lawrocket 3 #226 November 21, 2011 Quote If I understand you correctly that you are defending the actions of the cop, then you, sir, are part of the problem. Peaceful protest does NOT warrant violent response from the cops. Not noway. Not nohow. Andy – what do you do to get the protesters to disperse? Here are the options, as I see them: (1) Leave them alone. They cannot do this because the police are tasked with the job of dispersing the assembly. (2) Negotiate with them. This does not work because the protesters have no demands. They merely want to be in the park and stay there. (3) Now we move into use of force. Do they walk in and drag the protesters away one by one? This is use of physical force and risks harm to the protesters and the police. Or, do they start swinging batons? This is also use of force. Shoot tear gas? Oh – that’s what they did, only it was pepper spray. Or do they start tazing them, bro? Or hitting them with beanbags? Rubber bullets Andy – you know I don’t like cops – and I hate DA’s even more. But the question is, “What should the cops have done?” These people were gathered in violation of the law and were, while non-violent, were certainly not “peaceful.” The neighbor’s dog was not violent on Thursday night, but was certainly not “peaceful.” In fact, is not the purpose of these protests to be heard? And don’t these protesters demand to be heard by all – including those who don’t want to hear it? Everybody who has a problem with what happened to the protesters are people who haven’t had it happen to them. If they were gathered on your lawn and said, “But we’re peaceful,” does that mean that they shouldn’t be ejected? Yes – I am harsh because I do not draw lines between “Wrongs for the right reason” and “wrongs for the wrong reason.” I view them as wrongs. Their rights to peaceful protest do not exceed my rights or anyone else’s to be left alone. QuoteYour support of it tells me you are a violent person yourself and would do the same as the cop had you been in his shoes. Is that a correct assumption? There are two assumptions there, Andy. One is that I am a violent person. I have not been accused of such since I was a kid, when I used to be. But I’m generally considered one of the nicest guys in the world by people who know me. Even fellow lawyers regard me as courteous and cordial. So violent? No. I haven’t raised my hand to anyone in the last ten years, and the last time was an act of self defense. When that guy told me he wanted to fight me (back up by his two friends) and then shoved me despite my telling him I didn’t ant to fight (and, yes, I told him that even his friends think he’s a pussy, which is why they were there to back him up) and then he shoved me, did it make me a violent person to neutralize him with one sudden punch? Or would the violent person have continued pummeling him when he was down? Note – I immediately went after one of his friends and could have kayoed him easily but I did not. I merely grabbed him and asked him if he wanted some, too. The third backed off, as did the second, and the attacker retreated as well. It’s the “use no more force than absolutely necessary” doctrine. Does it mean that I won’t do my job? No. What do the procedures say to do when in this situation? Hmmm. Procedures dictate pepper spray as the least use of force if persons do not comply with verbal orders to disperse. So use pepper spray. Equating performing an act of violence with being a violent person is a sine qua non. Sure, the police forces are loaded with violent people. Perhaps the cop who applied the spray IS one of those. QuoteThis situation does NOT warrant the response we see from the cops. What would be reasonable, IMO, would have been simply picking them up and taking them away. And this is where I believe that you are misconstruing the various threats, risks and benefits. Picking them up means up close physical contact. So there are, what, twenty people there? For each one you go up, say, “Sorry, peaceful lad. I’m going to have to physically remove you from here. Be a good young protester and come along with me.” It doesn’t happen that way. Not with groups. The cops were outnumbered. And the situation was tense. The situation typically means putting a person face first on the ground, forcing hands behind the back and cuffing the person. This means bruises, potential cuts, etc. Add to that that it also becomes a situation ripe for physical combat. A violent person would want to go in with club swinging. A violent person would want the opportunity to tackle the person by force and cuff and stuff. Pepper spray actually AVOIDS the combat and the physical confrontation. Yes, it is chemical warfare. QuoteI'd love to hear your reasoning the justify the violent response to peaceful protest....and no, the legality of the assembly nor the refusal to leave is a valid justification. What else you got? You advocated a violent response – moving in with physical force and taking them away. What’s your justification for using violence to take them away? I actually subjectively believe that your suggestion is MORE violent than the use of pepper spray to subdue. Your opinion may be different and that’s fine. But our disagreement is merely about level of violence and NOT about use of violence. You advocate use of violence. And no, I do not think that it makes you a violent person. QuoteThis whole idea of "restoring peace" by using violence against what was a peaceful demonstration is so far beyond proper and reasonable as to make me sick to my stomach to see it. Fucking asshole cops. I would have had a bigger problem with the police had they moved in and started tackling and cuffing. That’s where people get serious injuries. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #227 November 21, 2011 Quote I did get nothing but net on that one, didn't I? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #228 November 21, 2011 QuoteQuote I did get nothing but net on that one, didn't I? Nope. But you are again.. MISSING the POINT.... nothing new counselor. The winds of change are blowing again.... finally. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #229 November 21, 2011 QuoteI would have had a bigger problem with the police had they moved in and started tackling and cuffing. That’s where people get serious injuries. they could give them backrubs until the protesters fall asleep, then they could place them on feather beds for transport. then the usual suspects would accuse the cops of sexual harassment ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #230 November 21, 2011 Quote Quote Quote I did get nothing but net on that one, didn't I? Nope. But you are again.. MISSING the POINT.... nothing new counselor. The winds of change are blowing again.... finally. Now here we agree And we will see it start moving next Nov"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #231 November 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote I did get nothing but net on that one, didn't I? Nope. But you are again.. MISSING the POINT.... nothing new counselor. The winds of change are blowing again.... finally. So answer the question: Were the Indians the occupiers against the British? Or were the British the occupiers? How about the Aztecs? They were the occupiers of Conquistador lands, right? Answer the question. What other occupiers have you supported? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #232 November 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I did get nothing but net on that one, didn't I? Nope. But you are again.. MISSING the POINT.... nothing new counselor. The winds of change are blowing again.... finally. So answer the question: Were the Indians the occupiers against the British? Or were the British the occupiers? How about the Aztecs? They were the occupiers of Conquistador lands, right? Answer the question. What other occupiers have you supported? Wasn't history one of your required subjects on the way to that jurisprudence degree?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #233 November 21, 2011 Quote Andy – what do you do to get the protesters to disperse? Here are the options, as I see them: (1) Leave them alone. They cannot do this because the police are tasked with the job of dispersing the assembly. (2) Negotiate with them. This does not work because the protesters have no demands. They merely want to be in the park and stay there. (3) Now we move into use of force. Do they walk in and drag the protesters away one by one? This is use of physical force and risks harm to the protesters and the police. Or, do they start swinging batons? This is also use of force. Shoot tear gas? Oh – that’s what they did, only it was pepper spray. Or do they start tazing them, bro? Or hitting them with beanbags? Rubber bullets Did they even attempt #3? Seemed like waving the bottle was about the extent of it. Whereas when it came time to clear the camps, many did take their 5 minutes or else notice to pick up their stuff and go. Physically removing the protesters may be more work for them, but it it is still the starting point. The use of OC or other weapons occurs when and if the protesters fight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #234 November 21, 2011 QuoteThe use of OC or other weapons occurs when and if the protesters fight. Or they're just sitting doing nothing. Depends on which protester you're talking about and which set of police.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #235 November 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I did get nothing but net on that one, didn't I? Nope. But you are again.. MISSING the POINT.... nothing new counselor. The winds of change are blowing again.... finally. So answer the question: Were the Indians the occupiers against the British? Or were the British the occupiers? How about the Aztecs? They were the occupiers of Conquistador lands, right? Answer the question. What other occupiers have you supported? Wasn't history one of your required subjects on the way to that jurisprudence degree?? So you won't answer the question. Nothing but net.... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #236 November 21, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote I did get nothing but net on that one, didn't I? Nope. But you are again.. MISSING the POINT.... nothing new counselor. The winds of change are blowing again.... finally. So answer the question: Were the Indians the occupiers against the British? Or were the British the occupiers? How about the Aztecs? They were the occupiers of Conquistador lands, right? Answer the question. What other occupiers have you supported? Wasn't history one of your required subjects on the way to that jurisprudence degree?? So you won't answer the question. Nothing but net.... My... those delusions look stunning on you Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #237 November 21, 2011 That depends. Pepper spray may be considered by many to be the FIRST step. My personal (and yes, highly personal opinion) is that the least amount of violence occurs when a person is subdued. Take a look at how it is handled in a place like prison. When an inmate refuses to leave his or her cell, they first give opportunity and warning to the prisoner to get out. Rather than first sending in an extraction team, they will pepper spray the cell to put the desire in the prisoner to leave. If that doesn’t work, they go in a physically remove the prisoner. I understand the comparison of “prisoner” to “protester” can be a stretch but not from the position of the officer who would remove. The policy to try to subdue a person before physical contact with the cop is one that is put there for the protection of the cop. Get a cop moving in to arrest someone, the cop is exposed to attack. It’s not necessarily that cops don’t want to go in and kick some ass (plenty do, and I’ve represented a plaintiff against police on two occasions) but cops are just as interested in not getting their asses kicked. It’s why pepper spray and tazers are being used before clubs and such – to subdue a person prior to moving in to take them. They aren’t necessarily for the protection of the arrestee but for the protection of the cops themselves. And I reiterate – physically removing somebody is an act of violence. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #238 November 21, 2011 Yep nothing but net "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #239 November 21, 2011 So answer the question: why do you not support occupiers in the past, but support occupiers now? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #240 November 21, 2011 QuoteSo answer the question: why do you not support occupiers in the past, but support occupiers now? Non sequitur... How many General Dyers do we need in our history books counselor. It is painfully obvious that those who never learned the lessons of history.. are doomed to live thru them yet again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #241 November 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteSo answer the question: why do you not support occupiers in the past, but support occupiers now? Non sequitur... How many General Dyers do we need in our history books counselor. It is painfully obvious that those who never learned the lessons of history.. are doomed to live thru them yet again. Right. So when you go supporting people who are occupying because they believe that they are entitled to do so despite the rights of others, history does not look good. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #242 November 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo answer the question: why do you not support occupiers in the past, but support occupiers now? Non sequitur... How many General Dyers do we need in our history books counselor. It is painfully obvious that those who never learned the lessons of history.. are doomed to live thru them yet again. Right. So when you go supporting people who are occupying because they believe that they are entitled to do so despite the rights of others, history does not look good. Shame on you Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. John F. Kennedy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #243 November 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo answer the question: why do you not support occupiers in the past, but support occupiers now? Non sequitur... How many General Dyers do we need in our history books counselor. It is painfully obvious that those who never learned the lessons of history.. are doomed to live thru them yet again. Right. So when you go supporting people who are occupying because they believe that they are entitled to do so despite the rights of others, history does not look good. I have to ask Would the answers given, to your line of questions, be good or bad for you in court?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #244 November 21, 2011 QuoteThat depends. Pepper spray may be considered by many to be the FIRST step. pepper spray is not mace it's an annoyance the cops could also move in with huge speakers and play Neal Diamond in the protesters face and that might make them move along ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #245 November 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteThat depends. Pepper spray may be considered by many to be the FIRST step. pepper spray is not mace it's an annoyance You've obviously never been pepper sprayed. To characterize it as an "annoyance" is silly. My next door neighbor's dogs barking for a few minutes is an "annoyance." Being pepper sprayed is considerably more painful.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #246 November 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteThat depends. Pepper spray may be considered by many to be the FIRST step. pepper spray is not mace it's an annoyance You've obviously never been pepper sprayed. you've obviously never been maced - mmmmm southwesty!! make a choice Quade - what do you prefer - temporary discomfort that makes you say "the hell with it, it's not worth it" and then you move on or: someone forced to manhandle you, twist your arm, and physically relocate you while you cry about the inhumanity of it all ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #247 November 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThat depends. Pepper spray may be considered by many to be the FIRST step. pepper spray is not mace it's an annoyance You've obviously never been pepper sprayed. you've obviously never been maced - mmmmm southwesty!! make a choice Quade - what do you prefer - temporary discomfort that makes you say "the hell with it, it's not worth it" and then you move on or: someone forced to manhandle you, twist your arm, and physically relocate you while you cry about the inhumanity of it all I've been exposed to proper CN gas. It too is more than an "annoyance." As for what I prefer, that's not relevant. I was commenting on your characterization of pepper spray, which is inaccurate to say the least.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #248 November 21, 2011 admit it, you're a delicate flower - or admit that an 'annoyance' is a subjective term and you can piddle all you want with what it means to you - rather than the 'relative' annoyance of pepper spray vs physical altercations your 'preference' is the entire point - your selective response just (as always) dodges it I suspect you can also parse out my sentences and argue the grey areas of a discussion and even correct my spelling, too - and make no progress still it's better than most, I guess perhaps you'll even cut an paste a definition from dictionary. com while you're at it - that's productive too ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #249 November 21, 2011 Bite me.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #250 November 21, 2011 QuoteBite me. no thanks - and sorry for the tirade, but you really did come across (you know).. so really then - what's more annoying. Spray with pepper spray, or being manhandled? how would you reorder the responses if you could write the procedure? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
