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

I will probably be flamed for this.. But what is the deal with the grass set on fire? And by the looks of the video, these kids were trashing the crap out of the area, all that garbage. I also wonder what is up with the guy they tackled, he did "something" off camera then ran away with this smirk laugh on his face. Truth is we really do not know who started it. Not taking sides. Not enough info really.


Deebo

Quoted myself for people to see the evidence in favor of the police:

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by windowshade
There were no street fires. Everyone was on private property until the riot police came in. The party had been going on since about 10, but the mass amounts came at 12-1, by 6 when the riot police came it had diminished about 2,000 people.

Western Courier: Anarchy on Wheeler

The Macomb Police Department maintained order during the day and checked IDs in search of underage drinkers...

The block party went awry when partygoers created a disturbance around a stop sign located at the intersection of Wheeler and Albert streets.

"There was pretty much out of control burning of furniture and other miscellaneous items," said senior physical education major and Wheeler resident Michael Smiles. "And the task force formed a line and went after the people, I guess you could say. You would have thought it was a third world country."

Interesting. So, the fact that one of the students admitted to the fires was a complete sign that they never existed?

As a result of students burning furniture and other items, the police had no choice but to clear everyone off the street.

The task force formed a horizontal line at the east end of the road and moved westward to disperse the students. Beer bottles rained on top of the task force members.

Although the police were trying to clear people out peacefully, the students started to throw beer bottle at the officers.

Sounds to me like the students got out of control.

During the entire duration of the party, there was a small police detail already in place. It was there to prevent underage drinking. Once things got out of hand, they had no choice but to react. Police gave out a warning, walked through the crowd, and then students threw beer bottles at the officers. According to the news report I found, the police only stepped in because someone was setting fires. All they wanted to do is get a hold of the fire starters, but certain students reacted with assault and battery.

Everyone who was cited on the scene deserved their fines. Some were arrested because they assaulted the officers. No one's rights were infringed upon.

Some in attendance used beer boxes and other items to light a fire around the stop sign. The sign was then torn down after the fire was started.

See? The party was heading downhill fast, and the police only wanted to arrest the arsonist. You can find a pic on the site I provided above, which clearly shows what triggered the incident.

there was no riot, it was a practice staged by the department of homeland security sponsored by the college on paying students.

next year the students should be prepared with 45 acp suppressed weapons and grenades and have posted sentry's hidden, then let the cops role in like they have control , then wipe them out in an ambush.

thats how its done

reply to post by anumohi


You need to be tazed bro.

Just sayin'.

reply to post by Freenrgy2


stare into my 2 watt laser

Originally posted by coldkidc
reply to post by Expat888

 

That's the truth.
I wonder how many people under 30 are aware of the Kent state massacre.
It's one of those events that was earth shatteringly important yet somehow it's managed to fade into the annals of American history.
Seemed like something more expected from a dictatorship...they do say that actions are louder than words.
By the way - It happened on May 4th - 31 years ago.

Here is a rough run down at that happened at Kent State for those that didn't know.

Kent State Massacre WIKI

reply to post by anumohi


Sure - then you can explain to the families of officers why you felt it necessary to kill their husband/wife/father/mother.

"But Aim - you said you were willing to kill protesters!"

As a response to their use of violence against me.

There's a clear difference when you engineer what can only be considered a trap for the purpose of killing officers.

"But, they are here to infringe upon my rights!"

To throw beer bottles and interfere with EMS and set things on fire while destroying public property? You really don't see a problem with that?

Try not to be asinine while having your little college parties and the riot police won't even get involved.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I find this thread very interesting, so far I have seen most if not all the videos posted on the thread and some others on other sites. Xcathdra you posted this link to support your side of the argument

www.mcdonoughvoice.com... ith-local-police

I find it interesting that you did not mention the part of the article entitled Another point of view if you did address this I apologize. What this part of the article demonstrated is that there were extremes occurring on both sides, the so called "rioters" and the so called "storm trooper" police. You also asked for the definition of a riot I have not seen it posted so I will

At common law a riot is a tumultuous disturbance of the peace, by three persons or more assembling together of their own authority, with an intent, mutually to assist each other against any who shall oppose them, in the execution of some enterprise of a private nature, and afterwards actually executing the same in a violent and turbulent manner, to the terror of the people, whether the act intended were of itself lawful or unlawful.
2. In this case there must be proved, first, an unlawful assembling; for if a number of persons lawfully met together; as, for example, at a fire, in a theatre or a church, should suddenly quarrel and fight, the offence is an affray and not a riot, because there was no unlawful assembling; but if three or more being so assembled, on a dispute occurring, they form into parties with promises of mutual assistance, which promises may be express, or implied from the circumstances, then the offence will no longer be an affray, but a riot; the unlawful combination will amount to an assembling within the meaning of the law. In this manner any lawful assembly may be converted into a riot. Any one who joins the rioters after they have actually commenced, is equally guilty as if he had joined them while assembling.
3. Secondly, proof must be made of actual violence and force on the part of the rioters, or of such circumstances as have an apparent tendency to force and violence, and calculated to strike terror into the public mind. The definition requires that the offenders should assemble of their own authority, in order to create a riot; if, therefore, the parties act under the authority of the law, they may use any necessary force to enforce their mandate, without committing this offence.
4. Thirdly, evidence must be given that the defendants acted in the riot, and were participants in the disturbance. Vide 1 Russ. on Cr. 247 Vin. Ab. h.t.; Hawk. c. 65, s. 1, 8, 9; 3 Inst. 176; 4 Bl. Com. 146 Com. Dig. h.t.; Chit. Cr. Law, Index, h.t. Roscoe, Cr. Ev. h.t

A riot as defined by the law is one of the many laws that has the potential of being seriously abused. What I saw in the videos was extreme, the party goers started burning things there was an escalation in violence, and IMO the police did have the right to go and stop this activity from being done. However the police used force which was the equivalent of LA riot type force on a bunch of college kids who most of them were innocent of any felony crimes being committed. There is video of people on their own property being pepper sprayed even people in their door ways being pepper sprayed. All in all I don't think either sides position is not 100% justified. The kids were being way to rowdy and started throwing bottles at the police once they knew they were going to break up the party, and the police started treating everyone as guilty even those who were clearly not in areas of violence. These kids should have been much more responsible, and so should have the police who escalated the tension by arriving with such force.

reply to post by Aim64C

You're ignorant. That's all there is to it.

"When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff" ~ Marcus Tulius Cicero

What we have here is a clear inability to accept the facts.

So perhaps you should review the video tapes instead of being overly reliant on mainstream media sources that typically are know to have a pro-establishment bias.

I have a clear ability to view the video tapes and see the premeditated police misconduct and excessive abuse of force.

The overwhelming number of respondents to the thread have echoed my own observations, concerns and opinions and nary a one who hasn't, has not been a police officer.

So many would say your 'professional' bias is clouding your ability to look at the video evidence objectively.

Especially compared to the riot-control I received with the Marines. Those guys are just walking down the street. May as well have been a formation exercise. We were trained to be -able- to bring you to the ground and place you in cuffs in a few seconds.

That's nice when you aren't engaged in assualting Americans you like to travel and assault people in other countries too.

Nothing brutal about this at all. Though getting maced sucks - it certainly beats getting clubbed or shot.

No they just ruined a perfectly fine party, terrorized a bunch of kids, trashed the constitution, inflicted a bunch of physical pain and mental anquish, kidnapped citizens at armed gun point, and concocted a host of slanderous lies to mask that it was all done to host a multi-force joint training exercise.

That said - the officer who maced the camera-man in the one video was being a dick. On the other hand - the camera-man was being dumb. Personally, I wouldn't have put up with outbursts like that out of my squad - macing someone for being stupid and showing off to his friends is just not good practice - even if I would want to do it, myself.

The minute it's dumb to expose government corruption and police brutality will be the minute that no freedom loving Americans any longer exist.

The kids a hero, the cops involved to every last man are zeros.

Thanks.

I with a few other responsible partiers could have handled the entire party without the cops. those cops were premeditatedly there to force themselves on those students. even a few squad cars stopping in front of the agitators and politely saying clean it up would have gotten respect, but when they brought in the goon squad, no respect was inspired nor was there any intention on the part of the police to be respectful...bulldose the children and make them say uncle.....

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

So perhaps you should review the video tapes instead of being overly reliant on mainstream media sources that typically are know to have a pro-establishment bias.

I have reviewed the videos.

I have a clear ability to view the video tapes and see the premeditated police misconduct and excessive abuse of force.

Abuse of force?

Not a one used the baton.

In that particular instance - there are about 30 riot-equipped officers.

There are more than 30 people milling about in each front yard visible.

So many would say your 'professional' bias is clouding your ability to look at the video evidence objectively.

I have looked at it objectively. A few of the officers were a bit too 'liberal' with their application of mace. That clearly needs to be addressed. On the other hand - they simply stood while -glass- beer bottles were thrown from over fifteen meters away.

Where you saw an organized encroachment - I saw a team that needs more practice. There is a point in the first video where the line is reformed to guard a the flank exposed to the adjacent street - one of the officers was either not paying attention, or communication was lax (more likely - as I saw this repeated with each officer in the line), as an officer had to break concentration to get his buddy to move into the modified formation.

Most were standing around and watching - a few others were throwing taunts or tossing beer bottles - and still others were showing off to their friends and trying to get as close to the 'scary guys in uniform' as possible before catching a shot of mace to the face.

At 4:19 - as the line withdraws, you can see a teenage couple let through the middle of the line by officers. This is far from the "beating an old lady who gets in the way" that seems to be the fear you and your kind seem to have.

That's nice when you aren't engaged in assualting Americans you like to travel and assault people in other countries too.

No, we prefer to shoot them. They babble in incoherent noises too often.

Hey - I can't argue with that kind of logic - may as well have fun with it.

No they just ruined a perfectly fine party, terrorized a bunch of kids, trashed the constitution, inflicted a bunch of physical pain and mental anquish, kidnapped citizens at armed gun point, and concocted a host of slanderous lies to mask that it was all done to host a multi-force joint training exercise.

Yes, the perfect place and time to train officers is in the midst of a crowd where they are out-numbered 10:1.

That way, if there are flaws in how they do things, it just provokes a riot and kills officers. Good training, indeed.

The minute it's dumb to expose government corruption and police brutality will be the minute that no freedom loving Americans any longer exist.

The kids a hero, the cops involved to every last man are zeros.

He was dumb for showing off to his friends and getting into the face of officers. The one in the first video I linked to was smart. He actually had a useful camera-angle and didn't try to showboat.

The kid was dumb. The other camera men were not.

It has nothing to do with "exposing government corruption" and everything to do with common sense.

I wouldn't defend either side.
They are both at fault.
Two wrongs don't make a right.

reply to post by Aim64C


Once again you are over relying on exageration. These are college students not anarchists, militia men, a street gang, or revolutionaries.

They are looking to party not use lethal force on police officers.

They are working on trying to create a future for themselves through education, not to throw it away through senseless acts of violence.

So you are simply way over stating the actual dangers the police faced here.

Your inability to accurately assess and portray a situation is alarming and frightening as far as gauging the mettle and capability of the 'threat'.

It displays either a lack of critical and unbiased thinking or worse yet, a form of Homeland Security Training that really does leave you unable to assess real threat levels.

Further you have in fact stated that these uniformed forces from as few as three different police departments to possibly more, are in need of drilling together in fluid situations.

So what we do have here is a bunch of college kids, not criminals, not thugs, not gang bangers, not militia men, who in the minds of planners would represent no real threat to personnel who need training with tactics and equipment in mass manuevers coordinated between departments in a live fire setting with minimal risk to personnel.

This is precisely what happened.

A few plain clothes young detectives, armed with some drinking safely literature, and safe sex literature and a code violation ticket book could have easily mixed and mingled talking to and counseling the 'at risk' factions in 'proactive' police work that is designed to keep the peace instead of breaking it.

With 'backup' out of site and around the corner, they would have been in little to no risk, probably earned the respect of many of the kids, and possibly even gotten laid.

Believe me as someone who has survived the streets of many dangerous places for decades my ability to assess a situation speaks for itself.

I would be long ago dead if I couldn't.

Thanks.

Originally posted by A por uvas
I wouldn't defend either side.
They are both at fault.
Two wrongs don't make a right.

Star for interjecting some ages old and very sound wisdom.

Good on you!

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

They are looking to party not use lethal force on police officers.

You're getting responses confused. There are many, here in this very forum, who have advocated the use of lethal force on police officers.

They are working on trying to create a future for themselves through education, not to throw it away through senseless acts of violence.

As they binge-drink, burn stop-signs, and yell "# the police!"

Honor student material, right there.

So you are simply way over stating the actual dangers the police faced here.

Crowds react completely unpredictably. There is no way of really assessing the danger other than raw numbers. The police are vastly out-numbered. The vast majority of the citizenry decided not to be obstructive to the officers, or violent.

However - a few hours later, that may not have been the case. Had it been a full moon - it may not have been the case. The fact is that force could have been easily overwhelmed by the crowd present. It was, honestly, insufficient and would have not been able to deal with the crowd had they become mostly violent.

Further - you are simply over-stating the dangers posed to the crowd by the officers. No one was beaten - the worst that happened were a few people being detained via tackling and pinning. The officers were a little liberal in their application of mace - but many of the camera-men from various posted videos were able to approach and pass within less than a yard of officers without being bothered. Why the one in the video I linked ended up getting maced was really kind of a mystery to me - other than the officer just wanted to be a dick and get the guy to go away.

Your inability to accurately assess and portray a situation is alarming and frightening as far as gauging the mettle and capability of the 'threat'.

We view it from two different angles.

I view it from the briefing-room and deployment. You view it from the broadcast news.

It's the quarterback versus the monday-morning quarterback.

It displays either a lack of critical and unbiased thinking or worse yet, a form of Homeland Security Training that really does leave you unable to assess real threat levels.

And you are somehow more capable?

Further you have in fact stated that these uniformed forces from as few as three different police departments to possible more, are in need of drilling together in fluid situations.

Screw-ups get people killed. A police force out on the street full of openings and poor coordination is more open to attack and likely to receive an attack - which will rapidly lead to further escalation.

Being well trained and coordinated leads to fewer incidents on the whole.

So what we do have here is a bunch of college kids, not criminals, not thugs, not gang bangers, not militia men, who in the minds of planners would represent no real threat to personnel who need training with tactics and equipment in mass manuevers coordinated between departments in a live fire setting with minimal risk to personnel.

You can leave your tin-foil cap on, but look up from your milk-carton anagrams for long enough to follow real-world logic.

Cross-department training doesn't need to be held in "live fire" situations. It's better to train ad-nausiem with 'simulated' drills than it is to participate in one live deployment prematurely.

Formation movements are worked out in fields or parking lots (or gymnasiums) - these should be drilled to instinct. In my opinion - this deployed force was not ready to be deployed against so much as a bunch of grannies at a tea-party rally.

Deploying for the sake of training is a completely retarded idea. Nothing these guys needed to learn could not have come from standard drilling.

A few plain clothes young detectives, armed with some drinking safely literature, and safe sex literature and a code violation ticket book could have easily mixed and mingled talking to and counseling the 'at risk' factions in 'proactive' police work that is designed to keep the peace instead of breaking it.

And how do you know this wasn't being done? Being plain-clothed and all?

However - there are many sides to law enforcement. This was primarily a response to the interference with EMS and the destruction of property - which is well outside the scope of plain-clothes officers and - when the crowd refuses to disperse by request - outside the realm of standard police.

With 'backup' out of site and around the corner, they would have been in little to know risk, probably earned the respect of many of the kids, and possibly even gotten laid.

Possibly - and, again - I prefer this approach, myself. However - it doesn't change the way the department responded to the issues.

They could have sent those officers in, armed to the teeth. I wasn't paying attention when watching the videos - but the riot-police's 'hardest' armament was a side-arm, if they had one at all.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Man now the students were life threatening.

and this is why your arguments fail.. Go back and READ, then COMPREHEND, what I wrote. The EMS were dealing with students who had alcohol poisoning, which is LIFE Threatening.

Excessive drinking + all day / binge = high BAC + continued drinking = alcohol poisoning = life threatening condition of the student who has the symptoms.

While EMS is trying to deal with them, which usually include IVS of liquids, and depending on time frame a levage or toher med to absorb some of the alcohol, you have drunnk idiots throwing beer bottles at EMS.

So you are saying that is acceptable behavior and should be over looked?

Alcohol poisoning

Alcohol intoxication (also known as drunkenness or inebriation) is a physiological state that occurs when a person has a high level of ethanol (alcohol) in his or her blood. Common symptoms of alcohol intoxication include slurred speech, euphoria, impaired balance, loss of muscle coordination (ataxia), flushed face, reddened eyes, reduced inhibition, and erratic behavior. In severe cases, it can cause coma or death.

Toxicologists use the term “alcohol intoxication” to discriminate between alcohol and other toxins.

Acute alcohol intoxication results from a very high level of alcohol in the blood. This term is used by health care providers, often in emergencies.

edit on 3-5-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

We have Riot Teams for Alcohol Poisoning now. Your on a roll there buddy. There's this thing called grabbing for straws. And you just keep grabbing and grabbing, still failing to grasp the fact that this party has gone on for several decades in the same locale, with the same houses, with the same school, on the same street. Burning a few empty cases of beer and a bike does not need a squadron of police to breakup. Nor an LRAD cannon. And you keep saying the cops told them to disperse. Well they were forced to disperse, and then the cops continually sprayed mace on the people who were on their front porches and then sprayed people's yards so they wouldn't come back out. WTF is that? To you, not a big deal. But anyone with a conscious and an understanding of basic human rights see that as a problem. Dur Dur Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Still not gettin it.

PS. Your pic suits you well. You are a borg. That's exactly what you are. A soulless machine.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Excessive drinking + all day / binge = high BAC + continued drinking = alcohol poisoning = life threatening condition of the student who has the symptoms.

While EMS is trying to deal with them, which usually include IVS of liquids, and depending on time frame a levage or toher med to absorb some of the alcohol, you have drunnk idiots throwing beer bottles at EMS.

So you are saying that is acceptable behavior and should be over looked?

We have Riot Teams for Alcohol Poisoning now. Your on a role there buddy. There's this thing called grabbing for straws.

Did you deliberately misread what he wrote, or simply not comprehend it?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Excessive drinking + all day / binge = high BAC + continued drinking = alcohol poisoning = life threatening condition of the student who has the symptoms.

While EMS is trying to deal with them, which usually include IVS of liquids, and depending on time frame a levage or toher med to absorb some of the alcohol, you have drunnk idiots throwing beer bottles at EMS.

So you are saying that is acceptable behavior and should be over looked?

We have Riot Teams for Alcohol Poisoning now. Your on a role there buddy. There's this thing called grabbing for straws.

Did you deliberately misread what he wrote, or simply not comprehend it?

When people have alcohol poisoning they don't sit at an EMS truck. They are brought to hospital. I comprehend what he said. So the riot police are there to protect the EMS people who are just sitting around. Oh wait, how'd they get the gear on so fast and quick to the jump after the flying beer bottle?

OMG.....There is still arguing over this? For those who haven't read the whole thread, I lived on the block in question when I was at WIU. I lived at 318 Wheeler, the epicenter of the "block party". As confirmed last nite in a phone call to my former landlord who owns 8 of the houses on that street, there was NO damage done to his houses because of the party. Every year, students on the block and volunteers from student campus organizations, pick up ALL OF THE TRASH the next morning. ID's are checked by the local police every year and they monitor the party by walking thru on foot and in squad cars. No they don't check every ID. WIU admin in concert with local police, had decided to "crackdown" on the party as it had been growing every year and kids from other colleges heard it was a great party, similar to the Halloween bash at SIU(Southern Ill Univ) years before it. It was a matter of time before this all came to a head. Outside police agencies from accross the state sent members to form the "riot police". It was not composed of local officers. They were "on standby" outside the party area, complete with the LRAD noise machine. Were the "riot police" out of bounds with what actions they took? Yes, some were as were some students. Was the LRAD necessary? No. Understand that this area is OFF campus and ONLY students live in this area, not permanent locals. This was an attempt to "send a message" to college kids across the state, to stop coming there for a party. Normally at WIU, there are multiple off-campus parties spread out through the neighborhood close to the campus, but not the huge concentration that is found at the "Wheeler St" block party and these happen all the time, but more frequently on the weekends.

reply to post by Bonified Ween


Right - so you deliberately mislead - thanks for the clarification.