RNC
RNC Welcoming Committee
(RNC Riot Police)
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: Emilio
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous We need amnesty | Help, help, Next »
» 136 Comments
-
Recent Comments
bitter charro Suprem… on SCIENCE D-Day on Nobody likes to talk abou… D-Day on SCIENCE bitter charro Suprem… on SCIENCE bitter charro Suprem… on Gay or straight… bitter charro Suprem… on Gay or straight… bitter charro Suprem… on Gay or straight… wicket_arse on You’re wrong about … bitter charro Suprem… on Gay or straight… defaultscreenname on SCIENCE 
Cheezburger Network Blog
FIRRRRRST
And yet last in our hearts
aww how you dare to say that. i was waiting soo long to be the first and now all i get is your comment. that´s to much for me, this life is to cruel for me. bye
ok, cya.. as my father used to say, “Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.”
“Don’t let the door hit you… when you’re stupid!”
Space Ghost, anyone?!
Stones could have used those guys at Altamonte and saved a lot of grief.
To be fair to the Hell’s Angels, the guy -did- have a gun and -was- planning on shooting Mick Jagger.
I hadn’t heard that, Herb. I might just read up a bit more on it. Thanks!
Me either.. I thought the HA were looking for a fight. At least, that’s what I always thought.
Credit goes to my wife, who tipped me off.
If the stupid protesters had simply marched and chanted like they said there were, instead of starting fires, slashing tires, breaking windows, etc, we wouldn’t have needed the riot police. They deserved a lot more than pepperspray. They scared the crap outta decent law abiding people.
Why then was it that the ones slashing tires, breaking windows etc weren’t the ones arrested, and the peaceful protesters were teargassed, shot with rubber bullets, and arrested en masse?
First lets establish. You have no idea what you’re taking about.
RNC riots, look them up on google.
No suppression of speech, it was hard core respectable police work. St. Paul Police department did a damn fine job.
Seen video and have friends that were there firsthand. Many of the people arrested had no reason to be arrested and many of the trouble-makers were too quick and organized for the police to catch. From what I hear, the police went for the easy-pickins because they were too dumb/slow to catch the real criminals.
Dumb…no, slow you are probably right since there were tons more people then police.
We assume people would rather discuss thinks and take legal action to pursue a greater goal that helps everyone out.
Apparently we should assume that if you’re an anarchist that you can’t be trusted to behave in any sort of prosperous society.
With respect, isn’t the the definition of an anarchist?
Not necessarily. The defining point of anarchists is that they want the disassembly of government as a whole, they don’t all take violent means to get there.
Exactly. I don’t assume anarchist do this, I’ve talked to a lot of them.
The people who were violent at the RNC make me sad that condoms break.
Are you kidding. That’s romantic anarchy, AKA living in fantasy-land. The disassembly of government = violence, why do you think that any society has some form of governemnt? That’s the problem with coffee-shop anarchists, they have no idea what life is like without governemnt — check Somalia (close to anarchy) or Haiti (ineffective government). The point of this convention’s violence is that some planned violence for a specific purpose, to incite the police to overreact (that is hao terrorism works, by the way, in this case non-lethal political violence). Then when the police overereact and arrest non-violent, legimate protesters and try to suppress media coverage, they play right into the perpetrator’s playbook. St. Paul reacted to the ghosts of Chicago 68 using the exact same justifications. The difference today is the news outlets care more about entertainment than news.
I never said that anarchism was a practical option. I was just explaining the point.
I know, I truly wasn’t trying to jump down your throat (objects in the mirror are closer than they appear), so if I did, I apoligize. The whole current trendy concept, as I said, “coffee shop” anarchy, bothers the hell out of me. Anyone who believes that anarchy is a good idea has no clue as to what the world would be like. Additionally, the current state of “controlled” political protest in the name of safety from terrorism is exactly what Franklin meant when he said that those who give up liberty for security will find that the have neither liberty or security (or words to that effect for you googlers out there). Also, I would caution us to remember history, Chi 68 was very much in the minds of the St. Paul police, as well as the instigators.
For the people who can’t be bothered Googling:
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”.
The adaptation of the quote I prefer is “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
It sounds even more profound when said by Leonard Nimoy.
Nice response! And while facts are necessary, sometimes, exactness is a distraction. It’s a choice between having a conversation and being the grown-up teacher’s pet who has to be the one to answer every question — sometime’s the 80% solution, on time is good enough.
Actually I think Somalia is a full anarchist society as they haven’t had government since 91 from what CNN reports.
True, but in my opinion (heaven forbid) we always have some form of local society, therefore, some type of government. Even the drugged out Somali technicals answer to some individual warlord, it’s just that the near-anarchy is enough to demonstrate the impact of no government.
CF: One of the best points I’ve seen made here yet.
Suppression of speech? Let’s talk about Rourke, the AP photojournalist that was arrested for “participating in a riot” when all he was doing was his job, documenting the event. He was clearly identified as press and yet was tackled from behind and detained for something he didn’t do. No suppression of speech my ass.
The cops aren’t required to take people at their word. When you go to a riot you take certain risks. The risk of arrest and the risk of injury go way up when a bunch of morons become hypocrites and start using violence. In all that chaos it’s easy to make mistakes.
The riot cops have a responsibility to maintain order and keep people safe. If they tiptoe around afraid to offend someones free speech, people will get hurt. Please crawl out of your ivory tower intellectual thought process for one second and think about the reality of the situation. These situations are always chaotic and a few peaceful protesters getting lumped in with the less-than-peaceful ones is a small price to pay to keep buildings from burning and people from being murdered.
Then how about the entire news team for “Democracy Now!” being arrested when they weren’t anywhere near the “riots”? In fact, all of them had valid press credentials and were *still* arrested. Upon hearing of the arrest of her producers, Amy Goodman left the RNC convention floor and went to correct the problem, was forced to the ground, handcuffed & had her Secret Service-cleared credentials yanked off her just because she asked “Why are you arresting my producers?”
She and the others were booked on felony counts — despite the fact that none of them committed a crime. Well, unless you count being a member of a liberal news agency a crime.
Furthermore, it’s been long documented that Republicans have hired people as agitators to do stuff like slash tires, throw rocks, etc. so they can discredit and round up *all* dissenters. Want proof? Read through all those declassified COINTELPRO documents from the Nixon Administration. No “conspiracy theory” there – administration policy is all laid out clear as crystal.
Not sure if you have checked the calendar recently, but it’s no longer the 60s or 70s. Policies from 30 years ago aren’t really an acceptable reference. Some people would have us believe that these are not police officers, but instead Republican Party Storm Troopers under orders to detain and arrest anyone they believe to be a Democrat. These are just cops doing their jobs, they couldn’t care less about what political party you belong to, only what you are doing on their streets, in their city.
The same stuff happens at every protest, people get arrested who shouldn’t, stuff gets out of hand. It just happens. There is no conspiracy here. If people were arrested, it was because the police felt (perhaps wrongly) they were committing a crime. There were plenty of peaceful protesters who DIDN’T get arrested, so obviously there was some thought process going on as to who should be arrested and who shouldn’t.
If you honestly have a hard time believing that with all the bile and hatred against the Republican Party, that some people could possibly get violent and start destroying stuff, then you are beyond naive. Simple fact is, some protesters got out of hand, and everyone else paid for it. That’s how it always works at these things. It’s no ones fault but the idiots who decide to protest violently.
We may be at opposite ends of the spectrum at times, but for both of to post basically the same thing is eerie!
I haven’t noticed where we’ve differed too much, or at least you don’t stand out to me as absurdly partisan on either side.
I’m an independent who leans more towards the socially liberal, fiscally conservative side. Though mostly I just try and use logic to come to a position on an issue. I find there is always one side to an issue that seems more logical than the rest and just makes more sense. Of course, this could just be a nice way of saying I don’t buy into arguments based on religion or “moral values” that are really just an extension of a religion.
Basically, I don’t buy into conspiracy theories, arguments-from-religion, “moral values” that are actually very subjective, and anyone who just copy-pastes from a conservative or liberal blog that does little to no fact-checking.
Good lord, that was like reading my own biography!! Ok, may be not opposite ends of the spectrum. I must have been thinking of someone else..
The COINTELPRO (or Counter Intelligence Program) was initiated by the FBI, not Republicans and ended in 1971 (see, I can Google too!) So my question is, what does a program that ended over 30 years ago have to do with this? You’re really stretching on this one. Also, Goodman was told to leave and she didn’t. Her producers were later released once everything was sorted out. Who does Goodman think she is? The police were in the middle of trying to control the situation and some media person comes walking up demanding this and that? I watched the video and the police clearly told her go back. She pushed the issue and was arrested. So yeah, think what you want, this was all perpetrated by the Republicans, but the truth is, she and her producers put themselves in the middle.
The point about COINTELPRO was that it was authorized by the Republican president Richard Nixon — and it proves that the administration had a zero-tolerance policy when it came to dissent. A fact that was denied by Nixon, the FBI and pretty much anyone else in the government until those documents were declassified.
Considering how many former Nixonites are in power (or until recently were in power) in the Bush Administration, it’s not too much of a stretch to consider they just possibly *might* have re-instated a similar policy.
With regard to the “Democracy Now!” team, the point is that they were NOWHERE NEAR the violent parts of the protest. They have footage that shows they were deliberately targeted for arrest. Goodman had good reason to press the issue. Since when is pressing the issue considered a “crime” or a “threat” worthy of arrest? The police had no cause to arrest her & charge her. She has to have committed a crime or the police need to have at least a shadow of probable cause. They can’t just arrest people without reason.She is a journalist. She had valid credentials. The fact is that the RNC wanted to suppress voices with which they did not agree, and Goodman & her teme were some of those voices.
Yes. Some of the protesters were violent, and they should have been arrested. That does not justify the mass arrest of *everyone* who was expressing dissatisfaction — many groups of people were rounded up and arrested even though they were committing no crime whatsoever. Yet somehow only the most violent, most extreme (and I suspect many of whom were plants) were shown. *All* demonstration has been tarred as being “violent” and “extreme”, regardless of how peaceful they were. People are unhappy; they have a right to express that unhappiness & petition for redress.
There may be “rancor and hatred for the Republican party”, but you know what? The GOP dishes it out and can’t take it. There’s an incredible amount of vitriol, rancor and hatred dished out toward liberals on radio & TV on a daily basis. It’s gotten to where the term “liberal” has become an epithet; as has “Democrat”. Despite their deathgrip on power Republicans still somehow manage to convince people that they’re martyrs whenever anyone speaks out.
First of all, COINTELPRO was initiated in 1956, long before Nixon actually became Presidient. You might want to verify your facts before you start laying blame across the board. Secondly While the protest may have started as non-violent, it did escalate and the people from Democracy Now! were in the middle of it. Have you ever been in a riot, or close to one? I have and I can assure you that the police are not taking the time to determine who is innocent and who isn’t. Were the people that were arrested beaten at all? Possibly manhandled a bit, but I doubt they came to any serious harm (except for their pride maybe.) Furthermore, it wasn’t everyone that was arrested. I think the actual number was something like 200 or so out 10,000 protesters? I think you should walk in the shoes of the police when things are turning to crap quickly, then maybe you will understand the situation better. It’s all fine and well to Monday Morning Quaterback the protest, but you have take into consideration the situation. I also suspect that Goodman and her mob were probably inciting the situation further with the cameras, and we all know how a mob mentality can react. If you don’t like Republicans that’s your choice, but they are NOT the source of all the problems in the U.S. as you would have people believe.
The charge leveled against Amy Goodman: Felony Conspiracy to Incite a Riot.
That’s what gets me about the justification of arresting her for asking why her producers were being cuffed. COINTELPRO or not, she was charged with this pretty hefty accusation, whereas Rush “I’m Dreaming of Riots in Denver” Limbaugh was given a pat on the back and another cigar.
Let me ask you this though, aside from Amy and her producers, what were the other people charged with? I doubt that she was the only one that had that charge levelled against her. Also, did you watch the video? She was clearly asked to step back and didn’t. In fact, it looked to me like she was trying to force her way past the police. Any one of even minimal intelligence would probably step back if told to do so.
I don’t know what others were charged with, and I’m well aware of Amy Goodman’s lack of subtlety when dealing with cops, but that doesn’t explain the seriousness of the charge nor the philosophy of “Book ‘Em All, Let God It Out”
Again, I have been caught up in riots. You either comply with the orders the police issue or you suffer the consequences. Maybe the charges were drummed up, but the fact is, they had her dead to rights for ignoring a lawful order. I would look into what everyone that was arrested was charged with. I will bet dollars to donuts that it was a blanket charge used for everyone. Amd what’s wrong with ‘Book ‘em all’? If you’re innocent, that will be established quite clearly. It’s not like there were three or four people causing a disturbance.
Basically herb, they just use whatever charge they feel is most fitting. They aren’t expecting convictions, or even trials out of any of this. If you get arrested, there has to be some kind of charge, so they pick the one that fits. To explain the “Book ‘em all” situation, it’s just a measure for safety. In that chaos there is no determining who exactly did something and who didn’t. So you are left with choices. Arrest no one and let everything get out of hand, or make sweeping arrests to restore relative peace. Again, a riot situations is unique in that police must switch their priority from investigative work, to safety. There is no oppression going on, just some guys trying to make sure a minimum number of people get hurt.
So you’re saying they arrested her before they even knew what they would charge her with? If that isn’t an abuse of justice, I don’t know what is.
I don’t think you fully understand what was going on at the moment. They had crowds of people rioting. I doubt they’re goint to stand around trying to figure out what to charge her with. By the sounds of the charges that were made, they appear pretty generic.
By the sounds of the descriptions earlier, they were also a reasonable distance away from the people actually committing crimes. Just close enough to get it on camera.
I really doubt the police went looking for media people when they had a crowd of rioters to deal with. If they were arrested, they were probably in the middle of it. As for Amy Goodman, I suggest you take a look at the video.
I don’t believe that it’s too much of a stretch to accuse someone of conspiracy to incite a riot if they are aggravating an already volatile situation. Chances are though, if I were in her shoes, I’d do exactly the same thing ’cause it does make some dandy press.
“Since when is pressing the issue considered a “crime” or a “threat” worthy of arrest? The police had no cause to arrest her & charge her. ?
Mekkis,
Disobeying the lawful order of a police order is a crime anywhere that I can think of. Trying to rush through a police line after being told to stand back clearly qualifies. Can’t speak to the rest of her team, but that is enough in Amy’s case.
Amy Goodman was arrested for “Obstruction of a Peace Officer”. Her producers were arrested for Conspiracy to Incite a Riot. As Goodman herself stated, she went to “free her producers”. It wasn’t her place to “free” anyone.
“They can’t just arrest people without reason”
In a situation like this, the reason for arresting someone can, and should be, paper thin. They are trying to keep the peace, not put people in jail. Probably almost no one who got arrested will be convicted of ANYTHING. This is why we have a legal system.
If you honestly think police should err on the side of free speech in situations like this, rather than the side of safety, your priorities are messed up. I find your view of the situation to be borderline “tinfoil hat” stuff, too. Not everyone there was arrested, as you say. There is no proof or evidence that the violent protesters were “plants”. I’m surprised you would even suggest it. It’s NOT a leap whatsoever to think that some of the radical liberals would resort to violence.
Anyway, that’s a police department, not a privately employed Republican Death Squad. All they care about is people causing trouble on their streets. They don’t get paid extra depending on how many liberals they “oppress”. There is no evidence or proof of any of your claims, just a policy from ages past from the era of an irrational fear of Communism. Your exaggeration that EVERYONE was arrested is absurd. People who were respectful to the police when asked to move or stop a certain behavior were not arrested. It was people who decided to try and give the police crap that were arrested. And, yes, in this situation that IS an arrestable offense. It is their job to keep things from escalating.
They aren’t there to ensure free speech, they are there to ensure safety. I disagree with the Republicans on many things, virtually all their social views anyway, as well as the need to go stomping around in other countries. However, if I went to a protest I would be more than courteous to the police officers, and I certainly wouldn’t start yelling stupid “You have no right!!!” type stuff just to piss them off. That just shows a lack of respect. They aren’t some Republican stooges.
Perfectly said!
I concur!
I rate this 5 stars.
You rock dude.
Right arm!
On. I meant ON.
When you go to a riot you take certain risks.
Weren’t they going to a protest?
which turned int a riot (im’ so dumb when it comes to writing code)
….
I love starting stuff like this.
try the spaghetti method and forget branching.. :p
add a noodle and jam it
…memories of FORTRAN IV….
:mental meltdown: thanks ema..
LOL! I had to deal with a lot of legacy crap at one time… It still haunts me.
I used Fortran V when it was the latest thing.. *sigh* makes me realize how old I really am..
Yep, swapped the words there. Same idea though.
A protest that had ended according to the permit. People got arrested because they were asked to disperse from the area and wouldn’t leave. If they stuck around and protested after the permit expired, they took the risk of getting arrested, even if they were peaceful and just got swept up in the crowd.
They rounded up all that they could. Those who were peaceful were released. When you’ve got serious violence going on, you can’t stop and ask each person for ID and try to decide if they’re a threat. Duh.
Sure, throw rocks, slash tires, drop sacks of cement off bridges onto bus loads of children (attempted murder) and you can have a welcoming committe too!
That’s what you’re voting for if you support Obama!
You forgot third term abortions, madatory Muslim task forces, a Bill Ayers-led Weathermen Militia II, and whatever the hell else you spew on about.
Yes, voting for Obama will make everyone throw rocks, slash tires, and drop cement on children. I better get to Lowe’s before the price of cement rises and I can’t afford to kill school children. I know it’s hard EP, but stop being such an ass.
It’s the Obama supporters in this thread who are defending the rioters.
Which candidate do you think the rioters would prefer out of Obama and McCain?
Neither. Duh, anarchists?
That doesn’t follow that if you support Obama you also support riots in the street, nor does it follow that because some people (who may or may not have supported Obama) have rioted that Obama himself supports riots and that he will instill a rioting policy if he is elected. You know full well that you are being an ass and you are dong it to serve your own political viewpoints. I liked you better for the few brief weeks when you actually argued reasonably instead off throwing out paranoid one liners.
And if you vote for McCain you’re voting for mandatory abortion clinic bombings!
I guess the people that were arrested were just dumb and slow. Someone please tell me what slashing tires, breaking windows, turning over cars, lighting fires and assaulting innocent people has to do with peaceful protest.
How many protests need to happen before protesters realize that they are there at their own risk? It’s not new. It’s not like they have never seen a protest and have NO IDEA what could happen there. (OMG the cops have teargas! TEARGAS!!!!) They know what’s going to happen and then they whine and go all limp when being arrested. They antagonize law enforcement and whine like little babies when they are taken in for it. It’s so cheesy! It’s all been done before.
And in the end, nobody really even gives a crap and they end up being a LOL on the interwebs!
Something about rubber bullets, tasers, and tear gas being a fair and just reaction (in the eyes of cmw08) to those people that -weren’t- rioting, just because they were expressing their Constitutional right to peaceably assemble and protest strikes me as a bit… FUBAR.
And some of us -do- give a crap when others’ rights are trampled (mostly because we foolishly believe some of them might come to our aid should our rights be trampled).
How about the all of the ones that were arrested in their own homes whithout having done anything at all?
Like when the cops raided (w/o a warrant) a Food Not Bombs house with the “probable cause” of them building bombs? The cops decided to sit everyone outside, cuffed, and wait for a warrant.
Please document the “without a warrant”. And WHICH FNB house are you referring to? They raided four, as well as other locations.
Other than that, the police, Sheriff’s Department, and FBI were looking for weapons and other “implements of destruction”, as Arlo put it. They found bottles of urine, bags of feces, guns, pipe and chains in several locations.
I haven’t the time to thoroughly find and document sources — this doesn’t mean you automatically win; this means I’m too busy and ought not be procrastinating this much — but police are allowed to search without a warrant if they can verify a probable cause of imminent danger. I can’t recall the full and proper wording at this moment. (Again, this is not an assumed win for you). They were allowed to do what they did; it is the manner in which they carried these raids out that was a bit unsettling.
I didn’t realize St. Paul was so close to Baghdad.
I’ve no postulations on the bags of urine and feces (though that seems far-fetched, especially for a nonviolent organization). Guns? Aren’t they protected by the 2nd Amendment? And *gasp!* you mean to say that residents in the northern MidWest would have pipes and chains in their homes? Shocking!
You mean the criminals who were caught with weapons before they could actually use them to commit a crime?
Good work by the police.
Why is it that you lefties support political violence?
Caught with weapons? Isn’t it part of your constitution that everybody has the right to bare arms?
That means they were arrested for doing what is permitted by the US Constitution.
Whoops, ‘bear’ not ‘bare’.
You do have the right to ‘bear arms’. But if you have weapons and are arrested, that is a whole different ball game. It’s legal to have guns, it’s not legal to build bombs.
You mean the house that got raided with all of the molotov cocktails? Yeah, I think one of them mentioned that they were hoping to hit a cop and watch his flesh burn. Totally innocent. Stuff anyone would have in their homes. Who doesn’t talk to their friends about wanting to see a cop’s flesh burn? Normal, everyday life.
You’re right, and the demonstrators in Tianamen Square in China surely knew that the Chinese government would react harshly to cries for democracy. They deserved what they got for being so stupid as to demand their rights!
It has all been done before: Spartacus, John Ball, Bastille, Garibaldi, Ghandi, MLK Jr., etc. etc.
“Give me liberty, or give me death” – good thing folks like you weren’t around in 1776, or the US would still be a British colony.
My favorite bumper sticker: The labor movement – from the people who brought you the weekend. Puts it all in perspective.
This could just as easily have been labeled “YIPpie Welcoming Committee”. (For them as don’t know, that was the Youth International Party of Chicago 1968 notoriety.) The more things change, blah blah blah.
Actually that’s how Hillary plans on welcoming Obama if he should win.
Ah, ha! The Amy Goodman Fan Club!
You know how to tell the difference between a camera and a gun? No, well neither do the riot police at the RNC.
I love how the hard core Republicans and wingnuts can justify any action taken in honour of defending their precious party. News flash – protesting is actually legal as much as you guys hate it. And please spare me the “That’s what you get for demonstrating” meme. NYC is paying a bucket load of cash for arresting people at the LAST RNC who were walking to work with Starbucks in their hands. Wromg place, wrong time, 72 hours in jail. And we’re talking 75 year old ladies. So why don’t you fall off your ivory towers and wake up and stop your yapping and complaining about, oh, pretty much everything. It’s boring and old.
The right to peaceful assembly is a guarantee. The right to incite to riot is not.
Boston Tea Party, anyone?
Completely different circumstances. It amazes me that you’re trying to equate the two. Go back and reread your history.
You’re right. The Tea Party was the willing destruction of private property, as currently defined as “terrorism” by the DHS. Interestingly enough, the Tea Party was set off by the Tea Act which removed the taxes levied on larger importers of the fine leaf, with particular note to the East India Tea Co. None of the mom-and-pop teahouses could compete with the now duty-free EITC leaf.
I am DeathWyrmNexus and I approve this statement.
Not trying to stir up trouble, but isn’t the “ivory tower” stuff usually levelled towards liberal college professors? Anyway, there is complaining enough on both sides of this one.
But, as I said in a thread above, when stuff gets out of hand the police have the responsibility to ensure safety above all else. They aren’t there to ensure free speech. When some whackos show up and start being violent, they are to blame for the peaceful demonstration getting ruined, not the police. I’m not sure what the “cash for arresting people” is about, there is no cash incentive for arrests. Maybe I misunderstood your point.
Theres absolutely nothing wrong with demonstrating. A lot of good has been gained in this country by peacefully demonstrating. However, that right to protest does not trump the right of people to be safe. When things get out of hand, it has to be stopped. Even if only a minority are the ones to ruin it for everyone, the police cannot ignore it.
As I think Eddie said above, I thought you were a hard-core leftie too. But the more you write the better I like you. I still think we’re on the opposite side of many issues, but I still think I like you.
R.
And the hardcore liberal types i.e. the jellybeans and seths think I am one step away from Evil Pundit. So Im either doing something terribly wrong, or terribly right.
And to think I thought you a lefty too ! My Bad!
Terribly right.
… and terribly left too.
You’re one of the ones I haven’t been able to pick what side you are on
because your opinions most definitely don’t follow party lines perfectly, which would make you polar opposite to EP.
Check with Ben Franklin on your safety statement, I think he understood the concepts of peaceful and not peaceful protest, liberty vs security, etc. Now, don’t jump down my throat, I’m not justifying the violence initiated in St. Paul, but I am questioning the police response. Their job is to protect the peaceful protesters as much as anyone else. Just because some idiot committs a crime in an area where I am protesting, does not give the police the right to arrest me. We have police, because we expect them to act with restraint in confusing situations.
I disagree. When people are destroying property the police have every right to step in and stop them. My rights stop at your nose, true?
true, but that is the crux of the issue…were the people that the police arrested in fact the one’s destroying the property…in most cases, in this event, no. Therefore, the police did not protect the rights of the innocent, they in fact denied those they were sworn to protect the basic trappings of liberty.
Since I wasn’t physically there I can’t actually say for sure. But, out of 10,000 protestors they arrested 200 or so, so I’m guessing they tried to get the ones they thought were causing the problem.
same here. I do think that we should default to the police and their on-the-scene judgement, but they do need to address why they clearly arrested accredited journalists, I do remember CHI 68.
For the 10K protesters, the arrested 800+ with the RNC.
I don’t know the total number of DNC protesters, but arrests were around 150.
Holy crap, the cops did act with incredible restraint while the criminals were spitting, berating, and throwing shit at them. On many occasions, they sat back and waited while even protests without a permit were going on. The fact that they gave numerous dispersal warnings indicates some restraint. Towards the end of the week, I think they tended to move in more quickly because things really got out of hand and IndyMedia sent more and more people there to “express solidarity”. More accurately, “win the battle” or “take the bridge”.
I would love to know how many of the whiners were actually there? I live in St. Paul. And for those of us who live and work downtown, I’m forever grateful to the Police and Riot police for containing things as fast as possible. I have friends who live in the building it started in front of. They couldn’t even leave their building.
The idiots were lighting dumpsters on fire and pushing them into intersections. Slashing tires while cars were parked at stoplights, smashing windows of stores, cop car windows, you name it. They started the rioting less than a block away from a peaceful group of moms w/ children who were gathered. To “peacefully protest the violence of the war.” Ummm…isn’t that like going after a mosqito w/ a shot gun??
So to the cops…. Thank you. We appreciate it.
To the idiots who just want to whine about free speech and rights…. Until it’s YOUR hometown being torn up and YOUR lives and homes and cars being threatened and destroyed….. Shut up, grow up, and thank God you weren’t stuck in the middle.
I don’t think anybody is voicing approval of people throwing flaming dumpsters into intersections.
However, I would be concerned with the fact that while these idiots were doing these things, riot police were bloodying up journalists and dragging them away by their ankles.
I want to know what was going through these cop’s minds that they decided to ignore the rioters destroying property and go after the people wearing press credentials who were videotaping it.
Really? The ‘media’ were bloodied up and dragged by their ankles? Can you provide more information? FYI, you may or may not recall, but when the Iranians took Americans hostage, everytime the cameras showed up the crowds went batshit crazy. I suspect that this probably the same mob mentality that happened at the DNC. Funny what some people will do to get their mug on TV. AS for the ‘journalists’ in question, Amy Goodman and her bunch, I would not be the least bit surprised to find out they were in fact inciting the rioters even further.
They obviously weren’t ignoring it. If anyone who did it didn’t get arrested, its because they evaded the police. It wouldnt be THAT hard in that amount of chaos to disappear into the crowd.
I fail to see any reason to think the police were IGNORING violent protesters and intentionally targetting the press. That’s just tinfoil hat stuff.
Logic dictates that if there is a riot going on, every riot cop there should have better things to do with his time than giving one reporter a bloody nose and dragging another one to jail by the ankle.
I’m not saying this has anything to do with some GOP plan to silence reporters. I’m just pointing out the blatant idiocy of these riot police.
It’s really quite simple. If you’re a riot cop and there is a riot going on do you…
A. Beat-up journalists for doing their job.
B. Find somebody who is ACTUALLY RIOTING and douse them with pepper spray.
When you have people LIGHTING THINGS ON FIRE how do a few people with video cameras become a priority target? Did the riot police run out of actual rioters? Were they bored? Did they mistake journalists with video equipment and press credentials with drunken rabblerousers throwing molotov cocktails?
How can you say they obviously weren’t ignoring it? When you have riot cops beating up journalists while actual rioters are running that is by definition ignoring the rioters.
Lucky I wasn’t there.. I would have tasered the media.. (ok, that was a troll comment, but seriously, everyone that is trying to be an apologist for the media have absolutely no idea what was going at that given moment.)
I think the consensus here is if you find yourself in the vicinitiy of a riot and the police ask you to do something, you should do it, even if you are the King of Spain. Complain later.
Depending on the strength of your convictions, I suppose. It’s drawing the line between on what is wise and what is (in your eyes) cowardice.
The term “media” is so muddied these days. Anyone with a camera calls themself a member of the media. The cops don’t have to sort out who’s legitimate and who’s just there to start problems. I’m sure the next tactic will be for all of the criminals to carry cameras and fake credentials. If you paid attention to Indy Media at all during the protests, you would have seen that they were telling people where skirmishes were happening and told them to go there. In fact, they were reveling in the destruction and disruption. These are not media. These are members of the “cause”.
*high five*
Nooooo kidding. I live outside the cities, but the father of one of my friends lives in St. Paul. He could smell the pepperspray from his apartment; we (me and my friend) we getting pretty worried; he was fine, nothing happened to him, thank God.
Another friend of mine is in Colorado and had to deal with the DNC. He hates cops, but he was glad they were around for the Convention, to say the least.
There were riots at the DNC? It’s my understanding that the protests at the DNC were peaceful, whereas the RNC had rioting? Huh, go figure that one..
People are angrier at Republicans and their actions and stances than at Democrats and theirs.
ha. just because the Democrats don’t seem to HAVE a stance. DNC had republicans protesting, the RNC had democrats protesting. Go figure which was more violent. Hmm…
Did you not understand my point?
No. He’s a troll.
I witnessed a number of protests in Denver. Even did a little marching with the Liberal/Progressive Anti-War peeps.
So people understand: very few protesters at the DNC were Repubs; mosts were liberals and progressive independents displeased with the actions of the Dem party.
I don’t disagree, but to turn to the destuction of property sure doesn’t make the people representing the Democracts look very democratic.
Notice: the riot shields say “POLICIA,” not “POLICE.” This pic was not even shot in the U.S., people.
Post-describer and all previous commenters FAIL.
WIN!! Ah, yo amo el smell de pepper spray en el morningo!
Doesn’t really change the essence of the discussion. Idiot WIN!
This picture wasn’t taken in St. Paul. The other one was. Anyone who lives in the area recognized the downtown. lol
Oh good catch though, btw. I don’t think most of us even give the pics more than a brief glance, and only see the caption. Sometimes they’ll even have people labelled wrongly. One guy who clearly WASNT Dick Cheney, labelled as Dick Cheney, was the most epic failure I can remember.
I remember that one, still don’t know who that guy was!
BASIC RIGHTS DO NOT STOP EXISTING JUST BECAUSE IT IS INCONVENIENT FOR POLICE.
BASIC RIGHTS DO NOT STOP EXISTING JUST BECAUSE A FEW WINDOWS GET BROKEN.
If anything, police are under MORE duty to refrain from repression and catch-all arrests during protests than otherwise, because the right to protest is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT (and having to get “permits” and the rest VIOLATES this right, making it conditional on the state’s whims and convenience.
I am sick of right-wingers – who support wars, executions, the starvation of Indian farmers – WHINING about “violence” at protests.
If police attack protesters, suppress protests and deny basic liberties then they DESERVE whatever so-called “violence” happens. PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEFEND FREEDOM FROM POLICE REPRESSION USING FORCE – else freedom CEASES TO EXIST. It is EXACTLY THE SAME as fighting against Hitler when he was destroying democracies across Europe.
People who pretend to support a free or civilised society, who support the repressive ANTI-FREEDOM and barbaric UNCIVILISED actions of VIOLENT BRUTAL POLICE, have no credibility whatsoever.
“Someone please tell me what slashing tires, breaking windows, turning over cars, lighting fires and assaulting innocent people has to do with peaceful protest.”
- it has to do with DEFENDING THE RIGHT TO PEACEFUL PROTEST when this right has been VIOLATED AND TRAMPLED ON by the fascist police. Just like fighting Hitler in World War II had to do with establishing peace in Europe. Fascists everywhere seek the “peace” of total domination, against which violence to defend rights is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.
Police do NOT try to keep peace or calm in “riot situations”. They try to stamp ARBITRARY AUTHORITY on whoever happens to be there, and DO NOT CARE if this causes trouble or not. According to historian Charles Tilly, most clashes between police and protesters are INITIATED BY POLICE. Police repression, attempts to “disperse” crowds and arrests of innocent people only INCREASE the likelihood of unrest. And rightly so. Democracy cannot survive with out-of-control police. It is NECESSARY that people use force to keep the police from creating a fascist state. America is so far gone towards fascism because there is TOO LITTLE resistance to state power.
America is not a democracy any more, because police do not respect basic rights. Let’s look at the facts.
A society where someone can be arrested for disobeying a police order, regardless of whether this order takes their rights or needs into account, is a fascist society.
A society where an innocent person can be arrested because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, without personal suspicion against them, is a fascist society.
A society where the privilege of “law abiding” sheep to live in the “peace” of tyranny is considered more basic than the right to protest is a fascist society.
A society where whining about a bit of property damage and disruption is considered enough to justify extreme terroristic violence by agents of the state is a fascist society.
A society which puts safety before free speech is a fascist society.
A society which does not recognise the right of journalists to cover events without police interference is a fascist society.
There are some people on this thread (lolnathan for example) who clearly want to live in a fascist society. That’s their preference, but they have to realise that the rest of us no longer have any duties towards them if this is the society they create. They can’t whine about people fighting back by any means necessary, because they abolished the conditions of social peace when they set up a fascist society. They want to have it both ways: to live in a fascist society where no rights are recognised, and to whine when they think their “rights” or privileges of conformity are disrupted.
If the defence of a free society from (police) fascism is not sufficient grounds to use force then I don’t know what is. The only way one can logically oppose the use of force against repressive police is if you oppose violence on principle in all cases – in which point you logically must condemn the existence of the police, which is a permanent institution of violence.
This isn’t some petty issue. This is about the struggle between good and evil. Those who support police are on the side of evil.
Evil is a perspective.
.
You need to check the definitions of fascism and democracy I think.
You still live in a democracy because your leaders can be voted out and new people can be voted in. As long as you still have the right to vote, you are still in a democracy.
Umm no. A democracy is a society which respects basic rights and liberties – ALL basic rights and liberties. Milosevic, Mugabe, Saddam, Mubarak, Musharraf, Arap Moi, Ahmadinejad, Lukashenko, all had/have elections, mostly with multiple candidates. Milosevic was repeatedly elected ahead of several opposition candidates. Ahmadinejad took power from the Khatami faction in Iran just a few years ago, in elections. John McCain says Russia is a KGB state, not a democracy – a plausible view – but Russia has multi-party elections. Even Hitler held plebiscites. Would you call any of these countries democracies? Hell no.
Democracy literally means “rule by the people”. Statements in this thread have said things like, “if police tell you what to do, you obey or else”. This is the OPPOSITE of rule by the people. This is rule OVER the people, BY THE POLICE. It is a relation of command, hence of DICTATORSHIP. No doublespeak or technicality will get out of the blatant contradiction here. In a democracy there is an outer frame of rights and liberties which restrict what the state can do, in any and all circumstances. These rights and liberties necessarily trump every specific concern (about the general good, “public safety”, “security”, etc), since otherwise the state arrogates power and cannot be held in check. If this external frame does not exist, or if it is violated regularly or “interpreted” out of existence, then democracy cannot exist since the state cannot be accountable to the people (even if it occasionally asks their endorsement, or a choice between two authoritarians for certain positions of limited power).
If a “democracy” were just any country with an elected government, then there would be nothing wrong with the government deciding, in line with majority will, to for instance, carry out a genocide against an unpopular minority. In fact there is a huge grey area between functioning democracies and one-party systems – where a single oligarchy holds power through several parties for instance, where electoral choices are constrained by the possible disapproval or intervention of sections of the “permanent” state, where a ruler is able to manipulate populism and patronage to stay in power, where certain sections of the state have impunity and needn’t care who gets elected… just a few examples. In fact America is very far-gone towards the fascism pole, because the police and “security” agencies are absolutely out of control – innocent people get arrested for protesting, people get killed in cold blood when they pose no threat and nothing is done about it, many are killed every year by tasers, activists are raided BEFORE protests to intimidate and terrorise, not to mention the ridiculously draconian penal system (the worst in the west), the abduction of foreign nationals from the other side of the world, the use of torture and cruel and inhuman treatment, etc. It matters NOTHING whether this lack of oversight and accountability, this lack of basic liberties, is a result of popular disempowerment or popular cooptation. It is NOT democracy because it lacks the basic FRAME for democracy.
Oh, and evil isn’t just a perspective. The police do not simply have a perspective. They unleash terroristic violence against dissidents on the basis of their “perspective”. If they just peacefully held their perspective and didn’t act on it, then it would be just a perspective. As it is, it is a system of social domination.Stopping police repression is just the same as stopping a rape, a serial killing, a child abduction, a KKK lynching. In each case the assailant also has a “perspective”. Does anyone care about this, when it comes to standing up – with force if necessary – to such oppressors? It is no different with violent police – except that the oppressor is a hundred times more deadly, a hundred times more important to stop.
The police “perspective” includes a number of aspects characteristic of fascism: a belief that there is no basic right to protest, that security trumps liberty, that “public safety” is more important than basic rights, that there’s nothing wrong with arresting innocent people, and that police violence should be carried on with impunity and not subject to media scrutiny.
Look at the history of fascism. Germany is almost unique in having a fascist regime emerging from a mass movement (in this case arising from demobilised soldiers). In every other case, the fascists either consisted of the permanent state apparatus of police and “security forces” (as in Spain, Portugal, Latin America, Greece) or were waved into power by them (as in Italy). Everywhere, there is a perfect continuity between fascism and the power of the police and “security forces”, even in so-called democracies. It therefore follows that, the more power police arrogate in relation to dissent, the closer a society approximates to fascism. (It matters little who is officially “in power”; if nobody will stand up to the police violence, the police will behave as if it is a one-party state).
If the police insist on attempting to impose their “perspective”, state fascism, on the population and on dissenting groups, then these groups have a right to use whatever force is necessary to defend their basic rights.
PS: This is not a left-right issue, or a democrat-republican issue. This is a freedom vs tyranny issue. The right has its own reasons to be afraid of an out of control state. The attack on the “Liberty Dollar” was patent abuse. The behaviour of police at Ruby Ridge, at Waco and in the Elian case was despicable (regardless of the merits of the cases). Ultimately the police state disempowers EVERYONE – not just the most immediate targets of police violence. The choice is whether one wants a society of freedom and rights or a society where anyone who stands up to the man with a big stick gets beaten up, fitted up and locked up – if not outright murdered.
A conservative is a liberal who has just been mugged.
A liberal is a conservative who has just been arrested.
I lol’d
Ha! I have to remember that one.
The funny part is, it says “POLICIA”. This is clearly NOT from the actual RNC.