Dissent in Pittsburgh

Overheal

Skelliser wrote:

simple, guys in military fatigues are usually army, in this case we dont know precisely who they are which is my only concern.

Hmmm.

Skelliser wrote:

US military on the streets of there own country!
America is or is almost a police state, no two ways about it.

land of the free, ya right!

Changing the tune of your whistle there a bit methinks, after being discredited by several other contributors here.

Why don't you come back in the morning after you've had a chance to actually read up on wtf you're talking about? You're not really going off of hard evidence here, just an apparent "hunch" that because they are wearing Camoflauge, they are military.

Its a clip on youtube. A short clip on that. I would hardly call it conclusive. Really missing the lead-up of why this individual was taken. You're seeing fangs and crying wolf: it could just be an elephant. Or a walrus. OR a Hippo. ****ing Hippos.

Manic Moran

skelliser wrote: »

simple, guys in military fatigues are usually army

As I said, you can't make that assumption in the US. In fact, because of Posse Comitatus, you usually have to make the opposite assumption.

Pennsylvania State Police (In which Pittsburgh is located) are amongst those police forces which wear BDUs. (Not least, neither multicam nor BDU (both types in the alleged 'snatch' arrest video) are on general issue to the Army or National Guard.) You can make out the 'police' marking on the body armour of one of them in this photo of a raid a couple of months ago.



You can also make out the patch on the guy's right shoulder in the video, which appears to be the Keystone of the PSP.

Compare:




So, when it comes to

in this case we dont know precisely who they are

I'm putting money on the PA State Police. (Unfortunately also known as the Keystone Cops)

The lad was apparently nicked for vandalism.

makes the situartion even worse/unsafe for both the general public and the guys in fatigues.

Can't see how not getting him out of there in a hurry would have been in any way any better, and can see how it could have gotten quite nasty.

NTM

Nodin

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Maybe if the Gardai weren't such cowards Ireland wouldn't be in the mess its in with regards to crime. It has well earned the name Bloody Ireland.

Kindly give examples of this 'cowardice' on the part of the Gardai.

Please explain the remark "It has well earned the name Bloody Ireland", bearing in mind the murder rate here is under the European average.

SLUSK

Manic Moran wrote: »

If memory serves correctly, there were two different gatherings. One was pretty much non-eventful, and the other was declared an illegal gathering. If you hang around at an illegal gathering and fail to disperse, then of course you will result in 'heavy-handedness' by the police: They've already told you once, what would you like them to do next? Tell you again?

NTM

Ever heard of the 1st amendment?

Manic Moran

Ever heard of the 1st amendment?

Yes, but just like every other Constitutional right, it's not unrestricted.

NTM

Overheal

SLUSK wrote: »

Ever heard of the 1st amendment?

Of course. But have you also heard of all the conditions that outline the 1st ammendment? You know, Disturbing the peace, Racism, Slander, Libel, Harrassment - ya know, the Usual.

Similarly protest in order to best serve the public interest needs to be declared and coordinated with the authorities in order to create a safe environment for protestors, police, and onlookers alike. For this reason a permit is sought for the vast majority of protests, and authorities are informed beforehand of peaceful demonstrations. This was not the case on the night of the 24th where looting and vandalism was taking place - in the middle of the night, mind you - what do you think the police were going to do? They are also charged with the protection of All peoples and properties within their jurisdiction. There was No Need for demonstrators to be out there the night prior.

SLUSK

Overheal wrote: »

Of course. But have you also heard of all the conditions that outline the 1st ammendment? You know, Disturbing the peace, Racism, Slander, Libel, Harrassment - ya know, the Usual.

Similarly protest in order to best serve the public interest needs to be declared and coordinated with the authorities in order to create a safe environment for protestors, police, and onlookers alike. For this reason a permit is sought for the vast majority of protests, and authorities are informed beforehand of peaceful demonstrations. This was not the case on the night of the 24th where looting and vandalism was taking place - in the middle of the night, mind you - what do you think the police were going to do? They are also charged with the protection of All peoples and properties within their jurisdiction. There was No Need for demonstrators to be out there the night prior.

You should not need a permission to protest in a free country. Unfortunately USA is no longer a free country. It is becoming a fascist police state.

Overheal

SLUSK wrote: »

You should not need a permission to protest in a free country. Unfortunately USA is no longer a free country. It is becoming a fascist police state.

Conspiracy Forum is that way

---

>

Maybe Pennsylvania is becoming a Fascist State (Damn those Troopers!) but the USA is far from it friend.

We also have the Right to Bear Firearms yet I don't see you bitching because we need a permit to do that.

Manic Moran

SLUSK wrote: »

You should not need a permission to protest in a free country.

It works out. They're allowed protest, and they can say whatever the hell they want. They just have to do so in a place which is ammenable to all parties.

NTM

jank

I wonder what fox and more specifically beck made of this incident?
They probably ignored it as it didn't fit their agenda.

Overheal

jank wrote: »

I wonder what fox and more specifically beck made of this incident?
They probably ignored it as it didn't fit their agenda.

I didnt see CNN coverage on it either. Something about Hillary kissing Bill at some event or something. Then I switched channels: Glenn Beck was covering this video thats making the rounds in schools: The Story of Stuff. He managed to widely discredit many of the 'facts' in the film.

jank

Overheal wrote: »

I didnt see CNN coverage on it either. Something about Hillary kissing Bill at some event or something. Then I switched channels: Glenn Beck was covering this video thats making the rounds in schools: The Story of Stuff. He managed to widely discredit many of the 'facts' in the film.

Ah right the "War on education" well under way!
Good ol beck the nutjob!

Nodin

SLUSK wrote: »

You should not need a permission to protest in a free country. Unfortunately USA is no longer a free country. It is becoming a fascist police state.

From what I can gather, the policing of this event was actually more restrained than in Seattle in 1999. Certainly its nowhere near as violent as what happened in Italy. Much smoke, little fire.

Overheal

jank wrote: »

Ah right the "War on education" well under way!
Good ol beck the nutjob!

if you bother to watch it, glennypoo has a point. The video is misleading at best.

sceptre

skelliser wrote: »

no you where found out for thinking the stazi were the same as the nazi's! lol! you are clearly out of your depth.

or do i have to explain what found out means now

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Careful asdasd. That's making too much sense for him.

You're both being idiotic.

Stop that or I'll put you outside the door.

Politeness is free - start using some. Preferably a lot more.

sceptre

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Ireland nickname of Bloody Ireland is well earned.

Not very well known though apparently - of the top three google results, this thread is two of them and I've never heard anyone use the phrase anywhere I've visited (but then I've only been on three continents so perhaps it's the other parts that use it). Personally I'm more likely to call it "****ing Ireland" depending on my mood.

DoireNod

Nodin wrote: »

From what I can gather, the policing of this event was actually more restrained than in Seattle in 1999. Certainly its nowhere near as violent as what happened in Italy. Much smoke, little fire.

Sure, it's not the most brutal of riot-policing, but how does one justify the use of tear-gas and subjection to terror on innocent (if ignorant) college kids and concerned (nosey) passers-by?

Some videos I've seen remind me of some dystopian movie - the robotic and uncompromising warning to vacate the area no matter what your purpose (essentially imposing a curfew of sorts) and the fascist-like march of the riot police and their unwarranted beat-down of an innocent couple. Disgraceful stuff if you ask me.

I don't care how much legalese bullsh1t you (not you Nodin, generally speaking!) throw out as a justification, that kind of action is not the kind of action you expect from a force that is supposed to 'protect and serve'. To 'protect and serve whom?' is the question we should be asking.

Manic Moran

DoireNod wrote: »

Sure, it's not the most brutal of riot-policing, but how does one justify the use of tear-gas and subjection to terror on innocent (if ignorant) college kids and concerned (nosey) passers-by?

Would you prefer more physical means?

If the police have to clear the streets, and just asking doesn't work, what comes next? A strongly-worded letter from the Mayor explaining how angry he is?

NTM

DoireNod

Manic Moran wrote: »

Would you prefer more physical means?

No, obviously.

If the police have to clear the streets, and just asking doesn't work, what comes next? A strongly-worded letter from the Mayor explaining how angry he is?

NTM

Why do the police have to clear the streets in this case? An illegal gathering? If so, what constitutes an illegal gathering?

Do you seriously think beating innocent people up and using tear gas were the only options the cops had in this case?

Here's a clip showing some crowd-control training for the South African police:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVtS8dWog7g

They had previously been criticised for using rubber bullets and heavy-handedness.

I've seen riots where you could maybe justify that kind of force, and these gatherings in Pittsburgh certainly don't compare. It's not a battle.

Manic Moran

Why do the police have to clear the streets in this case?

I have no idea. I'm not about to comment on the videos out of context. I presume the police didn't just decide to go there for the lark due to boredom.

And what sort of innocent idiots get in the way of advancing riot police anyway? "Yes, we're just out for a romantic evening stroll past the protests..."

NTM

LostinKildare

Overheal wrote: »

This was not the case on the night of the 24th where looting and vandalism was taking place - in the middle of the night, mind you - what do you think the police were going to do?

Looting in the middle of the night? Source please. From what I've read there was only about $50,000 worth of damage during the several days of protests -- from broken windows -- $20,000 of which was done by one man. Which is very little property damage for an anti-capitalist demo.

Manic Moran wrote: »

And what sort of innocent idiots get in the way of advancing riot police anyway?

People like Ian Tomlinson. What an idiot, eh? What a total dumbass for attempting to go about his lawful business.

Overheal

You're missing the point. Im too tired to lookup looting so ill give it to you. But that doesnt sidestep the issue: what are you trying to accomplish with a midnight protest?

Resurgam

Some of the most ridiculous stuff happened after all the dignitaries went home.

http://www.pittnews.com/node/20145

Resurgam

They smashed up the Irish Design Center between the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon U. campuses http://www.irishdesigncenter.com/

A strike against Irish cultural imperialism? :rolleyes:

asdasd

They smashed up the Irish Design Center http://www.irishdesigncenter.com/

A strike against Irish cultural imperialism?

If there were any patriotism left in the Irish Pysche no McDonalds would survie the night!!!




I jest, I jest. Lets go for BK!

LostinKildare

Overheal wrote: »

You're missing the point. Im too tired to lookup looting so ill give it to you. But that doesnt sidestep the issue: what are you trying to accomplish with a midnight protest?

Hm, I thought your broader point was that the police were justified in how they treated the protesters. By claiming that there was looting in the middle of the night you are making it seem that the violence was much worse than it was and the heavy-handed police tactics perhaps were justified.

But now that I know your issue is not the property damage that did occur, but with the time of day . . . . well, what is your point? They didn't have a permit, some people committed property crimes, by nighttime it was a mini-riot, not a planned political protest -- relevance of time of day?

Just thinking about it, generally speaking there are good reasons for scheduling a protest at night. Demonstrations don't have much effect except as political theater, having it at night makes the theater more dramatic.

Resurgam

I drove through Oakland late last Saturday night after getting my chocolate waffles and grits from Waffle House to survey the damage. I got stuck for 10 minutes because the riot police were all mobilizing in their darth vader armor speeding towards another student protest that was protesting the police response on Friday night. It ended peacefully that night, though.

Overheal

But now that I know your issue is not the property damage that did occur, but with the time of day . . . . well, what is your point? They didn't have a permit, some people committed property crimes, by nighttime it was a mini-riot, not a planned political protest -- relevance of time of day?

Just thinking about it, generally speaking there are good reasons for scheduling a protest at night. Demonstrations don't have much effect except as political theater, having it at night makes the theater more dramatic.

Peaceful protest gets as many eyes as it can, not while people are asleep. I dont want to see torches and pitchforks at 3am. The only reason you give for demonstrating at night is making it more dramatic: it also makes it more threatening and more confusing. The fact that they didnt have a permit means the police were not expecting them to even be there at that time. All it takes is a few phone calls from alarmed onlookers saying theres a riot going on for the cops to swing into action. Had they the permit, anybody calling in would have been informed by the dispatcher "No thats a scheduled protest, settle down."

In short Kil, the protesters weren't playing by the rules. I think its a bit farcical to expect the cops to. They responded to it like a riot, and it effectively was. They had reports of windows being smashed in and people on the streets in the middle of the night with no advance warning.

bobbyjoe

The protesters should arm themselves with guns. Then they wouldn't be shoved around like that.

LostinKildare

Overheal wrote: »

Peaceful protest gets as many eyes as it can, not while people are asleep. I dont want to see torches and pitchforks at 3am.

These days most people witness demonstrations via tv or the internet, not live and in person, and a candlelight protest can make for great film. Maybe for that reason(?), this type of protest seems to be more common -- google "candlelight protest."

The only reason you give for demonstrating at night is making it more dramatic: it also makes it more threatening and more confusing.

What, are you threatened and confused by nighttime? I am talking generally about lawful, organized political protest, not rioting. Are candlelight vigils threatening?

The fact that they didnt have a permit means the police were not expecting them to even be there at that time. All it takes is a few phone calls from alarmed onlookers saying theres a riot going on for the cops to swing into action. Had they the permit, anybody calling in would have been informed by the dispatcher "No thats a scheduled protest, settle down."

All of which would also be true if the events occurred during the daytime.

In short Kil, the protesters weren't playing by the rules. I think its a bit farcical to expect the cops to.

Of course cops are required to "play by the rules" when others don't -- that is their job -- to deal in a lawful way with people who are breaking the law. It's not "farcical" to expect them to.