would not be discussing it, as neither of us were present or at all involved.
Third while I do condemn it even in such forms, as overly provacative and counter productive most of the people making statements of supporting
violence against the police, is as a self defensive measure in cases of abuse such as the one we have seen here at this block party.
Please... describe the "abuses."
All you complain about is some people - scary looking - who show up and make some arrests for vandalism and assault.
Having said that it's been my own experience that those who talk about using violence in conversational settings, are the least likely to
employ it in actual confrontational settings.
Well, you seem to have a lot of experience that makes your opinion absolute, now don't you.
In all honesty - such talk is discouraging. People like that are simply not worth protecting. Whether they really mean violence or not - they are
unwilling to participate in the system yet insist upon making demands of it.
I can't believe you are this out of touch with reality. It's a party, guys drink and want to get laid, cops showing up at your party tend to
scare off the girls, and make it hard to get laid, this make guys who want to get laid unhappy.
Have you even paid attention to the environment? It was the middle of the day. The police were -outside- and dealing with issues -outside- .
The cops had been present since the party began, checking IDs. Nothing changed until there was interference with EMS and the vandalism began.
This can lead to them displaying that unhappiness at those responsible for them not getting laid.
And unemployment can lead to people not having incomes. That doesn't suddenly make theft legal.
Right back at you.
I live in Miami Beach and we get upwards to 400,000 visitors flooding into a few square miles every weekend. The police some times do have to
make hard decisions to let ordinances go unenforced to prevent riots from occuring.
The Aztecs had this practice every time a solar eclipse came around. They believed a dragon, if I remember correctly, was devouring the sun-god.
Sacrifices were made to strengthen the sun-god so that he could overcome the dragon (or something to that effect). It worked every time. The sun
went back to being normal.
Good for them, and good for your police officers.
Some promoter sells 5,000 tickets to a venue that the Fire Marshall has rated for 3,000. They make decisions as they need to, to maintain the
'Sall well and good until there's a fire.
The chief of police is going to get an ass reaming in the event that happens. And rightfully should.
All the police were in similiar uniform, polo shirts and shorts, no riot gear, and there was hardly any trouble at all, a broken window a half
a dozen arrests, compared to Seattle and South America and every G-20 since, it was a miracle, or was it just a good old fashion cop, doing some good
old fashion proactive police work, treating people with respect and dignity, and putting a personal face on it all.
Sure - that's fine. But you can bet they had plenty of multi-district task forces stationed in the area and ready to deploy at a moment's
We can monday-morning quarter-back all we want to. A different approach from the beginning may or may not have curbed the events later in the day.
The problem is, however, that regardless of what actions the police department took before-hand - the citizenry had no right under the law to commit
vandalism or assault police officers. Once these events started, the police were deployed as a measure to prevent further escalation of the
Whether the actions taken early-on are successful in delaying the onset of civil unrest/riots, or not - it does not change the law or the
responsibility of law enforcement to uphold the law within their allowed means.
Yes, I am not hampered by a chain of command or a book that I have to follow with standardized thinking and have a wealth of experience in all
kinds of crowds and social situations.
On the surface to most people a group of hundreds of kids drinking and milling about looks intimidating, until you step back and realize that's all
they really are doing and want to do.
This is all well and good - until you factor in the "seemed like a good idea at the time..." effect. You are correct, in that most crowds will tend
to mind their own collective business and not be a bother.
But if that were absolute, we wouldn't have riots. Riots always start over some conflict or another - some idiot brings up politics in one of these
drinking parties and starts a rift. Someone gets angry at a car for some irrelevant reason and starts bashing it - and soon it becomes the thing to
do to bash cars. The more agitated the crowd - the more likely they are to amplify the destructive tendencies of their individuals, rather than
ignore or subdue them.
Teenagers and young adults without families are far more likely to riot and commit to violent acts than those without families. Simple as that.
While the behavior of crowds can be explained and resolved - it cannot be predicted beyond probability. Random events pop up within the members of a
crowd that may or may not be amplified by the crowd as a whole. Predicting when, where, and what those events will be is subject to the uncertainty
They simply want to be left alone in the process, or at least respected in their right and ability to hold such a function.
You have the right to peacefully assemble. You do not necessarily have the right to do so without registering the event with the local government,
and you don't have the right to break other laws and local ordinances in the process.
Nor do you have the right to hold such a function and be without law-enforcement observation/interaction.
Once again this is a siege mentality laced with paranoia.
That's pretty rich.
Yet you are presenting what is a sound argument for much fewer numbers to have to coordinate and a much more reasoned approach to crowd
That is a very small task force for riot control. Considering that is a multi-jurisdictional task-force (which would be about the only response to
riots) - they simply need more training working together.
For crowd-control, you need numbers - unless your objective is to -kill- the people in the crowd. Then you could easily address a riot of a few
thousand people with a team of only a hundred or so - depending upon how many thousands are present and the relative terrain.
The more riot police you have, the less likely it will be necessary to resort to lethal force. The better organized they are - the less likely they
are to be attacked or exploited.
The more elements you employ, which you have already admitted lack training and discipline the more likely one will engage in a needless
provacative act in the confusion that such large numbers create.
Rule number one, keep it simple, keep it stupid.
And, yet - they were the best equipped and trained to handle the situation.
You don't get into government and suddenly have time-control abilities. Neither is this a cliche anime plot-line where you have access to a
"hyperbolic time chamber" and give teams weeks of training in a few hours. You've got what you've got... ready or not.
Which you concede this overly large, and overly armed force was not. Hence the situation escalating with their presence and actions not
I wouldn't say the force was too large. Nor were they over-armed. Not one was armed with more than a side-arm - in terms of lethal weaponry. Had
they not been wearing protective gear - a number would have suffered considerable injury from flying glass bottles - which would have been thrown at
them regardless of their attire (in several of the videos - we can clearly see bottles being thrown at the standard officers near the squad car making
requests of the crowd).
They were not equipped with full defensive shields (which can often house a 'tazer' system) or ranged riot-control weapons ('rubber' bullets and
the like). It was a rather mild response.
Providing the money in budget stretched departments allow for it.
Law Enforcement is a business, one that operates on a budget, one that is designed when and at all possible to earn a profit.
Most local law enforcement budgets are being cut and restricted as a consequence of a declining real estate tax base due to the foreclosure crisis.
Using a anual party as a pretext to conduct such training makes it easier to sell city managers, councils and police cheifs on overtime.
It's very simple. Welcome to the real world of real logic.
Has this region's budget seen cuts to the police force?
Can you provide any other evidence of this conspiracy you dreamed up?
Burden of proof is with you, buddy.
Other than the riot police showing up, and you not personally seeing a reason for it... what else leads you to believe this was a training
The deployment of such a force was unessecary, it led to more destruction and violence than it curtailed. It was an utter failure and disgrace
to the Department heads that authorized and deployed it.
The force deployed to deal with the crowd was not enough at the time. The 'normal' police officers were getting pelted with beer bottles and had
started setting fire to property and vandalizing public property.
A force capable of dealing with the situation was deployed. The destruction was already being caused after 'typical' police action was being taken.
The videos clearly show that the longer the riot police were in the area - the fewer bottles were hurled in their direction - such that as they
withdrew, few things were thrown their way. The party was allowed to continue - with the majority of people just looking on and marking it as an
Deploying this excessive and ill trained force on peaceful college party goers was a retarded idea.
Calling that party "peaceful" is retarded. It certainly started that way - but it rapidly took a turn for the chaotic.
Because there would have been no need for the riot police.
Logic fail. You really must be a lawyer. I could take your job in my sleep.
Your logic: Riot police were necessary to control the crowd, therefor, plain-clothes police and proactive measures were not in place.
You're relying upon the notion that plain-clothed proactive police measures will prevent riots and civil unrest. This is not the case - there is no
causal relationship between the two that is so absolute that the break-out of riots or civil-unrest indicates a lack of such initiatives.
You have failed to establish actual attacks on the EMTS and proactive police work properly done would have more or less ensured no such
confusion took place.
Not sure what to tell you, buddy - that's the word in the news reports from a number of sources. Without having access to confidential information
and records - I can't really offer you more. How about we subpoena the hospital for records of EMT dispatches related to alcohol poisoning on that
Further - your claim that "proper proactive police work would have ensured no such confusion" is kind of silly. While true in an ideal case - the
real world is never so forgiving. The only way you can determine what is "proper" is in the post-operation debrief. You never have all the
information you need going in, and never know enough about what is going on at the time decisions are made.
You simply want to cower them with force, and cowering people is the least effective way to control them, as the video displays some people
will in fact fight back when attempts to cower are needlessly employed.
Please do not make assumptions about my personality.
I agree - were I doing the debrief of this operation, I would have been stressing better proactive measures. However - I would not have neglected the
reactive measures. When you react to a developing situation such as this with force - the time for being optimistic is over. You deploy, you do so
professionally, and you don't second-guess what you are up against - you go in prepared for the worst and don't start thinking "that wasn't so
bad" until tomorrow at noon.
There are two sides to the coin. Your proactive initiatives and your reaction forces. Both are equally important.
Were I in this department, I would likely have my own criticisms about the way events unfolded within the command structure and more knowledge of how
things actually were going on the ground through the entirety of the day. Since I don't - I can only go based off of what I have read in the news
and seen in the videos.
The 'normal' police simply weren't cutting it and the crowd was being obstinate. At which point - crowd control was called in, being equipped to
handle the situation. A logical choice.
Was the issue worth pressing? Should the police have just let it drop? That is something best left up to the city council and state government to
review - as they have far more of the relevant data and can call far more witnesses than you or I. Personally - it is rather irrelevant to our little
discussion whether or not it was really worth it. They did - and from our perspective, that is all that really matters. That is why we hold
elections for the executive positions that make those kinds of decisions - and why those executives are held accountable to the voters of that
If that is the type of response that community want to such actions - that is the type of response they are free to encourage. If not - they can
prompt legislators to write laws curbing such deployments, and/or vote in executive authorities that speak out against such actions.
And that, I believe, is the most important set of points I can make - perhaps I will have to post them separately so as they will not be obscured
within a bunch of back-and-forth drivel.
Let me ask you did you see any kids in these videos with side arms, night sticks, mace or sound cannons?
Man up already, these are a bunch of kids, not the SAS.
You don't seem to understand the concept of law enforcement.
Going into a situation equipped equally to those you are trying to enforce the law upon is, to be blunt, stupid. Law enforcement is always
out-numbered. If all of those students wanted to - they could have torn those officers to shreds. The whole entire premise of law enforcement is to
deter attack and be equipped to quickly handle those that are more determined to be obstructive.