It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Mass Arrests, Tear Gas, Sound Weapons used Against West Illinois University Students

page: 32
<< 29  30  31   >>

log in


posted on May, 6 2011 @ 02:07 PM
The only real riots are the people protesting the World Trade Organisation and the secret Bilderberger meetings.

Thousands of protesters and hundreds of cops get beat up and/or send to the hospital and a few people die.

So when is the next meeting? Any takers?

Or what about another East LA riot with nazi low riders, cribs, aryan brotherhood, kkk, etc

Damm the old days used to be interesting...........

posted on May, 6 2011 @ 04:33 PM
reply to post by poet1b

Two hundred people setting things on fire? And this isn't an exaggeration on your part?

When several people (new faces cycling into and out of the event) set a fire, with over 200 people cheering in support - what would you call it? Obviously, due to this thing called physics, two 'bodies' cannot occupy both the same space and the same time.

You make it sound like a mob running around with torches out to burn down the town.

And you make it sound like they lit up the barbecue grill.

Two, three, maybe a few more people started a small fire off the side of the road, where for some strange reason they burn a bicycle, then throw a stop sign on top. From the beginning I have wondered how they got that stop sign out of the ground. Typically those things are cemented, and it takes quite a bit of work to get one out of the ground. How did patrolling police not notice that activity.

Three or four people can remove a stop-sign from its base. If a car will go right over them like they aren't even there - a few people can pull them up out of the ground.

It would take all of thirty seconds to pull a stop-sign out of the ground with about three people. By this time, the police were responding to the mob that had formed.

Police are not omnipresent. Again - you want to use a lack of omnipotence in defense of obstructive behavior.

There aren't 200 people chanting, twenty, thirty tops. Pause the video and count, I get about 19 in the main body of guys chanting f--=k the police, and it sounds like that is about all they are. The rest of the crowd are just standing off in the distance, watching.

That's a negative. Videos that have a wider scope show the group cheering on the destruction of the stop-sign and a much more prolific "# the police" response.

Look at the video, they are laughing. Not exactly a vicious bunch of thugs looking to burn down the town the way you want to describe. They are a bunch of drunk college kids trying to act cool, and hoping to get laid later on, not a bunch of thugs looking to bring down death and destruction.

Who have repeatedly obstructed police and emergency medical service efforts.

They had already started adding to the fire - a stool and what appear to be parts of a chair have been added. Perhaps they were "donated" - perhaps not. That situation was growing out of hand: of the people involved to control themselves.

Police efforts to operate in the area had continually been obstructed, and in order to make arrests of those being destructive and breaking laws - the group had to be made to disperse.

God forbid that the well paid cops, with their job security and extremely generous retirement plans have to actually do their job and deal with a small group of college kids.

That's exactly what they did.

They had been routinely harassed when attempting to escort EMS to individuals with critical levels of alcohol poisoning. The likely result of a small cadre of police coming in to arrest the 'heroes' of that group of 200+ people would have been not unlike the response to the officers at the squad car - or the riot-equipped officers, once they began to advance (except non-riot equipped officers would have been driven back - because taking beer bottles to the skull takes its toll)

You don't think the police in a college town should know how to deal with drunken college students at a college party? That is their job. Those are their customers, and they should be doing their best to keep them happy. Their college loans are what is paying the bills.

Over half the people at the party were not residents or college students.

There isn't any fighting going on here, no demonstrations of violence at all.

Other than setting things on fire and tearing up public property.

What? Should we be expecting the riot police spraying people down with mace everytime a fight breaks out at a local event?

Sure, if you stand in the way of police officers when they try to do their job.

This is a school known for its law program - most of the students enrolled are students of law. A number of the police in that force have attended these parties back in their college years.

What the police should have done, let them have their moment, watching from a respectable distance, then when it winds down, walk up and put out the fire, arrest any trouble makers if they hang around.

When the police did finally show up (and before the riot-equipped officers were deployed) - the response was "# you!" by a large group surrounding the individuals causing trouble.

No, instead they go crazy, break out the riot police, and the noise weapons, and apply copious amount of pepper spray on any students who get within their range.

The response was quite measured. Unless you were brain-dead and couldn't figure out how to keep your distance - you were fine. Sonic weapons are obnoxious - but, again - when tear gas and sound weapons come out, I tend to move where they aren't.

Now - a few of the individuals involved took things a bit too far - running up and spraying down a whole porch full of people is not necessary.

The police reaction was way overboard.

It really wasn't.

I'm not unfamiliar with crowds or the concept of dealing with them. We have the state fair in this town - and the population doubles over a two-week period. If a group in the trailer parks started setting fire to things and tearing up road signs while screaming "# the police" when officers arrive to get a hold of those causing trouble... it pretty well indicates that a fairly high percentage of those in the immediate area are looking for trouble.

I'm not sure if this area is really equipped to handle riots or not - so the situation may just end up turning into a shoot-out.

Which is why people don't really understand how to handle this "riot" control. It was once a very specialized type of policing and only supported and trained for in areas that held large sporting events and other types of similar activities. It has recently become more affordable and multi-jurisdiction task forces can now muster together a riot control team that offers non-lethal solutions to law enforcement.

Solutions that were otherwise unavailable.

The available solutions, without riot control, are "set up a cordon and hope the situation contains itself" or "confront an obstructive group of superior numbers and likely result in a live-fire exchange."

With riot control, lethal force doesn't even have to enter the picture - so issues that would, previously, have never been addressed now have a solution that does not involve killing half a dozen people to arrest five people for vandalism.

Now - we can argue all day about whether or not it was necessary.

From our perspective - it's really irrelevant. The community there decides whether or not it was necessary and whether or not that is the kind of law enforcement they want.

From the perspective of you and I - it's merely a matter of accepting that the police were not -wrong- in what they did. They were completely within their legal authority.

Maybe their chief was a little anxious to deploy the riot police and that affected his/her judgment. Maybe not.

From the details I have been able to gather and piece together - the response was justified. Police payment and retirement plans don't fall into the picture - that is a completely separate issue of government. Now - I am trying to remember what side of the issue you were on - but I seem to have you placed in the category of "people who were against placing limitations on public-service unions." Which is a bit silly, given your criticism of the department, here.

posted on May, 6 2011 @ 04:59 PM
reply to post by Aim64C

And you make it sound like they lit up the barbecue grill.

No I didn't, this is what I said.

Starting a bonfire on the grass, is not on the street, and it wasn't two hundred kids standing around this bonfire

You completely falsify what I said, just as you have distorted everything about this incident. The videos and the other statements back my claims and prove your version wrong. The original reporter who was at the event clearly states the fire was started by two or three people. Your claims have no credibility at all.

posted on May, 8 2011 @ 06:53 AM
Police are just getting out of hand but what can you expect when a person is too afraid to deal with their own problems.

posted on May, 8 2011 @ 11:52 AM
reply to post by poet1b

You completely falsify what I said, just as you have distorted everything about this incident.

I have distorted nothing, my awareness-challenged friend.

Over 200 people were standing around this fire and cheering on those carrying out the activities, to include the destruction of the stop-sign.

In -every- civilized locale I have ever visited, stop-signs are placed within about a foot or less of the road, and burning is usually prohibited within at least fifteen feet of the road without special authorization. To claim the fire was not in the street is an affront to the reality of the event.

The videos and the other statements back my claims and prove your version wrong. The original reporter who was at the event clearly states the fire was started by two or three people. Your claims have no credibility at all.

What you lack is a proper understanding of crowd dynamics.

A lynch mob really only involves a few people actually grabbing someone and killing them. The rest are simply there to yell profanities and express their dislike of the individual(s) being killed.

Were three black men to be hung from the water tower of this town with a group of people in attendance and supporting the event - you would be singing a completely different tune to a rather logically similar event. Only a few people actually involved - the rest just "standing around."

The available videos depict that the fire and destruction of the stop sign were clearly praised by well over 200 people in the general vicinity. Further - this was expressed toward uniformed police officers as a generally obstinate and disruptive sentiment by this same group of people.

The problem is that you simply can't handle reality, or handle the enforcement of law.

"They were just college kids having fun."

Doesn't matter - they are of legal age where they are supposed to know better than to do blatantly illegal stuff, and "just having fun" is not a justification. Listen to a few country songs - law enforcement and "good ol boys just having fun" have often been at odds. We're just on a different scale here.

In the end - nothing we say to each other is going to change our opinion of the situation. To me, you're a degenerate in this area and represent the erosion of standards due to "progressive" thought (that, honestly, I find to be more regressive than anything).

You'll see me as an authoritarian party-pooper who wants to express everything by force.

And we'll simply agree to disagree.

posted on May, 8 2011 @ 12:08 PM
reply to post by Aim64C

So in your opinion, everyone standing around in the general vicinity is guilty, even though only a few of them were chanting.

Most of students watching this probably thought that starting the fire and tearing down the sign was not only wrong, but a a stupid act, and I agree with that, just as I see the bringing out of the riot gear as equally stupid.

You are clearly incapable of seeing this from a reasonable perspective.

posted on May, 8 2011 @ 02:23 PM
reply to post by poet1b

So in your opinion, everyone standing around in the general vicinity is guilty, even though only a few of them were chanting.

I have posted, I believe, three videos from three different cameras that show the stop-sign being torn down and have a better angle on the crowd around the stop-sign - a large circular group who cheer and pump their fists with the stop-sign and fire as the focal point.

They are not guilty of the crime in a prosecution sense.


Most of students watching this probably thought that starting the fire and tearing down the sign was not only wrong, but a a stupid act, and I agree with that, just as I see the bringing out of the riot gear as equally stupid.

A group of the size cheering and chanting could not be handled by normal law enforcement measures.

You are clearly incapable of seeing this from a reasonable perspective.

I see what is. Perspective follows. You have seen what is. You have followed with a perspective that attempts to justify your sentiment toward law enforcement and government.

If you were to give me a "perspective" - I would say that once the decision was made that the group needed to be dealt with by law enforcement, the riot police were an appropriate measure for the accomplishment of that goal and would be the least likely to result in casualty of the options available.

The question of whether or not the group needed to be broke up is where we draw our bias. Dealing in strictly legal terms - the police were within their authority to enforce the law. The law does not prescribe limitations on officer equipment and numbers - only on the force that can be applied by an officer. A police department could send a hundred riot police after a shoplifter - cost-effectiveness be damned.

Further - should more problems have arisen from that group later on (whether you -think- they would or not is irrelevant), officials would have quickly been asked why nothing was done sooner, and the response would have been "they were just college kids having fun, tearing up stop signs, keeping EMS from their comatose-drunk buddies, and starting fires - we all did it when we were kids!" - which is an understandably unacceptable justification for taking the discretion to not enforce law.

From every stance - the logical decision using laws and potential consequences - returns that the decision to break up the group was justified.

But here's the thing - it's not our elected official who made the decision. I didn't get to vote on that position. It's not my community. It's not my tax dollars going to that police force. It is up to that community to decide whether or not that is the kind of police force they want - if that is something the consider justified or not.

Whether you or I consider it justified is pretty much irrelevant to the dynamics of this governmental structure. We are merely hopping on a forum to tell each other we are wrong - which is perfectly fine - I enjoy telling people they are wrong. But at the end of the day - that community can welcome those officers back as heroes and say that is exactly what they want.

And it is not within our authority to tell them otherwise. To step into that state, that county, and that community at a legislative level is just another attempt to "nationalize" and "globalize" every issue out there.

And that, my friend, is why you are your own worst enemy. Simply by getting involved in what a community - other than your own - should or should not do with powers that lay within its own authority makes you part of a "big government police force."

I'd been dropping hints about this since back around when I first got involved in this discussion. But you clearly didn't take them.

I suppose you could say I do have a perspective. Its aperture is simply located a few tiers above this issue. Given that new bit of insight - I wonder if you'd still say my perspective is less than reasonable.

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 03:46 PM
reply to post by Aim64C

A group of the size cheering and chanting could not be handled by normal law enforcement measures.

This is from your exaggerated position, which you have consistently described which does not fit the videos, and especially not was reported by the student with investigative journalist ambitions, putting his name on the line.

It is not my sentiment towards law, nor my bias, but a realistic assessment of the situation. Two or three students started the problem. The law enforcement on site should have been able to handle this, as the student reported. Instead, the police over reacted in a way that suggests they were just looking for an excuse

I have mentioned the community, which probably gets most of its revenues from the students and the state. Chances are that a group has gotten too much power, and from this instance looks like they may be abusing their power, and this is a concern for all citizens of the U.S.. Over use of police authority should not be allowed to get out of control. I wouldn't be surprised if they see a lot of changes in the next local election to reign in this type of action. Isn't this what this thread is all about?

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:44 AM
The only difference is that they decided to crash it in a really big flashing lights to try & disperse everyone.

posted on May, 19 2011 @ 04:25 PM
More students than police they should have fought back..

We might actually make progress that way and from all accounts on the highest levels a revolution is needed not just a physical one It can be entirely peaceful..

Humanity must move past these Dark Ages.

posted on May, 21 2011 @ 04:10 PM

Originally posted by coldkidc
reply to post by Morgil


its times like these when there is no media coverage , ( for a reason ).
that we need people to come forward with infos .


posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:25 AM

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by ofhumandescent

So.... its ok for students to get liqueed up, head out in the streets and cause damage to other peoples property?

Dude, it was a controlled setting. All houses within the block zone where a part of the zone. They didn't go on anyone else's property and if any property was damaged they could pay for the damage via civil suite(mainly property they where renting as students).

This is why you need to check the race of the local cop's. If they are Anglo or Italian, move on; too much of a risk to life a limb to live in that area. Anglo police officers are the worst. Look at all these states and regions where there is so much police brutality. Heck look at the marine who was killed by a swat raid under the authority of Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik; Dupnik= Anglo American!
edit on 22-5-2011 by korathin because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:00 AM
reply to post by korathin

Umm, Dupnik isn't anglo, it is polish.

I don't know where you heard this, but who ever put out the information is only out to dupe morons.

new topics

<< 29  30  31   >>

log in