AlphaWolf

Blame the riotors for inciting the police to have to use force to maintain some kind of order.. its unfortuant that the 10 month old was caught in the line of fire.. but I hold the adult responsible for bringing the child to a very volitile area.. The Police themselves should bare absolutely no responsiblity in this action.. The vast majority here will agree with me about this..
If anything the 10 month old should be considered "collateral damages" for the greater good of maintaining order. Plainsman cited two articles where adults were encouraged to bring children to the riot.. That is just plain sick and absolutely twisted.. . I hope its publicized and these organizations are exposed for putting innocent children at risk.. I tend to believe that the adult was actually a part of the protestors that followed the organizational suggestion of bringing children to the volitile area and are now trying to capitalize on it.. As a matter of fact..

They were there to protest.. So, your original post was actually off base, and I have no qualms whatsoever with them being included in the treatment of the protesters.. when you have thousands of people to control.. there will be a few that get in the line of fire.. unfortuantly they happen to be one, but I have a hard time feeling any sympathy for the ignorance of parents that would bring 3 children of those ages to a potential Riot. And I don't think you'll be getting any symapthy from the people here.. The Police have a job to do, and they did it well.. there were no major injuries.. Except for a Police officer who was tackled and had their wrist broken..

Plainsman1963

But I have the utmost sympathy to the children, who were brought by their parents , that were caught in the line of fire.

Without being there and seeing firsthand I cannot say whether the police "jumped the gun" a bit. From what I have read so far (3 sources), some of the protesters got a little rowdy and the police came down hard for fear of losing control. Not to mention 2 years ago they did have a riot...so they aren't going to let that happen again. Seeing how they were protecting the President of the United States, among other people I could forsee that happening and my children would have been nowhere near this demonstration.

Plains

AlphaWolf

You and I are saying almost the exact same thing, Plainsman.

I have sympathy for the children caught in the line of fire, but by no means should law enforcement back off and be afraid to act for fear of losing control in the situation just because there are children present, especially with the crowd continuing to incite the Police repeately. The potential for damages would be much greater if the law enforcement were afraid to act.. As it turned out.. there were minimal injuries..so I have a hard time finding any fault with anyone except for the rioters and parents that brought children to such an event.

Plainsman1963

Actually, the "organizers" of these demonstrations that encouraged families to attend rank right up there with the Iraqi's and Aghani's who populate all military targets with women and children. I sympathize with the pawns, but the tactic cannot work.

Exactly.

For a completely different view than mine read
Here
Talk about slanted viewpoint! I especially liked the part where Graf said it was a "crime against humanity". Oh, and in the comments where one of the people quoted came back to say "I never said that". lol

Plains

AnarchistBarbie

I read the interview with the father, and according to him they were not, in fact, 'there to protest'. The man was told to disperse by a cop, and when he attempted to do so, was herded INTO the crowd of protesters with his family - he was not originally in the crowd at all, he was across the street.

There should not ever be 'collateral damage' of innocents within our own population because of the actions of law enforcement again peaceful protesters - we're allowed to assemble, we're allowed free speech.

Bush isn't popular in Portland, and he knows it. Next time maybe he'll stay the f* home.

__________________
Life has no dress code.

wakDbuds

i think im with AB on this one... i am not opposed to using teargas or even pepperspray to disperse a violent mob, but firing baton rounds into a crowd with children in it is insane... if the only injury suffered by the police in this whole incident was one broken wrist, then i would question just how 'violent' or out of control the crowd really was... it seems like they simply didnt want to move, police started pushing them, and things escalated from there...

the fact that a child got peppersprayed would indicate that either

1) the police didnt give any warning before they started spraying
2) the crowd was so dense that people were simply not able to clear away
3) the childs father is a total looney who has no regard for his childrens safety, and willingly kept them in the middle of a violent mob that was clashing with the police

im no expert, but my opinion is that it was a combination of the first two

in this incident, they opened fire when the protesters didnt move . there is no indication here that these 15 protesters tried to instigate any sort of violence at all... do you think these people wanted to be shot and bashed by the police??? if the act of standing motionless is considered a state of emergency, then yes i think the police used excessive force.

when you consider that one was arrested, probably for pushing back at the police, it is in my opinion a microcosm for the protest at large... the police asserted their authority, were largely ignored, perhaps pushed or targeted with a rock by the odd looney, and they responded by blanketing the crowd with chemical weapons and rubber bullets...

i reiterate the fact that only one officer was injured, due to being pushed....

__________________
Where do we go from here?
Time 'aint nothing but time.
I now have no fear of my fears,
And no more tears to cry.

Niteshift

"i reiterate the fact that only one officer was injured, due to being pushed...."

I'm glad you repeated it for us.

How many should get injured before it's ok to take action? Why should he spend the next 6 weeks in a cast and rehabbing a wrist afterwards because you're pissed about trees getting cut down?



"It's been my experience that more often than not (I would say 96 out of 100) it is the police which escalate situations and not protestors."

It would be more accurate if you said in "your opinion". 96% of the time you might THINK they escalated it, but how long a minute is depends on which side of the bathroom door you are on. Know what I mean?

"If LEO shows up with the military running the command center (which, in all honesty, is a violation of law to begin with"

Oh really? How do you figure? That national guard is under the command of the Governor unless it is federalized for a specific reason. As a state controlled entity, it's mandates include riot control and civil order.

Please tell me EXACTLY what law is being broken by using the National Guard in the role it is designed for.

Further, in most cases, the troops aren't put in charge.

"Very few people go to these events intent on being arrested."

I've seen a lot of people that went out on a Friday night, not intending to get arrested, but by the end of the night were in a jail cell. What does that have to do with anything?

"Law enforcement on the other hand ... Will bring in the military, have choppers, tanks, riot gear, set up pens, provoke people, charge unarmed protestors and assault them with very REAL weapons."

The "military" is not used as often as you would have people believe.

"Chopers" Big deal! So the police helicopter circles overhead? What does that have to do with anything? You make it sound like it's firing rockets into the crowd.

"riot gear". DUH! Why should that even need explained? Do you think anyone in their right mind would hold back a crowd that outnumbers them 50 to 1 with nothing but the love of Jesus in their eyes?

"set up pens" So? You have to put the people somewhere.

"provoke people" In your opinion. Please label it as such.

"charge unarmed protestors" Again, what does that have to do with anything? Where does the statute against trespassing or disorderly conduct require a weapon?

"assault them with very REAL weapons." I reject that out of hand. Assault implies a crime. If the use of force is legal, it isn't assualt to me.

"This is a more accurate picture of how these events actually go down. After you abuse people, mace them, tear gas them, fire rubber bullets at them, whack a few hundred people over the head with your nightstick (ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON) ..."

More accurate? Where? When? How many times has this scenario played out as you're described?

Hyperbole much?

"I find it highly disappointing anyone here could even take "official government versions of events" as reported in the corrupt government serving press as anything more than "a mythlogical fairy tale based on their version of events". "

Oh, yeah.......instead, let's take the version of events from a guy we don't know and who probably wasn't even there.........a guy who is the "veteran of many causes", but not this particular one.......let's take his version as more truthful.

At least the reporters were there.

"If you dig through the details I'm 100% sure you will find: a military commend center directing operations"

DIRECTING? Is that correct?

"police in riot gear"

Aside from the fact that the pictures in the links SHOWED cops in riot gear... So F-ing what if they had on riot gear. What does one wear to a protest? Armani?

"some type of "pens" set up (which are used almost exclusively to provoke violence). "

Please explain how they provoke violence.

"The facts that police had tear gas, full riot gear, rubber bullets -- on hand ..."

Of course they did. What do you think they shoudl do, wait until they need them and hope FedEx can deliver through the crowd?

"Should tell you that they probably had pens set up as well. Military command center is almost a given"

Already giving yourself wiggle room???? 2 sentences ago you were "100% sure", not it's "probably" and "almost a given"

__________________
A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.

Plainsman1963

AB, please please please provide me with a link to this interview...everything I have read shows that the father decided to bring his family to the demonstration (link called protesters). Perhaps we are talking about different people.

Plains

SacredNaCl

Oh really? How do you figure? That national guard is under the command of the Governor unless it is federalized for a specific reason. As a state controlled entity, it's mandates include riot control and civil order.

Please tell me EXACTLY what law is being broken by using the National Guard in the role it is designed for.

Further, in most cases, the troops aren't put in charge.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 67 > Sec. 1385.

Sec. 1385. - Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

And this isn't the NATIONAL GUARD, or the COAST GUARD. The USMC (Yes, the Jarhead division of the NAVY) was put in charge of the command center in Portland.
As specifically forbidden by law.

Even the National Guard can only be invoked by emergency order of the governor in the event of state "declared" emergency, and federalized only by an act of congress. You can't just bring the National Guard out to do traffic stops... A few hundred protestors hardly qualifies as a national emergency.

The Posse Comitatus act was passed specifically to prevent using US troops in domestic operations for "political purposes". You can go read the debate on it if you wish to. It was passed because of certain sitting presidents using the military to disrupt lawful protest for polical gain. Just as the military is being used here.


How often does this happen exactly as I described...Ohh, Portland, Seattle globilization conference, NYC WEF conference, and Washington DC WTO protest come immediately to mind. It happens a lot more often than you think.

Seattle the US ARMY ran the command center. Washington DC it was split between the Air Force, Army. NYC had the Marines, Army, and CIA <-- which is forbidden from operating domestic but claimed "signifigant numbers of people were coming from somewhere else" to justify their presence.

As to your "choppers" big deal.. No, those weren't police choppers at WEF ...Not unless the police dept has Blackhawks & Apaches. Nor do I think the local police dept has tanks on hand, nor do I believe that they have F-18/F-16's. If you were there you would of also noticed the machine gun nest, the black clad snipers on the roofs & peering out of windows.

Pens? Where else you going to put people?

These aren't pens designed to temporarily hold people who are arrested...These are pens erected to trap thousands of legal protestors in a block sized area -- where they typically fence them in on 3 or all sides -- at which point the police charge protestors with nightsticks, pepper bombs, mace, and other "goodies". Happened in: Seattle, Washington DC, and NYC. Also happened here in Calloway Missouri.

Gung Ho Marines have NO place in domestic law enforcement, and as far as I'm concerned, they don't have much a role in peace keeping either. They aren't trained for it.

Plainsman1963

Ok, have to do more research before I jump left or right on all that.

However, my knee jerk reaction is you are confusing two seperate issues here...the demonstration, and protecting the President of the United States. I imagine if the President wasn't there, then local, county and state police would have been the only law enforcement there.

Off to do more reading now...hi ho, hi ho.

Plains