Slashdot Mirror
Danger in the Big Blue Room
TUESDAY
Fly-on-the-Wall No More
My original plan was to spend a weekend in Philly -- Friday to Sunday. A friend had sacrificed a room of his group house for my photographer (who returned home early in the week) and I. I expected to snap some photos, scrawl some notes, and arrive at my real job as usual Monday morning slightly tired, but armed with a fistful of interesting parables. What actually happened was quite different from the journalistic drive in the country I had envisaged. I wound up spending eight days in Philly sleeping during hour-long lulls on unfamiliar floors, in the rain, in a muddy park; fed by the generosity of Quakers. I startle to consciousness with contorted images of my friends struggling, screaming, smiling. I wake with my mouth full of screams and my limbs jerking to dodge imagined obstacles.
I departed from my original plan early in the week. Midway through an anti-poverty march, I spotted a well-known activist on a sidewalk and called out to him. After explaining who I was and dropping two or three names, he pulled his face close and whispered that he needed support people, and more importantly, people willing to get arrested. He provided an address that I hastily inked on my forearm before rejoining the procession.
Went to a meeting, made a 1 am call. Luckily, an experienced activist had vouched for my legitimacy. Met my affinity group early next morning in a stifling, cockroach infested, upper-level rowhouse apartment. I still don't know their real names. We crouched on the floor, periodically sipping water (to stave off dehydration during the action) and smoking while the process of consensus ground on. Activist meetings are typically conducted by consensus a democratic process that scorns dominant personalities (there are no leaders, only facilitators), and eventually produces unified, mutually agreeable resolutions. People sit in circles during consensus, and use silent hand gestures instead of shouting to signify their reaction to the topic being discussed. Eschewing the rigid hierarchy of the corporate boardroom, such meetings are tedious, but fulfilling. After introductions, the human circle on the bedroom floor was partitioned into arrestables and non-arrestables. Depending on experience, the non-arrestables became medics, legal liaisons and support personnel. Tactics were finalized and rehearsed.
Before heading out, we marked up our legs, arms and shoes with the legal team's phone number. If the apartment was raided during this meeting (something that used to happen to dissidents in this nation, and, I think will become frequent again), I probably would not be writing this article for another week. I would be punished with a daisy-chain of hysterical misdemeanors like "Conspiracy to incite a riot, or Conspiracy to endanger property."
We had agreed to meet again in several hours. I handed my ID, wallet, keys and bike to my photographer. He would take a few shots of the action, and head back down to Baltimore. I blew a kiss at my bike -- which was chained to a stop sign -- wheeled around, and marched toward the predetermined meeting point.
I spotted my group immediately. They were huddled around a plastic table in the back of a restaurant. The multi-hued bandanas, dreadlocks, and environmentalist slogans weren't exactly covert. Then again, the pairs of heavies encamped around the huddle while scrutinizing last-page classifieds and nursing full beers weren't deep cover, either. A water jug was passed around, last minute lavatory trips were made, and we dissipated into pairs.
Minus the gas-mask holster strapped to my left leg, my partner and I may have been our AG's most clean-cut detachment. I wore orange target shooting lenses to tone down my tunnel vision. The heavies had amassed. We stepped quickly to the street, precisely halting several feet before every crosswalk. Looking both ways, and snatching peeks behind. Several blocks away now.
"Tear it to pieces! Eat it!"
ASSHOLES!
Every night with darkness came rain. Heavy, drilling downpours. The remnants of our AG scattered in loose formation back to the apartment, ducking under every available overhang. I bought a coffee at a Wawa, and requested a plastic bag to shroud my camera. I don't believe that probability governs human behavior. But I can state with certainty that, after dusk, there is always at least one cop shuffling through each of Philly's well-lit Wawas. I could feel his brown eyes jerk up from the body count tally scrawled on the back of my flak jacket to lock on my medulla.
I exited the Wawa, coffee already diluted by rain. We splashed uphill. A squad car roared past us. It slowed half a block ahead. The passenger's window rolled down. "ASSHOLES!" yelled several voices from the dark interior of the cruiser. Then it roared off.
I retorted with a Rebel Yell, the only response that came to mind before I doubled over.
WEDNESDAY
"The Wagon's Cool, But Not Too Cold"
I was walking near City Hall with a friend, winding through the vestiges of a small Citibank demonstration. I policeman stepped into my path and thrust a finger at my solar plexus.
"What's in your vest?" I was wearing a camouflage vest over a olive drab polo shirt (that approximately matched my green cargo trousers with a vintage gas mask case strapped to one leg). Officially, the vest buckled to my torso is called a "load bearing harness." It has multiple cylindrical pouches, loops, and clips and distributes weight between the shoulders and belt line. My pouches were stuffed with pens, granola bars, cigarettes and notebooks. In wartime, such pouches hold one grenade each.
"Left my 'nades at home, officer." "Let's see what's in your backpack." "Fuck no. You need an arrest warrant for that."
In my backpack were several pieces of soggy clothing, and a folded flak jacket nothing explicitly illegal, but I didn't feel like baring all to the first cop that asked.
"Let's see your ID." By this time, three to four more officers had surrounded me. "No." I looked around me. Several people I knew had gathered outside the perimeter of police. "Go get a legal observer!" I yelled. They ran down the sidewalk. I told the police that I wouldn't do anything including display identification until a lawyer appeared on the scene. This stalled them for approximately three minutes. Eventually, I was grabbed, and marched to the back of a police van. This police van had two sets of doors, the outer like an ordinary van (with a few more deadbolts), the inner were metal with a tiny grill punched out near the top. The outer doors opened to reveal an orange-shirted occupant who appeared to be near my age. I didn't realize until later that, for someone who didn't know me very well, he might have appeared to resemble me. He slid down the smooth (no sharp angles) white plastic bench to make way. Before I could get in, the cops emptied my pockets and placed all my affects in the narrow space between the two sets of doors.
"Don't take any of my fucking money!" I shouted out the van, more to the swarming news cameras than to my jailers. The presence of the cameras saved me; the policemen became meticulously polite with vacuous, black lenses hovering behind them. "They're arresting me for no reason!" I pleaded before the media.
"Don't worry, sir. All of your money and stuff will be right here." I heard one cop yank a pair of plastic zip-cuffs from his belt. "No," said another cop. "Don't cuff him."
I entered the van (with my hands free), and the doors snapped shut. A fist pounded the plexiglass square separating the driver's compartment and our white plastic prison. "Is it cool enough in there?" asked the muffled voice connected to the fist. I looked up at the stainless steel air vent. "It's fine!" We had to yell this several times.
Orange shirt and I talked for a while. I had heard stories from paddy-wagon veterans about cops mixing undercover cops or stool pigeons in with the legitimate lawbreakers. So I spoke about my great respect for the police, and my admiration for their restraint. He said that he was popped for the same reason as I was walking down the street. I noticed that I didn't feel nervous or frightened. I figured that I would be in jail, re-united with my friends in a few scant hours. That I would be incarcerated for no reason didn't bother me. I would be with my friends. I would see their faces again and my guilt would be gone.
The first set of doors swung open. I was asked for my ID again. "Fuck it," I thought, "I was going to be public with my name anyway." I dug my passport out of my backpack and gave it up. One cop scratched my stats on a clipboard. He was going to put 5'9" for my height before I explained (a little offended) that I was 3 inches shorter. I know they got my race wrong. They ordered orange shirt to move back on the bench. Then they handed me my gear, and I hopped to the curb.
"Thank you," I said, stretching my arms. "I just want to play it safe, officers. Just let me pull out my notebook and write down all of y'alls names and badge numbers. For the lawyers, you understand."
My friends met me at the curb. One said that he had summoned the television cameras. After waiting for me to calm down, he explained that a reporter had asked him what I was being arrested for. She nodded knowingly -- "Word on the Street" was that I had acid on me. For the first time in a week, my friend was speechless, stunned by the simple stupidity. "Where the FUCK did you hear that?" he finally blurted. She told him that a cop had told her. I still can't fucking believe it. I hope you understand that it took me several days before I could write the last few sections. At least my friends in Baltimore saw me on the news.
Fuck off
Please, if you're going to make a protest by getting arrested try to do it right.
/., which is no substitute for the 2300 news.
The whole idea behind getting arrested is to
a) stir up publicity
b) use the publicity to stir up people's consciences.
You know, things like Rosa Parks not relequishing her seat to a white person. King and his civil disobedience. That crazy guy Ghandi, etc, etc, etc.
Instead, Vergil gets arrested for backtalking to a police officer who has to keep the dangerous kooks (dressed in camo & carrying backpacks) away from both the convention and the "peaceful" protestors.
Is anyone going to get morally offended/up-in-arms/[insert cliche here] over this guy? I'm pretty sure that most Moms aren't going to support a disrepectful backtalking smartass^H^H^H^H^H^Hprotestor.
How about using your brain? Hmmmm, I'm in an anti-poverty protest, why don't I and all my fellow protestors, dress up like homeless people (or even better gather up all the homeless people) and hang out next to all the BMWs, Mercedes', expensive hotels and restaurants, etc? Hand out fliers soliciting donations to the local soup kitchens.
The beggar thing would freak out the Yuppies/Republicians/Internet Millionaires and might actually get them thinking/feeling guilty. To get publicity you make the cops arrest you for tresspassing instead of backtalking (hang out in the expensive restraunts/hotels.) The press would then have a field day dreaming up the headlines (Police Vanquish Army of Beggers, film at 11.)
As it is, the only real publicity you have is
I am so sick of Whiners-in-Shining-Armor.
You, sir, are an idiot.
no, he is a man with convictions. you, sir, are a Young Republican.
Wow, what a deal? Good thing I don't live in a country that takes a *lot* of tax money. Wow, and the standard of living in this country is... oh yes, really damned high.
you sound like the idiot i saw at the gas station the other day, he was filling up the tank to his mercedes bitching about the cost of gas, and saying 'only in america', obviously ignorant of the fact that america actually has really cheap gas compared to say.... his car's home, Germany.
I want MORE taxes, and I want gas prices to go UP, and I'm serious. I'd love to be able to go through West Philly without it being the warzone that a poverty-stricken urban area naturally becomes, or to be able to breath slightly cleaner air because people realized that they can walk or bike to most locations.
Um... how 'bout: He was expecting to have his rights respected. You may roll over like a two-bit whore for every pig who so much as glances at you, but some of us actually fight for our rights... and yours too, although you don't deserve them.
"So you wanted to go to jail as soon as possible, instead of staying out on the street as a protester, being more effective."
Actualy, he stood up for his rights and still stayed out on the streets as a protestor. Granted it took the media with video cameras to facilitate his release but, seeing as how one of the things he was protesting against was police violating civilian's rights, that is exactly what he wanted.
You, sir, are a tool.
indymedia.org
You'd better warn yo' mama to dress you better.
Sticking your head in the sand and denying that there's something wrong with the system won't stop them when they pick you up and throw you in the wagon, cause you _can_ code nasty DMCA-violating software, access Naptser or because you _look_ funny that day.
agreed.
while i respect this person for standing up for his rights, there is no point is being an asshole. if he weren't being an ass, he'd never have been in a position where his rights could have been infringed.
he was there looking for confrontation, looking for a fight.
he needs to grow up. he helps no-one behaving in that manner.
"40% of *everyone's* paycheck"
.that's the percentage of households that pay $0 (or negative via the earned income tax credit) in federal income tax.
40% is the right number. .
So no you're not right, they don't take 40% of everyone's paycheck. 80% of the federal income tax (the lion's share of federal gov't revenue) is paid by 20% of the households.
+4 insightful????
No one made any cop be a cop. they do it on their own free will. That means they must agree with what the job enforces.
Hey guess what buddy, you know why you can sit down on your computer and type just exactly that without irrational fear of a gestapo like organization busting into your room late at night?
You understand that these people lead mostly normal lives like everyone else with a spouse and kid(s) waiting in the driveway when they get home.
You realize, of course, that we can go from Point A to Point B within the majority of America and usually not worry about getting murdered.
To whomever who beleives in peace through anarchy should get their head examined.
Fuck Ajit Pai
Err, in case you haven't read the constitution, schools are a local issue. The US consitution definds a school district (which is not what current distrcts are, but I digress) No power is given to states to affect local school board issues. Some states take power into their own hands (including Texas's teacher testing), but pay is set by the local school district, not the state goverment.
As for capitol punishment, those verdits are decided by the court system. All Bush could do is a pardon, which then puts a murder on the street. Now some reasonable people argue against capitol punishment, but there are also those who argue against it. But it is legal - so long as every possibal angle of appeal is exhausted.
I wasn't justifying the arrest, just adding more fuel to the fire. You're incensed, good, now point it in the right direction.
--Threed-Looking out for Numero Uno since 1976!
Given that there was a protest going on, and that protesters have a reputation for flouting the US drug laws, it's no wonder he got profiled as a dealer and arrested. After all, the convention is being held in a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area.
MarijuanaNews.com had a story on this very subject (that linked to LP.org, who were tickled pink by the whole affair).
(And, for good measure, hit SmokeDot.org while you're at it.)
--Threed-Looking out for Numero Uno since 1976!
You know kiddie, one of these days you will got out of school, get a job, look at your first paycheck and notice 40% of it is going to the government, and you'll suddenly become enlightened as well.
Then maybe one day you'll look at the budget, look at what relatively trivial programs the Republicans propose to reduce spending on, compare it to what they want to spend much more on (defense, law enforcement), and realize that they're not proposing spending any less money.
But they'll cut your taxes -- and thus have to borrow lots of money.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
A good quoting of Libertarian rhetoric.
I like to think of it rather as the Libertarian party is the only party I know of that believes in not sheltering people from the concequences of their own actions, equaly and fairly. That is why I'm libertarian.
Unfortunately I've found it too easy (especialy in the party) confuse this with the right to not suffer the consequences of their own actions. Especialy along an axis that oversimplifies authoritarianism as paying concequences for actions. Its just to seductive and easy to purchase peoples souls with the promise of cake they can eat and have.
BTW: heres some libertarian humor for you...
If vegetarians eat Vegetables, and Fruititarians eat Fruit, then what to Libertarians eat?
You know, I sometimes wonder if what this guy was doing was meant to provide a response. No matter how innocuous the stuff in the bag was, I kinda wonder about someone who walks around in a military surplus load-bearing harness and then gets agitated when the police start asking questions.
(currently testing something about signatures here)
There are quite few libertarians who post on /., however, /. was never intended to be the exclusive haven of people of one particular ideology. As for myself, I'm a liberal democrat.
The "two axis" political test is no more than libertarian propaganda. I'm sure the CPUSA could devise a similar test that would show themselve to be the optimal political party.
If this happens during the Democrat Convention will slashdot be so upset???
Point taken. I guess that I was not referring to those who petition the government responsibly, but those who make it their plight to find fault with EVERYTHING that is a part of the government. There is nothing wrong with actively taking part in a cause. I, for one, have very strong feelings on many topics, such as the DeCSS issue.
I'd also add something to your position: the citizens have a RESPONSIBILITY to be participants in their governments. There are countless lawful ways to make your feelings known to your congressional representatives and other elected officials. Making a concerted effort to get arrested, provoke police officers, and make ones self out to look suspicious is not one of them.
I might counter that all unborn children are innocent of crime.
Then again, that would be irrelevant to your response, which was in turn irrelevant to mine.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Here is a clue.
He wasn't breaking the law, nor was there any "probable cause" to detain or arrest him (see below). Technically, he should be allowed to leave custody upon requesting to do so, or he is under arrest (and can take legal action for false arrest if needed).
Protesting is not against the law, and should not be looked at as such, as it has caused a great deal of freedom. Yes, some protestors are guilty of breaking the law, and yes, this gentleman may have looked like a protestor, but none of this is a legal reason to detain an individual.
It is not illegal to refuse to show indentification while walking on the street (only when driving could that be illegal).
Any police officer knows these things, and would know when they were breaking the law.
What we should expect is that our police officers are trained well, and follow the rules, no matter how difficult it is to do. They are subject to the same laws as all the rest of us, and it is our right to call them on it as often as we like, without being hassled by the police or other citizens who think doing so adds to their "security".
Would you show a stranger your ID? Would you let them put you in their van, to arrest you, just because you look like someone who disagrees with the way you think? Why should it make any difference if they were a police officer?
Please don't get me wrong, I have friends who are cops. I just don't like to trade any bit of my freedom for the sake of security, or to make a cops job easier. I am lawful, and I make sure that the police treat me, and those around me in a professional, lawful manner, even if it could be trouble for me. Not everyone wants to do this, but I have respect for those who do.
DEFINITION OF
PROBABLE CAUSE
PROBABLE CAUSE IS TO BE DETERMINED IN A PRACTICAL, NONTECHNICAL MANNER. PROBABLE CAUSE FOR AN ARREST EXISTS, IF AT THE MOMENT THE ARREST IS MADE, THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WITHIN THE OFFICER'S KNOWLEDGE, AND OF WHICH HE HAD REASONABLY TRUSTWORTHY INFORMATION, ARE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A PRUDENT PERSON IN BELIEVING THAT AN OFFENSE HAS BEEN COMMITTED.
Source: Nazario v. Martinez, U.S.D.C. N.D.Ill. ED, 1998, No. 98 C 1771 (civil case for false arrest).
--Fac Iustum Nec Time-- --Veritas Prevalibit--
As has been pointed out elsewhere, failure to identify yourself, while not a crime, does allow police to arrest you to find out who you are.
Vermifax
Vermifax
Logout
The courts in at least one state have ruled them legal as they are "resonable" searches don't impose a long detainment and are for the overall good of the community. *Note this is their logic not mine.
Vermifax
Vermifax
Logout
If you "allow" the cop to search your car, you have no defense against any evidence they find. ie: Cop "Can I search your car?" You "Sure" Cop "Lookie at all this contraband!!!!" You are busted If it goes like this Cop "Can I search your car?" You "No, you may not" Cop searches anyway Cop "Lookie at all the contraband" You can probably have the evidence thrown out unless the cop can come up with really good probably cause (You had the baggie visible on the dash)
Vermifax
Vermifax
Logout
OK, enough. There's no question that you can keep finding and quoting web pages full of half-truths, lies and irrelevancies faster than I can research the holes in them. You probably think that proves your point.
Just as I shouldn't take everything I read on activist websites at face value, you should neither take everything you read by Outside magazine or the FBI at face value.
What am I taking at face value - that the alleged "most glaring mistake" in the article doesn't exist? That's a fact. That there was testimony from multiple eyewitnesses, not from a single mentally unstable woman? You sure backed down from that assertion quick enough. I'm saying exactly what I was saying last night - you're jumping to some entirely new batch of "facts" every time you post. Try learning all sides of the story first before running your mouth about everyone else's ignorance or malevolence.
One last thing, and then I'm through: Peltier told the RCMP officer who arrested him in Canada that he shot the agents.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
As Winston Churchill once said, "if you're young and republican, you have no heart, if you're old and democratic, you have no brain".
And if you think that Churchill referred to Republicans and Democrats in his aphorisms, you have no brain.
What idiot moderators thought How's it feel to be a heartless prick? Stupid asshole. deserved 2 upward moderations?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
The article itself is off-topic.
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
Want more on 'society', try NPR. Or one of the hundreds of news / society sites on the net.
BTW, what is "Yes we should just be beated down!" supposed to mean?
--
"You're gonna need a bigger boat." - Chief Brody
Considering the number of comments in this story relative to /. HOF, then this story does not 'got lots of comments'.
--
"You're gonna need a bigger boat." - Chief Brody
Does this story *really* fit into 'News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.'?
--
"You're gonna need a bigger boat." - Chief Brody
"Looking suspicious" and "mouthing off" are not illegal last time I checked.
Hmm, now I wonder, when was the last time you checked. Since you used that phrase... you've got me wondering whether you ever did check in the past whether looking suspicious and mouthing off were illegal. I wonder where I could read about that...
But seriously, the phrase "looking suspicious" has meaning in the english language. And for most people, it's pretty easy to understand. If you go around "looking suspicious", you may attract the attention of law enforcement officers. *boggle* And when you start mouthing off to these officers and act like a complete asshole, I can see how it would be a big surprise when you get a reaction. These people put their lives on the line every day to "keep the peace" and probably know what they are doing. Arresting people randomly definitely doesn't make their jobs any easier (the physical task of arresting somebody, transporting them to a holding area such as a police van or station, paperwork, etc.)
You may be familiar with the term "worst case scenario". If you want to see this concept in action, try making a bomb joke to an airport security officer. (the people around you will think it's hilarious, by the way... you'll make many friends with the other passengers, and they'll probably remember you for the rest of their lives) I think it is perfectly acceptable for law enforcement personnel to act on their gut feelings of a possible worst case scenario, especially when a suspicious looking and beligerant person crosses their path. But as for yourself, feel free to act however you please towards cops. Just don't come whining to other more sensible people when you feel your civil liberties have been violated.
-Ryan
haha, oh man. Give me a break. Those are all YOUR hangups, not mine. Where I come from, people actually manage to "peacefully coexist" regardless of racial background...and these social classes you seem to have an issue with, well I don't automatically distrust any "teenager" I see. In fact, as hard as it may be to believe, we all were teenagers at one time as well.
I don't think you really know what a suspicious person looks like. Perhaps you feel out of place in society, hence your anger towards me, but that's not my problem. It's possible that you find that people don't give you the respect you deserve in life, but it sure as hell wouldn't have been me, and that's not what I was talking about at all in my previous post.
And on another note, I don't thing I live in your country. I don't know which country is yours; I didn't know there was a country owned by an anonymous slashdot user. But if I may extrapolate from the tone of your post that the country you speak of is the United States of America, then yes, I don't live in your country and don't plan on it either, except to possibly pimp some of your nice american money.
I would argue that the comparison to Nazi Germany is indeed invalid. Adolf Hitler and his cohorts murdered thousands of innocent people for simply being of a certain ethnic heritage. Jews were placed into forced labor camps, given sparse food, forced to work until the collapsed, then beaten and killed. Even if the accusations of these protesters were shown to be correct, their treatment hardly warrants comparison to Nazi Germany. Such a comparison is similar to comparing a band of middle school bullies to an axe murderer. Frankly, if I were of Jewish heritage, I would be offended that the sort of abuse that my people had suffered at the hands of Hitler would be trivialized by comparing it to the much milder plight of these protesters.
The author was indiscrimentally arrested for refusing to allow the police to violate his civil rights. You can't search someone's backup, purse, fanny pack, etc. as the interior is considered private property. And you don't have to tell the police anything before you talk to a lawyer.
Based on my reading of the article, it doesn't appear that the author was at all arrested. Harrassed maybe, but not arrested. In his own words, he was
He also states earlier that he was wearing "orange target shooting lenses to tone down my tunnel vision." I don't know about you, but if somebody was hanging out in my neighborhood, dressed in camoflouge and olive green, wearing a device designed to hold grenades as well as target shooting lenses, I think I might be mildly concerned. In light of this, I have no difficulty understanding why the cop was interested in what the guy had in his vest. The author doesn't go out of his way to ease the tension of the situation with his response, either . . . where "I've got notebooks, granola bars, cigarettes, etc . .-------
Most times, protesters don't go out looking to get arrested; it just happens that way because this nation has decided that "we" don't like people who rock the boat. We'd rather they just go away and keep their feelings to themselves. I find it very interesting that the American people are so ready and willing to give up their freedoms for a little bit of ill-concieved comfort. I have, in the past, been involved in both small and large-scale protests. These were things that I felt very strongly about and it was discussed at pre-protest meetings that there was a possibility of being arrested. It's a fact of life, people. Any time you protest the government, there are going to be some self-interested assholes who want to lock you up; be it legal or not. Cops _can_ do whatever the hell they want. It's up to the courts to decide if it was legal or not. Anyway... nice article, and keep fighting the good fight! Can't wait for the rest.
------------------------------------------
the amazing bc
latin/funk flugelhorn & trumpet
webnaut, music junkie, sysadmin from hell
the amazing bc
just another guy doing IT
webnaut, music junkie, holes-in-head
Actually acording to the survay info from the department of labor being a cop isn't as dangerous as being a fisherman, lumberjack, ... etc...
Hogshire, Jim, So you're going to prison points out the danger in a cops life is only a perception that is lined up the "glory". A kwiky mart worker is more likely to die on the job do to a robery.
As a side note: The cop that suposedly got shot during the convention was shot by a fellow police officer not the suspect.
For more stats see: http://stats.bls.gov/special.requests/ocwc/oshwc/c foi/cftb0121.txt
"... That probably would have sounded more commanding if I wasn't wearing my yummy sushi pajamas..."
How was he disturbing the peace?
"Free your mind and your ass will follow"
I don't get the point of this. He goes down there and blatnetly acts beligerent to the cops then complains about being arrested. I mean, I really don't understand all this. These people are supposed to be drawing attention to their "causes" but all they end up doing is drawing attention to the confusion and chaos they cause for the innocent citizens who just want to go to work then go home without being delayed. They're not making any convincing statements with all this crap. /.ers are Young Republicans, well I'm not one of those. I'm worse - I'm a Libertarian.
And to the person who made the earlier comment about how most
That may be inflammatory but that fact is this guy was looking for trouble and he got it. This is not a situation where someone in levis and a t-shirt was questioned and retained.
It is an issue of a guy where military garb and being unwilling to cooperate with standard procedure of the police that got him arrested.
He deserved it.
Get your PostgreSQL here: http://www.commandprompt.com/
Assuming you support drug prohibition, they have an obligation to have evidence that he IS peddling acid first. Or so the Supreme Court used to say...
See that "Preview" button?
He had a passport, and I didn't see a place of origin in his story any more (or I goofed and missed it). So he may have just been a "person" with rights, instead of a "citizen" with rights. Either way, the Bill of Rights applies to all people who would fall under some sort of US jurisdiction.
See that "Preview" button?
Who hasn't been cremated by the Nazis for no reason? They're only doing their job. What else is new?
See that "Preview" button?
Interesting how the people who disagree vehemently with the point of view of a Slashdot posting are the first to cry irrelevance and claim that they don't care.
spawn_of_yog_sothoth
And I can justify the subject easily: I'm a UNIX sysadmin, programmer, etc, in more languages than most of you know...*and* I was a protester in the sixties and early seventies, and I not only *don't* repudiate it, I'm proud of it.
I find this a mood piece, but it really *isn't* well written. What *is* the point? I met enough turkeys like this at protests back then. Most of those who were willing to get arrested might come, as he did, and meet someone there. He wasn't "recruited", he was looking to join a group.
He also wasn't real bright. Those who were willing to be arrested "crossed the line", I assume, and sat down, near the convention, they didn't just go out of their way to look like a troublemaker for the cops...as he did.
On the other hand, what are they there for? Many of y'all talk about freedom of speech...what do you think *this* is? Chocolate pudding?
Don't vote? It was the GOP that started pushing urine testing, and the Dems who went along, so they wouldn't be accused of being "soft on drugs".
It was the GOP that started the long failed "War on Drugs". It's the GOP that, unlike it's attitude up through the sixties, *wants* religious control over the government (if they don't freedom of religion, *I*'d say they ought to move to Iran).
To the jerk who asked about "where are the pro-poverty organizations", try those against Choice, who don't care what happens after the kid is born - they're the ones who won't fully fund Head Start, or public childcare, or more money to schools, or health for folks who can't afford health care, but give the Pentagon *more* money than it asks for (usually by enough to fully fund all of what I mentioned). Corporate welfare, but none for folks that need it...and, while they're at it, make none-corporate welfare a trap, rather than a helping hand.
And why did they do it in the streets? Maybe because the 9 companies that own 90% of all the media in this country are slanted towards the conservatives. I sure know of almost nothing that's liberal, even. Certainly none of the tv stations, nor the cable news, nor the main papers in Chicago, nor Austin, etc.
But go back to coding a vbx for Linux guys...and don't worry about *your* future, or your kids' future, till they come pounding on your door, to confiscate your computers.
mark "been there, done that, breathed the tear gas and pepperfog, didn't go out of my way to get busted, though"
I'm not sure what you're talking about.
:-)
1) I'm not a hippie. I wear khakis and earn too much money.
2) I'm not protesting. But I'm not opposed to protesting. Hell, I used to be protestant a while ago.
3) Social Security Trust Fund is some kind of multi-word oxymoron.
I would debate you more seriously, but you have the crazy notion that the social security is some kind of trust fund.
Repeat after me: The money you pay in doesn't pay for your retirement. It pays for others who are retired *right now*. Someone else will foot the bill when you yourself are retired.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
"Because obviously Republicans have no right to freedom of speech..."
How exactly is the freedom of speech of the Republican party infringed simply by the refusal of any city to privde them with a forum? That's a bit like saying Ayn Rand's freedom of expression would've been infringed if nobody had published her books, isn't it?
--
And, like I said, I'm pretty certain they can, legally search cars they pull over now. They still have to pull you over for a legit reason, though.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
The Supreme Court recently ruled that searching cars is legal, so I've heard. Granted, i don't have a link, but it should have been in the last year or so. (Wasn't legal when I got stopped in 97, but I let them search it anyway cause I figured, hey, one less cop to pull people over.)
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
The police can ask you for any thing but you are under no obligation give it to them. Unless you are being arrested you have no obligation to provide them with any identification. Check points are a different thing as a drivers permit is a privilage not a right. So the police can demand the driver of a car produce identification (and proof of insurance/registration in most locales) but they can only ask the drunks in the back seat. Those drunks are not required to identify them selves.
That goes as well if your walking down the street. Most vargrancy type laws have been struck down as unconstitinal.
> That's awfully funny, because I coulda sworn that John McCain was forced not to speak about Campaign Finance Reform. HRM THATS ODD, I THOUGHT IT WAS ALL ABOUT FREE SPEECH?
:-)
I didn't say it was "ALL ABOUT FREE SPEECH", I said :
All conventions are about freedom of speech, in the sense that in the United States of America, one of the most important principles is to be able to express your opinions regardless of political beliefs.
The convention itself is the expression of speech in the case of political beliefs. How they organize their convention is their business. If they want to have Mickey Mouse give a speech and not Einstein it's up to them.
I fucking hate republicans, a bunch of fucking idiots...
You hate all Republicans or just their leaders ? There's a lot of Democrats, Republicans, Communists, etc. , that I love !
- sigs are for wimps.
> Yes, that's about right. I will take at face value your assertion that you really don't understand what the protests were about,
Your "I'll give you the benefit of the doubt" was (or read) related your wrongly misquoting me as saying/impliying "I've protested, don't try it because it doesn't work". I can't make this more clear. Now you are attributing it to something else.
> Quit trying to blame your feelings of inadequacy on the messenger.
Nice way to carry on a conversation. I haven't expressed any feelings of inadequacy, just expressing disagreements with the apparent motives of the original poster.
If that's how you carry on converstations with people you disagree, it's any wonder how you can learn anything.
- sigs are for wimps.
> I believe I hate all republicans. As stated before, they're all a bunch of a fucking idiots.
Wow, that's a lot of hate to go around. I'll never understand that.
> BTW, I don't think something is about "expressing one's political beliefs" if one (john mccain) isn't allowed to do it.
I personally would have loved it if John McCain chose to blast the convention with a big speech on big money and how it corrupts the system. However, he chose to follow the party line. It was his decision, and a wise one for him to make in a political sense if not a moral one.
However, it's up to Republicans to decide who speaks or not speaks at their convention. What if President Clinton wanted to address the convention, shouldn't they have a say as to who can talk or not ? Again, the convention itself, is expression of free speech, in the sense than in an dictatorship you wouldn't be allowed to organize such a thing for an opposition party (I've lived that).
As for dissenting views, John McCain chose not to. Colin Powell on the other hand, did express opinions (affirmative action, for example) that go against the "Republican" agenda/platform.
But even then, if they wanted to cancel Mr. Powells keynote due to content, they are allowed to do it. Just like they would do it if I wanted to talk about Computer Science at their convention.
- sigs are for wimps.
> Bullshit. If you don't understand what he was protesting against, then you haven't been paying attention.
..
I have, I read his article, I still don't know what he's protesting against.
> That's not his failing, it's yours,
I don't understand it because I don't think he expressed what he was opposing/protesting very well. You can blame it on me, but I don't feel he expressed it well. Oh well
> and it puts you squarely in the camp of the politicians, who really, really don't want to understand what everyone is protesting about...
I do want to understand, I just don't understand him DAMNIT !
> You're just telling him "don't bother", and now you're claiming additionally "I've already tried that and it doesn't do any good."
I NEVER, NEVER said "I've already tried that and it doesn't do any good." I honestly believe the fruits of our protests resulted in the overthrow of the dictatorship we where under.
Please don't distort what I'm saying.
- sigs are for wimps.
Keep living in your little dualistic world, where the people who disagree with you are just "eviiiiiil".
> You asserted that anti-abortionists in general don't advocate killing abortionists. Can you prove that? Didn't think so.
Don't need to prove that. Just like I don't believe that all animal rights people advocate terrorism.
> Fortunately, no one on my side as bombed an abortion clinic, so I feel I have the stronger credibility of the two opinions.
Your side ? I'm not talking about sides here, just how you like to paint people who don't agree with you.
> since I don't really give a shit about your stand on abortion, or how many clinics you blow up,
Getting personal again ? So now I'm going to blow up a clinic too. Funny thing is, you don't even know what my stand on abortion is !!!! LOL !!! Just that I disagree, so I must be for blowing up clinics. Wow !
So if I where to discuss why Communists should have a right to express their opinions, does that mean I'm a Communist too ?
Again, interesting dualistic world you live in.
- sigs are for wimps.
Most people who are against abortion, do not advocate killing anybody to achive their goals. Not in this reality, at least.
- sigs are for wimps.
> Someone else will foot the bill when you yourself are retired.
:-)
Hopefully
- sigs are for wimps.
> Why not just line up over there with the crowd that think's I'm a fringe wacko?
Ok, since you've been anything but civil and just insultive, yes you are a wacko. Happy now ?
- sigs are for wimps.
> Well, your implication was quite clear; and you keep reinforcing it.
One last thing, I NEVER IMPLIED SUCH A THING. And to be honest, why carry on a converstation when you make up implications and can't point them out ? I've tried to make clear I didn't say that at all 1,000 posts ago. I'm not distorting what you say, why do you do that to what I say.
Nobody is going to learn anything from you with your attitude.
By original poster I ment the story, not your first post.
- sigs are for wimps.
> although I'm sure you support those that do...
I don't, and who cares what you think anyways ?
I've wasted my time trying to have a discussion, and what I get is an idiotic moron that just throws insults all the time and accuses others of obsenely offensive things (advocating killing people).
Keep it up buddy ! Maybe somebody will listen to what you have to say, once you change your presentation. For now, the world will dismiss you as a wacko that tries to read minds and tell people what they think. How sad.
- sigs are for wimps.
Actually I believe the quote was :
...
"There ought to be limits to freedom".
As for, "too much freedom is a bad thing", yes, that can happen too. We call it "libertinage" in Spanish, the closest word in English I've found to that would be "Anarchy".
BTW - I'm not saying the protesters where anarchist
- sigs are for wimps.
As a minority, I've encontered *MANY* racists Democrats (as well as Republicans too).
Your world must be a lot simpler than mine.
- sigs are for wimps.
> The Republican convention is nothing about freedom of speech.
All conventions are about freedom of speech, in the sense that in the United States of America, one of the most important principles is to be able to express your opinions regardless of political beliefs.
> It is an orgy of big business pouring money into the political system, buying politicians, and creating a fabricated and imaginary hope for the people.
It doesn't matter, they still have a right to a convention.
> People have the freedom to speak out against them just as much as they have the freedom to spread lies.
If you want to be able to protest, then let the Republicans, Democrats and Vegetarians have conventions. Your statement about the purpose of the protest is so no city would want to host a Republican convention is just downright facist.
If you're going to express such oppresive opinions, please do your candidate (or party) a favor and remove your signature, lest people think the Green Party is about restricting free speech (which I'm sure it's not).
- sigs are for wimps.
Of course she didn't let me go, but I went anyways !!! :-) Student protest are a much more common thing in the rest of the world anyways, and it's kind of expect of you in some situations.
... ahh... the old days :-)
One day we where building a barricade in one of our streets in the neighberhood, we even had a little fire going (tires and stuff). My mom just got off of work and drove by our little "barricade", she was not amused. Not amused at all. She screamed at me and made me get in to the car immediatly.
Definetly one of my most embarassing moments. Oh well,
- sigs are for wimps.
> This guy went out and actually did something that addressed issues that are important to him. That simple fact by itself should be applauded.
What the he actually do ? What are the issues he's fighting for ? He mentions the word "anti-poverty" one time and that's it. If he really felt strongly about anything, it should be mentioned in the article. Passionate that protest *something*, at least would mention what it is they're protesting.
>Furthermore, the tone tone of the article is not 'whining' or 'complaining' as so many posters accuse. In fact, I thought it was quite equitable.
It's whining when you join a protest because somebody is looking for people "willing to get arrested". When I've protested before, I was never willing to get arrested, but to show my point of view or complain about something I considered unjust.
Sorry, there's is nothing to admire from this guy.
- sigs are for wimps.
> The point is to make a Republican convention something that no city wants.
I'd like to hear the platforms of all parties, even Mr. Naders, what's wrong with that ???
- sigs are for wimps.
I respect and admire people who fight for social justice. This guy ain't one of them. Just going to a protest because some guy was looking for people "willing to go to jail" does not a martyr make.
I would feel more for him, if he didn't whine so much about being "harassed" and explained his convictions and purpose for protesting.
- sigs are for wimps.
Yes, appearance is important. When we used to protest against the dictator in my home country (Panama), we used to dress in white, which was the color for peace (obviously) and the color for the "Cruzada Civilista" (Civil Crusade), the organistion opposing the government.
We would still get shot at and tear gassed, but I'm sure we would have attracted less symphaty to our cause if we weared combat fatigues.
- sigs are for wimps.
Too funny !!! Now after the howto PLEASE WRITE A FAQ !!!
- sigs are for wimps.
Just do a seach on the quote :1 12999.html
http://www.democrats.org/archive/news/rcn1999/rcn
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm
"There ought to be limits to freedom. We're aware of this site, and this guy is just a garbage man, that's all he is." -- George Jr., discussing a web site that parodies him
He might have meant "free speech", but I think I quoted him correctly.
- sigs are for wimps.
> Politicians are criminals and should be prosecuted; since they have placed themselves beyond the reach of law, vigilante justice should apply.
...
So are you going to ban any registered Republican (or Democrat) from your street ???
What if a person believed that members of the Green Party are anarchists, should people from the Green Party be treated as criminal as well. Should be have vigilantes going after Ralph Nader ?
Interesting
- sigs are for wimps.
> Okay, okay. Your original post sounded to me like more than a mere literary critque, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
I don't need the benefit of the doubt, I just simply did not write nor express that (I've protested and it doesn't do any good).
> Kind hard to believe you have access to the internet and can't get even the most basic information about political dissent in the US, but I guess that's part of the reason for the protests...
There are many "political dissent" organizations in the US, and there where many causes being promoted and things protested against in Philadelphia, I just don't know which one HE WAS REPRESENTING. There where people for gay rights, animal rights, child hunger, pro/anti abortion, etc. I'm just critizing the fact that the author did not feel it was important to express what he was expressing there. As being somebody involved in similar things some time ago, I just find it hard to believe that he would not mention something like that in his write up. I cannot be more clear.
- sigs are for wimps.
> In order for me to continue a discussion with you, you need from me, or I will write you off as a contentious ass and move on...
...
What I meant is that to me, your remark about "give you the benefit of the doubt", sounded like, ok I'll believe you for now, as if there's any interpretation that I might have implied
"I've already tried that and it doesn't do any good."
English might be my second language, and I might be off interpretating that phrase (benefit of the doubt), but I don't take lightly to people claiming that I'm even implying , "Don't protest because I did and it didn't work, it was for nothing".
No, no, no
As for the rest of what you wrote, I don't exactly have a problem with that. I do have a problem with people just protesting against anything and it not being clear. I don't get from what I read that this guy was protesting against Republicans, cops, the city, or anything. For all I know, he might have been protesting against his mommy.
As to how the protest as a whole will be regarded in the future, that's another matter altogether and not what I'm talking about. This all started (In defense of the action) discussing the guy's motives. Which I will repeat, are not clear, and in fact seemed (just by reading his stuff) just to get arrested. No purpuse or statement.
- sigs are for wimps.
> So you're not from the deep south, I take it.
I'm from Central America, and I live in Florida. Is FL part of the "deep south" ?
And again, most people, in the US and the world, who are against abortion do not advocate killing people to achive their goals. If they did, there would be a lot more shootings right now.
- sigs are for wimps.
> I think what they are protesting is understood, especially by the republicrats and their minion.
I'm not talking about all the protestors, I was talking about the guy in the story. No, it wasn't clear to me what he was protesting against. He mentioned briefly something "against poverty". Well , that sounds like a worthy cause, be he didn't talk about it at all.
If you don't understand what he's protesting against, then he failed.
> He participated in something bigger than himself. He made himself a part of a group who is trying to accomplish something no single individual can accomplish.You probably don't understand that.
Yes I do. I just don't understand what this guy was trying to accomplish besides getting arrested and posting his experience on the web.
Look, I come from a country where all of the sudden they took our constitutional rights away from us and it was not legal to gather in groups to talk against the government. I understand what being a part of something "bigger". I lived it.
> From my POV I respect him for having a clearer vision of what needs to be done than people like you... although he still hasn't got it totally, at least he's trying. I've "tried" already, and have been tear gassed and shot at (not hit). Have you ?
> People like you are just reactionaries, cruising along taking potshots at anyone who is a bit off the line you're toeing.
I don't know who "people like you are", I'm just giving an opinion based on my life experience. Don't lump me with those who do nothing, or your so called "republicrats". My world view is not so limited.
- sigs are for wimps.
Geez, I really didn't need to know that... You know what rhetorical means, right? Or are you still trying to establish credentials?
No credentials, just the North and South stuff people born in the US spout, amazes me all the time.
I don't know what anti-abortionists you know, but the ones I ever met were definitely in favor of killing those who performed abortions. They just couldn't admit it or act on it without fear of prosecution.
And I disprove your assertion by counter example, since all the ones I know do not think that way.
Furthermore, the world is not composed of the people "you've met", and statements like "most" (that means over 50%) think this way, is just silly.
Show me a psychological study or poll that proves what you say and you might have a point.
This is like saying most people in the US speak Spanish, since most of my friends do. Duh !
- sigs are for wimps.
Just to point out something - if something similar happened at a Democratic convention (No! Never!) and I responded "The point is to make a Democratic convention something that no city wants" - I would be shouted down by liberal Democrats as a hate-mongering, spiteful, example of exactly why Republicans should be rounded up, sterilized, and run out of town on a rail. Of course, the last part is a best-case scenario; given their druthers, I'm sure most far-left liberals would rather see everyone who disagreed with them locked up in a re-education camp.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
Uninformed - perhaps; I haven't been keeping on top of the political maneverings of Bush and Gore. I was really taking a pot shot at the troll who seemed to think that supressing free speech through threat of violence was a noble goal.
(For the record, I favor Bush only because I despise Gore more... that's polticial reality these days; sad, but true... oh, crud, do I owe Metallica royalties now?)
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
Good. That's the cop's job. Whatever the situation, the police thought Vergil looked suspicious, and stopped to talk to him.
Again, good - as mentioned, that's his job. The kind of cop who waits around for someone to get shot before they get suspicious sure as hell aren't doing their jobs.
As has been mentioned, IT WAS HIS JOB . You're the one who's decided that Vergil was being harrassed; in my mind, he got exactly what he came there looking for - a confrontation with the police. Real harrasment does occur, but you know what? Those people aren't looking for it. All Vergil's managed to prove is that an obnoxious, vulgar, irritating and badly-dressed twit can manage to act bizzarely enough to make a cop suspicious of him. What news."Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
Enlightened?! You call that enlightened? I call it avarice and selfishness... especially if you are in a 40% tax bracket. Oh no honey, those liberal bastards are insisting we give money to the hungry, no new yacht this month.
Bite me! I hear this argument so much... Liberals want everyone to think that if you don't want to hand over 1/2 the money you worked your ass off for, that you don't care about people. It's not selfish to want to be able to afford to live decently using money that you've worked for, instead of having that money wasted on goverment programs that don't work!
I propose that the tax system be changed to a 15% flat tax.. and all you liberals who believe in these systems so much can donate all the money you earn to feel better, and to keep those programs going.
When my father worked for Ma Bell back in the 70's and 80's, he worked on the phone system in the local welfare offices once. He overheard what they did, and said that they were actively calling people in other states, trying to get them to move to California. They were basically recruiting more people for the welfare rolls, telling them how much more money they could get here. Why?!? The only reason to do that is to get as many people on the roll as you can to justify your own job. I have no problem with helping people, but there's a huge difference between help and paying people forever when they're not doing anything to get off the government's books.
- My favorite error message: xscreensaver, running on an old Sparc 5 w/ 8bit color: bsod: Couldn't allocate color Blue
Also, I still love the fact that the highlight of the article is at the end, when he was bragging about getting on TV. Just a note :)
1) You can be arrested even if you didn't commit a crime. You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. You can be arrested when under suspicion for a whole hell of a lot of stuff, but they usually won't hold you long if you are innocent or it can't really be proven in one way or another that you perpretrated a crime. But you can be placed under arrest for anything they want to arrest you for, even if it is only to clear up a bad situation.
2) The law was upheld to protect the townspeople of Philly. Nothing unamerican and stupid about that.
3) Most welfare recipients are able bodied people that weren't raised to be responsible or to make good choices (including welfare mothers who could have picked a better husband blindfolded than the jerry springeresque peice of trash they had). Yes, there are true hard luck cases out there, but most of those people rise above their problems, at least if they have half a brain and willpower.
Well, actually.....
The effectiveness of one protester in a mob in getting attention paid to his/her pet issue is not nearly as great as the effectiveness of adding one to the number of arrests in the story that's going to hit all the wire services.
As far as denying the police a free peek at his backpack.. maybe YOU don't care about your 4th amendment rights, but I do, and apparently, the author of the article does too.
>IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE LAWS IN THIS COUNTRY (oh yeah, the freedoms, benefits, etc too) MOVE AWAY.
One of the problems of military service is that it trains people to follow orders without question, and this has the unfortunate side effect of undermining democracy.
Laws in this country are not like military orders. If you don't like them, you can work in various ways to try to get them changed. Believe it or not, this is not treasonous activity. You're not going to face court martial for writing to Congress, which is one of the more effective ways by which citizens can work to change laws. That's the way democracy works. Anyone who sincerely believes in "America, love it or leave it" has missed the point entirely.
Please do this country a favor and look into getting yourself deprogrammed after you leave the Air Force.
Exactly. I went through the same phase about 6 years ago, when I was a teenager. Now that I look back on that time (ah, the sweet nostalgia), I think, What the hell was I doing? Did I accomplish anything? And the answer to that, of course, is not much. Those were some pretty wasted times, much like this unfortunate person's week (end?) was also.
--Xantho
And how are "lefties" responsible for brutal police actions? All "lefties" (if I understand your use of the word) that are activist-minded have always been universally against any form of police brutality.
Strange how people react when people are protesting what they percieve to be thier own personal beliefs. In case you haven't been paying attention during the last few years, it's not only Rebublicans (or "pseudo-Christians") that people are protesting against. Do some research beyond your Conservative news sites and you'll see...
How is the above post "insightful"?
And by the way, you think anti-abortion/pro-lifers (I wonder if most pro-lifers are pro-death penalty) invented protesting? Maybe they should take credit for killing doctors....
You're talking to one "lefty" that's willing to punch back. You have no idea what one has to put up with growing up in Texas and not agreeing with the status quo....
I am not curious at all. I live around people daily that ignorantly accept the "kill the crooks" mentality and have been putting up with it for a few decades. Nice to see people rising up against that ignorance.
It has already been proven, if you've been paying attention, that not all convicts are actually guilty. DNA tests and evidence of racism have shown that some people on death row are....gasp....innocent!
Actually, I think it was "There ought to be limits to free speach". I might be wrong though. I don't think he went so far as to admin that there should be limits to freedom...
This guy was itching to be arrested, and the cop obliged him. What's the problem? Seems to me both sides are happy, and life can continue. Bit of a waste of tax money, but oh well.
Remember, protestors being oppressed by police causes a kneejerk antipolice reaction no matter who was being protested.
And yet, you profit from the benefits of this awful past. You hypocrite.
Please point out the time, date, and place where the average person had more of a say in how their government worked.
America - July 4, 1776. I suggest you read a little about John Lock, and his ideals that Jefferson based your Declaration of Independence. Familiarize yourself with Social Contract that it was based on.
In 1776, there were millions of slaves in this country. Women couldn't vote. People who didn't own land couldn't vote. I guess you don't count blacks, women, or the landless as people. There was also taxation without representation in 1776, as the US was still under British law. The Revolution ended in 1783, IIRC. The Constitution passed in 1789. Women didn't get to vote until 1920. Most Blacks couldn't vote until the 1960's.
By the by, the revolution was only supported by roughly a third of the population of the American colonies. During and after the war, Tories were forced to flee to Canada, and their property was confiscated by those freedom and right-to-property-loving patriots. Funny how Locke (learn how to spell the names of those you quote) and his principals fell by the wayside...
So far, you're not impressing me.
You think the world is rich enough? What a spoiled, pompous idiot you are. Spend some time in Africa or Asia and ask them if they'd like the standard of living that comes with industrialization. You bitch and whine about its effects, but you live in a country that has a high standard of living, partially due to its awful behavior in the past. If you give it all up and move to, say, Tanzania or Cuba, that'd be at least living up to your beliefs. You want to help out your "brothers and sisters" around the world? MOVE THERE AND BUILD THEIR COUNTRIES! Use some of that government-paid education to actually benefit the downtrodden. After all, you want everyone else to.
But you'd rather whine from your safe, protected, rich home. How Mighty White of you. How many babies died of malnutrition while you wrote your screed? I guess the important thing is that you felt better about yourself by writing it.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
Second of all, your kids, your responsibility.
Third, if you can't figure out how to find a boat to get your family out of the US, you're too dumb, anyway.
Fourth, if you're already talking about a way to weasel out of it, you aren't serious.
And fifth, there is zero comparison between Nazi Germany and the US in the year 2000. And Nazi Germany actually tried to send its Jews away before it started gassing them; no country in the world would take them in, including the US. If only there had been a last train out of Germany (and Poland and France and all of the other countries that couldn't wait to turn their own citizens over to the Nazi butchers)...
-jon
Remember Amalek.
Near as I can tell, they want to stop free trade (which would seriously damage the US economy, since we're the largest exporting nation on the planet), cancel third-world debt (which really means paying off large banks like Citibank, who made those bad loans in the first place. Most of the countries that need debt relief have long since defaulted, anyway), and enact worldwide envrionmental restrictions and labor laws (which the Third World nations don't want, because most of the price advantage from Third World labor and products is due to the lower standards).
No one has yet explained how any of these ideas are going to actually help people. No one has explained how to implement these things. The important thing is that white, upper-middle-class teenagers and 20-somethings who are drowning in their white, upper-middle-class guilt feel good about themselves. Oh, and they get to be on TV.
If they want to make a difference, let them go organize unions in China. Maybe they could spend some time teaching US immigrants to read and write English so they can be part of the political process. Blocking traffic doesn't impress me.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
Seems to me that all this guy wanted to do was get arrested because antagonizing police officers has become the "cool" thing to do.
I've come to the conclusion that most protests are nothing more that a bunch of immature fools screaming and yelling about nothing, making false accusations of police brutality, trying to revive the now-defunct movements of the '60s.
In the '60s, we had reasons to protest: Viet-nam, racial and sexual inequality, sexual repression. While riots and violence did occur, they weren't planned. Now, it seems that protestors only know how to incite violence and vandalism, but don't know what they're protesting for.
Indeed, this fellow apparently didn't know what he was protesting; he failed to mention it anywhere in his somewhat childish diatribe.
He wasted so much with his directionless "protest": the cops' time, the taxpayers' money, his own validity as a journalist (if he even is a journalist), and my patience.
I hope that in the future, the SlashDot editors view submissions critically for valuable content, instead of the current trend of "Hey! Check it out, duuuuude! I think it's kinda, like, ya know, rad, dude!"
"The dead do not shoo-bop-aloo-bah." -- Kai, 'Lexx'
Just practicing freedom of speech
-=Gargoyle_sNake
-=-=-=-
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
and they let his dumb ass go after he finally decided to be cooperative and identify himself.
It pays to cooperate with police officers on minor items that are no more than transitory.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
From what I gather from my talk with Virgil in the last few days he was in Philly as a journalist. Not as a protester.
2. his stream-of-consciousness writing style is better left to those who can actually execute it correctly.
Exactly what I told him last night on the phone. The article needs more detail and less asumption that the reader was there.
3. much of the detail he supplies comes off as total whining: your coffee was getting wet and someone called you a bad name? who cares?!
This is where I have to disagree. I don't see any whining. I still see stream of conciousness and a bit of sarcasm. This is what happened. There was water in my coffee. That's how hard it was raining. I think you're superimposing the feelings you would have in such rain onto his _description_.
4. he talks about the events of the weekend spinning away from the "journalistic ride in the park" that he expected as if all those events were totally out of his control
Ahh.... the idealism of youth. With a bit more prudence, I am sure that his weekend would have been a lot more fun.
if his writing is any indication of the normal fare on hackedtobits, then it's the home of poorly executed journalism.
Okay, now I get to be defensive. Have you read hackedtobits? More importantly, would you like to write for hackedtobits? Maybe you could bring our level of writing up a few notches? I would love, as I am sure our editor would, too, to see a counter-point to this article.
As webmaster of hackedtobits.com I have to say that I heard about the slashdot article about 6 hours ago. Honestly, I'm thrilled to have the traffic, but I never asked for the favor. Do you want to stay up all night next to the old decrepit server to keep it from dying so I can get some sleep?
As for why the article got posted to Slashdot, you'll have to ask the editors of slashdot. They asked Virgil for the interview, as far as I can tell.
So before you go muddying my fine and pristine name as webmaster (and not even editor of the site) ask the right people.
Which begs the question, why is this a slashdot article?
Since when has sarcasm been a punishable offense? With no other evidence than the fact that he "looks like a trouble maker" I think the Colt and the pavement prove nothing other than bad judgement.
I will be the first to admit that I practice the utmost of caution and polity in my dealings with the cops, but "Left my 'nades at home, officer" is hardly an statement warranting a violent response.
How do these words, which offer no implicit threat, say to anyone that the they should taken steps to avoid "personal injury or death?"
The point is that Virgil took no aggressive move towards the cop, according to the article. Therefore his actions, while possibly eliciting suspicion, would not warrant a physical attack.
moderate wellspring's post up..most concise and accurate explanation I have seen.
This uy was not there to protest or assemble peacefully...he was there to get himself arrested and scream 'civil rights violation' to any camera in the vicinity even if there was none.
The only thing this guy accomplishes by being a whiny camera whore is to get all of the other protesters that are peaceful lumped into the same belligerent, to-be-ignored category. And he doesn't even get it. Not that I think that he is there to sincerely discuss the topics, he accomplished his mission.
This guy is what we call in my company "Living Furniture".
Sounds like a freaking asshole too. Talking like a bad-ass to the cops...just digging yourself deeper son.
Yeah it ain't right that they hassled him but life isn't always perfect. You plop yourself in a high-tension area looking like a stereotypical troublemaker and voila...you get picked up.
I give this story -1 Bleeding Heart.
Ugh.
Blar.
No one forced them to become cops, this is the job that they chose.
And I will give them an extraordinary amount of respect just for that. They chose to put their lives between you and evil and all you can do is bitch. For you I have no respect.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Today "civil disobedience" has become a charade.
Absolutely! These guys have no clue what civil disobedience is. A friend of mine recently joined a particular environmental group. They have a plan to wear LA police uniforms and direct the real cops away from impending acts of violence during the LA demo convention. He thinks it's a lark! Claims I have no sense of humor.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
He just wants to make sure that the on-campus PIRG organizations continue to collect mandatory student fees
Aaargh! Are they still extorting students? Somehow having to pay a private political organization for the right to register at a public univiversity epitomizes everything that's wrong with modern American liberalism.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
You seem to look upon protestors with disdain and contempt
Neither of which is hateful... I just said I thought the protesters are wasting their time.
You seem to see no reason why one should protest the state's infinite wisdom.
That's funny, I thought they were protesting at the Republican convention. Obviously, the protesters don't belive people should have opinions that differ with their own.
You fail to understand the purpose of an anti-poverty coalition.
No, I think I understand their purpose, I just think they are misguided. So I don't support them. What's wrong with that?
Again, none of this is hatefull. I'm sure the word intollerent will get thrown out here pretty soon as well. That's typical for the left... Their big on tolerance for everything but people who disagree with them.
I will have to admit that I am white with Republican leanings though... got me there...
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
But they'll cut your taxes -- and thus have to borrow lots of money
That's odd, I could have swore we had a budget surplus for the forseeable future....
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
You say that like that's a bad thing...
Is 26 young?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
There is nothing inherantly wrong in being old and white, but the fact is that 90%+ of the wealth in this country is controlled by 1%- of the population all of whom are old and white and who are dead set on that money only going to more old white people when they die. And they are damned sure they don't want the government to have it, hell they would just give it to those disturbing poor people and then who would they get to clean their pools?
Why should they want their money to go to anyone else? Why shoud the government get it? Hell, there are already horrible estate taxes levied when someone dies and has money, but I guess those aren't enough for you. I guess the concept of property rights bothers you for some reason... Why don't you move to North Korea, socialism has worked out wonderfully there....
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Who is hateful? You are the one calling people names becuase you disagree with their opinions.
BTW, if you don't want your money, I'll be more than happy to take any you have lying around...
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
The only mention of what this guy was actually protesting was an easily-missed two words in his article. If this guy was serious about his cause, he would have given it at least a sentence.
If this account is to believed as anything other than a pleasant piece of semi-Orwellian fiction, then it begs the question: just what did this fellow expect? I'm reminded of the video clip I saw on one of those Fox "reality" TV shows, the one where the man sprayed himself with deer pheremones and summarily got the tar whupped out of him by a horny young buck.
It is one matter to take one's beliefs to heart and valiantly stand against an oppressive regime; it is another matter entirely to go out looking for trouble and then cry "foul! foul!" when you're treated as you expected, then go "running home to mamma," writing such pieces of tripe as this story.
Please, please do not try to compare these actions in Philly with the great civil rights protests of the 2nd third of this century. Those who performed sit-ins and such rarely spouted to the press or whined about their treatment; rather, they let the righteousness of their actions and the vileness of the States' speak for themselves.
I, for one, would like to have stories such as these listed under a separate heading, so that I can ignore such garbage in the future.
-------------
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
For example, people in sane states are not allowed to carry concealed weapons, a violation against their second amendment rights, perhaps, but a law that society agress to inforce so that it is safer over-all.
What a load of bullshit. I come from a rather "sane" state and we're allowed to carry concealed weapons. God I wish I were back there. Where I am now (Maryland) guns are treated as if they get up on their own and randomly start killing people, and the murder rate here is astronomical, far higher than the state where I come from. What makes the irrational fear of guns (rather than the criminals that use them) more sane than a state allowing it's citizens to defend themselves?
Do you ever actually think about what you spew out of your mouth?
And the democrats are any better?
It truly saddens me that there is such a distorted view of of the republican agenda floating around Slashdot.
The general agenda for the republican party is much in line with the libratarian agenda: freedom for the individual, and protection *from* government. The problem with the republican party seems to be the influence from the "bible belt".
Let me clarify that point a little: There's nothing wrong with being a born-again bible-thumper. It's just that there is an outspoken group of them in the republican party
who don't particularly care for the libritarian-leaning feelings in the republican party. Dispite that element, it is my belief that the Republican party is much more likely to defend freedom of speach, as well as the rest of The Constitution, than are the Democrats.
- he disseminated no information about his cause, and instead rambles about himself the entire time
- his stream-of-consciousness writing style is better left to those who can actually execute it correctly
- much of the detail he supplies comes off as total whining: your coffee was getting wet and someone called you a bad name? who cares?!
- he talks about the events of the weekend spinning away from the "journalistic ride in the park" that he expected as if all those events were totally out of his control
if his writing is any indication of the normal fare on hackedtobits, then it's the home of poorly executed journalism.So, you're now the arbriter of what constitutes free speech?
Have you forgotten that your own prized freedoms are only as good as what you're willing to allow others to enjoy?
HTH. HAND.
James
This would funny if it weren't so...naive.
Let's see...a political convention, you got a guy looking like he came from an Army-Navy store, making cracks about grenades. What does that bring to mind? I'll wait a moment...
Why, yes, those evil militias!
James
I don't really share too many opinions with the author, his comrades, or the protestors in April in DC for that matter, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with asserting your Constitutional rights no matter how obnoxiously you choose to do it.
I don't think the author "sought" arrest. I think he made a realistic assessment of what he was in for if he dared speak out against the status quo in the Land of Rizzo. (Don't get me started about the Philadelphia Police.) I also think the ultra-high bails for some of the protestors are complete bullshit. And while we're at it, some of the stunts pulled by the DC police in April were nothing short of fascist.
Those obnoxious and misguided punks and hippies are fine Americans. God bless America.
--
whuppy enjoys smelling like diesel fuel
You're fucked if you do,
and you're fucked
if you don't.
Five stop mother superior rain.
--
whuppy enjoys smelling like diesel fuel
He's a hero for participating in an anti-poverty march during the largest economic expansion in history? Sorry, I fail to see how he is a hero. I think the guy just needs a life. BTW, WTF is this doing on /. anyway? If he was protesting the DCMA or the MPAA, then I would understand.
Stop talking about who's to blame when all that counts is how to change --"Born of Frustration" - James
Naw, the only idiot here would be you. He is being asked, for no reason other than how he is dressed, to surrender his rights.
We all have a right to be free of unreasonable searches. Thats a constitutional right. Part of the problem in this country is that more people dont realize exactly what our rights are, and are more than willing to let police, etc, explain it to them. Anyone who thinks this way, needs to read, or re-read animal farm.
We have an adversarial legal and justice system. Listen to the word. Adversarial. Root word here would be *adversary*. Do you cooperate with an adversary? By its basic connotation, you dont. Period.
We have the right to remain silent. Now, while this fellow didnt do that, he does not have to divulge anything to the police. Period. The police in this country have stepped out of bounds many times, and, all too often, the reaction of fools like you is, "well, they are the police, you have to do what they say, and do what they tell you" etc. No, you dont.
You dont have to allow a search. They must have PROBABLE CAUSE. They didnt. They were being thugs.
The fact that your well trained to do whatever someone with a badge says, your the idiot here, because, youve as much as told us, your more than willing to surrender just because someone wears a uniform.
Why dont you sit at the back of the bus?
Supernaut
IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE LAWS IN THIS COUNTRY (oh yeah, the freedoms, benefits, etc too) MOVE AWAY.
Ummm, no.
See, I believe that in order for a democracy to be effective, it's citizens must be active participants. Where they see shortcomings in the law, they should petition their representatives for redress. They should not up and move away en masse simply because they think some laws should be changed, even if those laws are a fundamental part of the fabric of government such as the Bill of Rights. There is this concept of a "marketplace of ideas" that has always appealed to me; the protesters in this case are simply placing themselves firmly in that marketplace.
By the way: As much as I personally disagree with the protester in question on some of his issues, I still applaud him for energetically injecting himself into the debate. Most people just play Diablo 2 or watch their favorite TV show. Distractions abound. The real world continues, and those in power like apathetic citizens.
- Rev.This is an excellent idea. It's one of the things on my list of principles which I uphold. I don't believe in government (per se), but as long as there is one, I should be allowed to decide where my tax money goes.
Or at least, I should be allowed to decide that it shouldn't go to the military.
Yeah, except that the Republicans are doing their share of the taking!
Just scrap the whole damn thing, I say.
I love it when the moderators play wack-a-troll on early comments without actually reading said comments.
Is the comparisson invalid to Nazi Germany? The author was indiscrimentally arrested for refusing to allow the police to violate his civil rights. You can't search someone's backup, purse, fanny pack, etc. as the interior is considered private property. And you don't have to tell the police anything before you talk to a lawyer.
Sorry for posting early.
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
In this case, given the way he treated everyone around him, I am not suprised that they snagged him. There is no excuse for treating other human beings without respect.
.... ?)
True, very true.
And the thing is, and as others have mentioned, he wanted to get arrested (apparently so). So great. But I'm sure there are ways to get arrested without personally mistreating someone. Those cops were acting on the prompt he gave them (his mode of dress/outward appearance). He was screaming 'rampant person' so naturally they're going to ask questions. It's their job. If they didn't, I wouldn't want to be paying taxes to support their lives as delinquint cops who don't investigate suspicious things. But I propose there's got to be a way to cause one's self to be arrested without injuring another's personhood. And for pete's sake, if you're wanting to be any sort of martyr, don't use cursing. Not only is it unnecessary, it's vulgar, ignorant, and just generally doesn't present you as a justifiably supportable individual. It'd make me want to chunk you out in the garbage, especially dressed as you were. Sure, you're not going to wear a suit out there to protest, but Martin Luther King Jr. sure didn't walk around with flak jackets and dirty, soggy clothes, and harnesses. (Were you going mountain climbing or something
In general, perhaps the whole of "activism" should be rewritten. It seems a popular culture within its ranks, but a slighty pungent one without.
Insert mind here.
This story has nothing tech related. Why was it posted here? Is somebody friends with the webmaster of hackedtobits.com? Is this a scheme to drive traffic to their site and boost their readership out of some kind of favor?
Secondly, this diatribe is poorly written. Congratulations, you went looking to get arrested and you did. What an act of briliance. And the issue you were protesting was _so important_ to you that you neglected even to mention what it was.
Lets see, we have 'canidate X sucks', a re-run of a book review on a book that wasn't good or partial and now this drivel all in the last few days. WTF are you editors doing??
Is this an effort to be reactionary rather than inteligent in an effort to drive more visitors to the site? Are you missing your banner-add impression projections and need to pull some serious traffic to get it back up??
Give us decent news! theres lots of interesting stuff happening in the world, but we keep getting this worthless trash.
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
why so many users here feel the need to badmouth those individuals who put their freedom, and sometimes lives, on the line for their beliefs?
/.ers are wrong to ridicule this guy.
/.ers
This is an interesting point. What were this guy's beliefs? What was he trying to accomplish? How did getting arrested actually help his cause, especially since we don't know what his cause was?
This guy has succeeded in getting the attention of the Slashdot community, his name prominently displayed on an article on the main page of a website with thousands of readers. He is in the spotlight. But he has squandered that chance to actually say something. He hasn't made a point, he's just shown that he can shout "Hey, look at me." and get the cops and the Slashdot community to listen.
At least the folks in Seattle managed to get some things discussed. This guy has successfully thrown a tantrum, but any two-year-old could do better.
There are legitimate things to protest. If I were Peruvian, I would be protesting Fujimori's unconstitutional 3rd term. If I were in Yugoslavia, I would be protesting Milosevich's actions to let Serbia dominate Montenegro. I was proud that my father (who lives in South Carolina) joined the march from Charleston to Columbia protesting the continued flying of the Rebel flag over the SC statehouse.
But you have to accomplish something. Mere protest for the sake of protest is ridiculous, so I don't think the
It is not a lack of social conscience that motivates this. Social justice is not served by knee-jerk anti-rightist obstructionism and confrontationalism.
Let's face it, the Operation Rescue types use the same tactics. I bet you would slit your wrists rather than post this same comment if they were the protest group being taken down by the
Just keep that in mind before saying 'all protesters are wonderful people.'
if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
I heard. Little rebels without a cause, hopping from Dead show to the next protest, spending their parent's money and wishing that they were poor working class folks... this is liberalism in America, circa 2000.
There has not been a Dead show in 5 years, 1 month, they're gone forever as of 5 years ago, today.
George
Your sig is ironic:
Freedom is never assured so long as the government can make our choices about our bodies for us.Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
The fact that Vergil was less than polite when the cop pressed beyond that is also not grounds for a search, questioning, or arrest. The legal standards are clear; there was no legitimate cause for police action. Period.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
He was deprived of liberty without due process of law. The cops who did so are criminals. But in our police state, it's business as usual, the masses don't even question it. Carnivore, Echelon, COINTELPRO, digital wiretap laws, crypto export restrictions, stop-and-frisk, no-knock searches, mandatory drug tests, harassment of dissidents, whatever, just so long as I get home in time to see "Big Brother" on the tube.
And just how would anyone on the street have been threatened if he had been in possession of some blotter? Drug prohibtion laws are just another convenient excuse to expand police power. (If the state was really interested in our safety, they'd offer free handgun marksmanship classes and a tax deduction on ammo...)Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
It's possible to live in depressed urban or rural areas where there are no jobs available. Someone living in an Appalachain shack isn't helped by a job opening in a McDonalds a hundred miles away.
It's possible to have a physical or mental disability, temporary or permanant, that prevents you from holding a job.
More than that, you have to create a legal and socioeconomic system where they can apply those skills. "Teach me to fish and I eat for a lifetime," but it does no good to teach a man to fish when all the waterfront is deeded to private property protected by government guns.(Which shouldn't be taken to mean that I think massive government programs are the answer. Libertarian socialist that I am, I think the state should do less to promote social injustice by concentrating wealth, and should issue direct tax credits (not just deductions) for charitable donations, and pretty much reduce its role to guidance, advocacy, and oversight, rather than incompetently try to promote social justice by force (the only tool the state really has).)
Uh, yeah. Did you notice the massive debt and large recession that followed his presidency? Regan did for the USA what anabolic steroids do for the human body - yeah, it looks more muscular, but the testicles are shrinking...
Oh, and maybe you recall Iran-Contra? Regan was either a criminal or completely incompetent. Probably both.
We lost in Vietnam because we had no fucking business being there in the first place. The only thing worse than losing when you're wrong is winning when your wrong. because then you go and fuck up even more. (This, BTW, is why I'm just waiting for Gulf War II.)Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Capitalist - in general, one who believes in an economic system based on property.
Socialist vs. Capitalist is not the same axis as command economy vs. free market.
BTW, "Libertarian" originally was used by those on the left. It was co-opted by liberatarian capitalist within the last few decades.
Further reading on the topic can be found here.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Just because he understood that getting arrested was a possibility doesn't mean that we should tolerate it. Your argument is like saying "you voluteer with some research group to possibly get mugged and your bitching about being mugged?" Just because a group does research on muggings, including sending people out to see if they are mugged doesn't mean that they shouldn't protest the muggings.
-- Superlame http://catpro.dragonfire.net/joshua/
I've been through two sobriety check points. Are they covered by the same rulings as the above drug barriers? I must admit I didn't fully grill the officers on my rights, but then I wasn't the one driving either time, so I didn't want to make trouble for friends.
-- Superlame http://catpro.dragonfire.net/joshua/
I'm not a Democrat you myopic asshole, and I expect that there will be a few demonstrations at the Democratic convention.
The Republican convention is nothing about freedom of speech. It is an orgy of big business pouring money into the political system, buying politicians, and creating a fabricated and imaginary hope for the people. People have the freedom to speak out against them just as much as they have the freedom to spread lies.
Granted there are a lot of bad apples that spoil the peacable assembly and legal protestation.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Examples?
It's not a static pie y'know, wealth is created by creating economic value in all of its various forms. Do you really think that is impossible to create more wealth because a bunch of people have 90%, 99% or even 100% of it? Maybe you should reexamine the nature of wealth creation. I simply don't see how this 90/1 situation threatens anyone. You are free to make your own wealth, no one is holding you back. You just have to create some thing, process, or idea with value to someone, preferably a lot of someones.
What is the difference between the government redistributing my income to a homeless person and the same homeless person mugging me for the money? Shades of gray I say. I want to make the decision to give, or not.
Not that I like republicans. I only want enough government to protect my rights, no more, but the republicans don't even go near that ideal.
-- Eric
what the hell? I didn't click post anonymously. I never post anonymously...
Intolerant people should be shot.
you enjoy arguing with yourself. You have a thread that is composed of you responding to your own comments that goes four deep. I don't know about anyone else, but that seems a bit strange.
I know it was offtopic but it seems a bit odd.
Disclamer - Opinion of Person
Couldn't agree more. The clown joins a protest because
"After explaining who I was and dropping two or three names, he pulled his face close and whispered that he needed support people, and more importantly, people willing to get arrested."
so, it was your agreed intent to be arrested. Thats what your worthless ass wanted. You were. What is the problem?
I live in South Jersey, and much of the protestos activities were shown on the boob tube. They (the protestors) were quite often violent and unruly. The Philly cops have received nothing but Kudos for the way te handled the protestors.
To be quite honest, the large majority of the protestors looked like they were 60's wannabe's. More interested in casing trouble than doing anything productive.Looked like freaks,acted like untamed freaks, and got what they deserved.
So, again, I must say, You sir, are an idiot.
Blink182 did a decent enough job at that.. at least it's not scooter yet..
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
He probably used "Conservative" instead of "Republican" and "Labour" for "Democratic".
This has to be the worst case of journalism, articles, and subject matter ever appearing on Slashdot. "News for Nerds" bah! whatever.
Give a monkey a website and it will swear its the king of the...
Hasues
futang futang!
You are correct. Except that when he was asked politely what was in his jacket (he admitted himself he was dressed like he was gonna cause trouble) he told them he left his grenades at home. Would you as a cop seriously not have reason to suspect he might have weapons at that point? I would, and that is enough to warrant a search. Remember, illegal search and seizure is a crime except when there is reasonable suspicion.
Did you even bother reading the top of the article just for arguements sake I will indulge you....
The article was written by an e-commerce analyst. So you see there is then tenious link to technology that you are so arrogant to overlook
PS. The man was not a hippie. It seems that you have to much Reagan in you to see otherwise. Perhaps a genetic purge\replacement therapy will solve you of this just in case you are this Republican idols long lost love child......
PPS I am also not a hippie.
My it would be funny to great every protester in this way. The Klan marches (bloody hippies), Aryan Nation (bloody hippies) anti-abortionists (bloody religious hippies) the level of your ignorance really does stagger me....
Signed
River Moonbeam III
"The way she used to say Rimmer as if it rhymed with scum" Red Dwarf
Thanks for the laugh I think I will still take the word of reputable historians both military and civil over you pile of hogwash anyday.
Ever since WWI they steadly lost various territorial posessions (well earlier if you count the Americas) and that war sapped them.....
Well well so you are a supporter of the British would like to see your "great" land become a member of the Commonwealth again?? I believe your views would not be held by a majority of your own population.
As for Britain losing a war against China. Explain to me General (your views are definately on the same par as a 5 star at least) how this would go undetected by the whole of the world. How would it be over in 5 minutes. Please give some supporting evidence. How would China mount a strike would it be Nuclear, Conventional Missiles, or the funniest one I could envisage is the sneaking of conventional forces that distance!
Firing a missile would violate so many countries airspace that China would be embroiled in major incursion from most of the countries around them??
Ok so it would happen with the tacit support of both the USA and Russia. Do you know anything about warfare or a you just a complete ignoramus on these matters.
Surely your boy's at NORAD or the people at Russian Central Space Command would detect such things?? If not Longreach in Australia. Ok let's just for the arguement say that it happened. This still invalidates your carefully crafted hypothesis because of the simple fact of treaty obligations an attack on Britain would be viewed as an attack on all NATO countries (you fucking dolt)
PS as an avid fan of airpower and the military in general you arguements are also invalid to the point that the RAF have consistently been the best pilots around since WWII. It might come as a shock to you perhaps you really believe all that TOP GUN bullshit you have been fed. Which airforce had the highest kill ratio's in the Gulf even look it up it is at Janes (if you don't know what this is then no point formulating the Tzu like strategies)discounting the Russians or the Israeli's I might add.
Where did you get your military education - John Wayne movies???
Read some history- for starters you might start with the brilliant works of Churchill, AJP Taylor, Keaton, Keagan the list is quite long. Start their come back with an informed opinion and then start arguing.
Just cause you can play a video game called RED ALERT don't mean you know how to validly argue for China getting rid of Great Britain in any type of exchange...
Thanks for the laugh's once again.......
"The way she used to say Rimmer as if it rhymed with scum" Red Dwarf
Fucking primitive screwhead
"The way she used to say Rimmer as if it rhymed with scum" Red Dwarf
I thought this was a forum for information concerning science and technology. Why is /. covering this story if it has nothing to do with any of that. I see politics everywhere I go, does that mean I now have to deal with politics from here?
It sounds to me like you just have a real problem with authority and cops in general.
In a previous post (and in response to mine), you stated that you have tried to change the system through the system. I applaud you for trying and tell you keep trying. And, you made a few good points regarding the antiquity of our system and hinted about being able to vote online.
I can almost agree with your points, for the most part. But, not everyone in this nation has internet access (many don't even have phones). If those individuals had a center from which to vote and where their privacy is enforced and the system is super easy to use (for the non-literate), I'd go along along with you. Question is whether or not privacy can be truly guarded or whether they would be understandable to somebody who only knows how to put an 'X' down for their name. I'd venture not. Existing voting machines only record who voted but not what they voted for.
Regarding cops enforcement and agreement of laws. Cops vote like you and I. And, they do speak up when their interests are at stake. Since most laws deal with keeping scum off the street (and most cops don't think themselves as scum), they have no reason to fight those laws.
But, if the laws are changed, you can be sure the cops will honor those changes. I work with former cops on a daily basis. They are good, hard working people that have children to feed and a roof to keep over their heads. They view the enforcement of laws by the law as their job and duty. And, the do it well.
I'm not against protesting, only violent or destructive protesting.
If you want to reduce the number of laws in the country, work towards the one law per bill notion (i.e. no riders). That would reduce the number of good laws and bad laws passing simply because it is attached to some politically sensitive issue (like abortion). The line item veto was a step in the right direction. Its a shame it was found unconstitutional.
You mentioned that our forefathers wanted the states to have more power than the federal gov't. That's what the political party known as the republics advocate (well, in theory at least). The current democrats want to expand Federal powers. So, the choice is clear if you want to return power to the states (where you may have more influence), don't vote for the democrats.
"What's in your vest?" [...] "Left my 'nades at home, officer." "Let's see what's in your backpack." "Fuck no. You need an arrest warrant for that."
Hmmm, want to get arrested (or at least detained) too?...Here's the simple formula:
Dress like Rambo.
Join a group bent on getting arrested.
Act suspecious.
When asked by the police, insinuate that you might have weapons.
When asked for ID, refuse to surrender it.
Insult the officer and utter profanities at them.
Sounds pretty simple to me. Idiot.
BTW, he wasn't arrested. He was temporarily detained until his identity was ascertained (Remember, he wasn't even 'cuffed).
His behavior isn't activism..its down and out civil disobedience with no redeeming value.
I'm glad our officers knew to stop this piece of shit. Its a real shame he didn't get booked because of an outstanding traffic warrant and spend a few nights in a cell with a very large man named "Bubba" who wants nothing better than to make this dick's asshole look look like a hula hoop. Now...that's what I call activism
RD
The police don't have the authority to selectively enforce the laws of the land. And, you don't have the authority to violate those laws either.
Those laws are created by your lawmakers. If you don't like them, then work, peacefully, to have them changed. If you are unwilling to do what it takes, then shut the fuck up.
That was written with all the lucidity and purpose of a labrador retriever on acid. Actually, though, the lab would have written something more entertaining.
-jeff
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
the local economy. I would love to have a convention in my hometown. Of course, I like having people with money visit, stay in our hotels, eat our food, ride in our cabs, and pay us for it.
I guess if you don't like that, then harass the attendees of the convention. That would make sure they don't come back a lot more effectively than harassing the police.
Yes, a trip that you could take the whole family with for a entertaining rendezvous(sp?).
If this was Nazi Germany it would have been "Papers, please" and then a bullet to the forehead.
wearing funny clothes and being disrespectful to the authorities is evidence that you are a dangerous nutjob? Arrest every heavy metal band ever!
Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
So, is /. a test audience for bad reporting now? This article will be published on a different site "in a few days"? Why? Will it change at all (other than the photos)? This artice has sparked some good debate today, but I gotta say that my first reaction was, "What the hell is this crap doing on Slashdot?" Where's the nerd relevance? As much as I hate Jon Katz, even his Hellmouth bantering had some relevance to geekdom.
/.
/. publishers. Not likely, but after Taco's remarks of recent, I gotta wonder.
So, it seems to me there are a few possibilities of why, exactly, this article appeared on
1. We are now a test audience for up-and-coming e-reporters to refine their work. From most of the comments I've read today, it still needs a lot of work.
2. Slashdot is expanding into an online political forum. Fine with me, and there's obviously an interested audience here.
3. This article was placed on Slashdot to enrage many readers, spark a great debate about protesting and oppression, and possibly advance the political bias of one or more
sig: sauer
"First of all, every city has laws and permits governing where and when people can gather en masse to protest, speachify, or otherwise make their voices heard."
One little problem with that:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
If Congress can't do it, neither can the states (especially when it's set forth in the Constitution).
censorship is a form of noise, which actively seeks to drown out content with silence - Crash Culligan
I wholeheartedly agree that the police sholdn't be able to search someone without probable cause. However, his actions pretty much amounted to probable cause in this case. They probably also amounted to disturbing the peace for which he could be arrested, and therefore searched. You have a constitiuional right against unreasonable searches. There's no constitutional right to be an asshole.
Vouchers allow natural selection of good schools. The good ones will get students and therefor money, the bad neither, and eventually will disapear.
You might say money = good school. I disagree, you can have a great school with almost no money - it's all a question of teachers, and the schools ability to select good ones.
-Ariel
What's wrong with school vouchers? Can't kids go to whatever school they want? The Gov sets aside X dollars per kid, the kid picks which school gets it. I don't see anything wrong.
-Ariel
The govertainment portrayed the pot smoking hippies and liberals demonstrating at the RNC as freedom fighters going against the conservative pro-capitolists. When the DNC is held there won't be nearly as many protests and the media will portray those protesters as unfair people who don't wanna Internationlize everything (read communist Internationale) And did the media say they were Gore supported PAC's? No. Partisan politics are pathetic. You're an idiot if you like them. Both parties are fubar, just one more than the other. If the common man could reason beyond what CNN/NBC/BBC (insert communist mainstream news here) tell them, we'd be voting on candidates by what they say rather than the propaganda both sides create.
No surprise here. This country is becoming a police state, and people are just going to let it happen.
The more stuff like this I see, the more I think of moving to Canada. America is a great place, but as far as experiences with police go, this guy was lucky. What happens as things get worse, the government regulates more and more things they shouldn't, and people try to speak up? Will they continue to abuse/arrest dissidents like they have been? Will lynch mobs be allowed to once again run free and just kill the opposition off?
And will they do it to me?
I love this country, but I don't know if putting up a fight is worth the consequences. All the freedom that America promise doesn't mean shit to me if I have to face a great risk of death/violence/imprisonment to get it.
Of course, that's really what the system wants me to think, isn't it?
This "article" upset me particularly because I know of friends and protestors who were bombarded with batons, tear gases, are arrested, etc. for peacefully (meaning walking around with banners, poster boards, etc. ) protesting during events such as the WTO. I don't care if many or few people disagree with my politics (esp. here) But everyone should have the right to protest peacefully. What this article does is trivialize the injustice that often occurs and are not shown in the media (what? the media doesn't tell the whole truth?? unbelievable)
This guy was asking for it. Many protestors simply want the chance to express their views peacefully without the fear of being arrested. Don't dismiss all claims as now "oh they were asking for it etc." because not ALL are and it pisses me off that this pitiful article will give impressions of real protestors with real issues as lamers looking around for trouble.
-enol-
Everyone seems to be forgetting the big point in the story. He wasn't thrown in the wagon until he refused to give ID. They asked what was in his backpack and he told them they couldn't look (very rudely, but that is the basic facts). They then asked for ID, and he refused to show ID. This is when they arrested him. Asking for ID is by no means violating anyones rights. Someone who is dressed like Rambo, spouting off at everything the cops ask, and then refusing to give any ID adds up to reasonable suspicion in my book, figuring all the other things going on in the area. People expect the cops to by civil, and treat everyone kindly, and are surprised when they react to people who treat them badly. Most times, if you are civil to the cops, they will be civil to you. When you act like an ass (which this guy did) they will treat you like an ass.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
I don't get it.
if [ poverty == bad ] protest a convention that isn't a policy making event?
or
if [ poverty == bad ] donate time & money to charity works while writing current policy makers with ideas for change
Which is right? I would say the second one, but most of the protestors don't seem to agree. This reminds me of the people protesting the arrest and conviction of the alleged cop killer in New Jersey at the Internation Monitary Fund, and Wold Bank meeting in DC recently. What do these organizations have to do with that situation? Nothing but the protestors were there. Also during that event, numerous papers carried a quote from one of the protestors, to paraphrase, "I'm just here 'cause it's cool."
And about taking my money to the grave with me.... I have no desire to do that, but I would like to think that my kids, and grand kids can benefit from any success that I have.
white rebublican and proud of both
Every person has a right to an opinion, whether you agree with it or not.
Please, if you can honestly say you believe what you are saying don't post anonymously. Be proud of what you are saying!
What a refreshing idea. Lock up criminals. Can I start with the politicians? I don't know of a single one that couldn't be so catagorized?
You need to get out more then. While it's popular to jokingly accuse all politicians of being criminals, if you honestly believe each one of them is a criminal you need to get your head examined. Find a politician and prove he is guilty of a crime for which someone is imprisoned and I guarantee you'll find him there. Of course if the judge, jury and executor is all in your head, don't expect others to consider that proof of guilt.
But why didn't they prosecute the WTO reps? That was clearly the will of the people.
Who said anything about prosecuting someone based on the "will of the people"? Anyway, it's only the lunatic fringe of anarchists who believe the WTO reps should be prosecuted. What crime are you considering prosecuting them under? The crime of not being able to explain their function to the stupid?
The WTO plays a very important role. Unlike what some people like to believe, it's an organization of countries. Countries, not corporations. The reps at the WTO represent their countries interests at the meet. There are no corporations represented at the WTO. If your countrys reps end up representing corporations instead of their people, that's a beef you should take up with your politicians, not the WTO or the reps of other countries.
as is their right. It's called 'self-defense', and it's fundamental. They same applies in Philly. If the law won't protect us from the politicians, we must protect ourselves
Are you smoking crack? How the hell does being there have to do anything with self-defence? Look up the dictionary definition of self-defence.
Mmmm.. Donuts
You have a right to assembly. The delegates at the WTO had a right to assembly too. I have the right to use the streets to go where I want to. If you try to hinder other peoples rights to assembly, I have no problem with your rights being taken away at that point.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Someone has to administer the law. We choose the police to do that. You have the right to go where you want to. However, if you commit a crime, that right is taken away and you are put in prison. Similarly, you have the right to free assembly. However, if you abuse that right and use it to block traffic, hinder the movement of others, etc. I have no problem with the police removing you from the scene.
The police showed admirable restraint in Seattle. In fact, the police allowed the protesters to assemble even after it was clear they were hindering the movement of the WTO delegates and were there for the sole purpose of hindering such movement. There were virtually no talks between the delegates for the first couple of days because of the carnival surrounding the event. If you read the newspapers in many other countries they accused the US of intentionally encouraging protests and dealing insufficiently with them because the US wanted to hinder talks at that point in time.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Isn't that the same thing?
No, it is not the same thing. The author was trying to show that the police were being used as a method of suppressing the public's right to disagree with (insert issue here). Knowing that he would be arrested for using his right to free speech points out the fact that it is being suppressed. Getting it done in such a way that it catches the media's collective attention allows other people to see that his rights are being violated.
-------------------------
-------------------------
As easy as herding cats!
I personally wouldn't stand for the government declaring martial law every time that there was a political gathering. Martial law should not be easy to invoke as a protection against abuse. The police in this particular encounter did a marvelous job of balancing their duty to protect the citizenry with their duty to uphold this particular person's rights. The police broke no laws, and violated no one's rights.
If, as has been stated in previous postings here, you consider the entire post as true, the man in the story never stated an intention to incite riot. He stated an intent to get arrested as a demonstrator.
Furthermore, the police grabbing him because of his garments, which are not illegal and can acquired through numerous hunting and military surplus sources, could be easily construed as harassment. The author states that he had no weaponry on himself, thus none could be visible.
Lastly, again assuming that the account is truely represented, falsely telling the media that the potential arrestee was carrying a controlled substance is at least criminal slander and probably something worse should he choose to legally pursue it.
-------------------------
-------------------------
As easy as herding cats!
"What's in your vest?" I was wearing a camouflage vest over a olive drab polo shirt (that approximately matched my green cargo trousers with a vintage gas mask case strapped to one leg). Officially, the vest buckled to my torso is called a "load bearing harness." It has multiple cylindrical pouches, loops, and clips and distributes weight between the shoulders and belt line. My pouches were stuffed with pens, granola bars, cigarettes and notebooks. In wartime, such pouches hold one grenade each. (snip)
The police were not objecting with his viewpoint. They were objecting to his CONDUCT. Conduct and belief are two different things (hence, do as I say, not as I do). The police were trying to maintain order (their job). Trying to maintain order includes keeping the freaky-freakies off the street during a political convention, when delegates need to be free and unencumbered while doing their social duty. If you want to demonstrate, go right ahead, but blocking main street will get you arrested. This is part of maintaining order.
I do not see anything in the stated conduct that is disruptive. If you go throught entire section that I clipped from, his behaviour only became aggressive AFTER the police began to question him.
-------------------------
-------------------------
As easy as herding cats!
So, you are advocating that the police have the right to circumvent the law becasue the person in question does not fit into the officer's opinion of propriety?
The fact of the matter that you conveniently ignore is that the police officer had no LEGAL grounds for the questioning in the first place. Just because a law enforcement official asks something does not obligate a response. In fact, it can (and usually is) a way for said official to get around the fact that he does not have a legal right to question in the first place. You freely admit something because you (wrongly) think the police have a legitimate right to know. That is a confession and does not require a warrant and also does not fall under Miranda since you admitted it without being under arrest.
Maybe you don't mind having your rights abused, but to me, it doesn't matter whether I am in the wrong. The police should be above using tactics like that.
-------------------------
-------------------------
As easy as herding cats!
>Neither of which is hateful... I just said I
thought the protesters are wasting their time.
Dude has a point.
>That's funny, I thought they were protesting at the Republican convention. Obviously, the protesters don't belive people should have opinions that differ with their own.
I don't see how that follows. Just because I don't agree with you about an issue and state my position on it publicly doesn't mean I don't believe that you're entitled to your own opinion. Protesting at the republican convention is not necessarily the same as protesting the republican convention.
>No, I think I understand their purpose, I just think they are misguided. So I don't support them. What's wrong with that?
Nothing.
>Again, none of this is hatefull.
Right, as I said.
>I'm sure the word intollerent will get thrown out here pretty soon as well.
Thrown out? Removed because it is misspelled? =)
>That's typical for the left... Their big on tolerance for everything but people who disagree with them.
I don't think that the left is generally more intolerant towards dissenters than anyone else.
As to your original post: Regardless of the questionable motives of the article writer in planning to get arrested, does that justify his arrest by the state on suspicion of, well, nothing in particular (maybe being shabby looking and defensive)?
Protesters are misguided: protestors for which cause?
Your post really disturbs a lot of people here. In order to facilitate the efficient termination of the public disturbance that you are creating, please leave your name and number so I can have you arrested. Thank you, and have a nice day. =)
>The media, imo, sells itself to the highest bidder, they are not inherently "right-" or "left-wing".
/. :)
How would that be possible, in this case? Something tells me that PBS is inherently left-wing. =)
>I get all my news from
Well, that explains it! =) (j/k)
Two Words: Habeas Corpus
"it's vulgar, ignorant, [...]"
Now, hold on here! While we're on the subject of "according with established standards of good form or taste" (m-w.com): Cursing is ignorant, is it? Your accidental personification of cursing implies about you what you were apparently trying to attribute to the curser (cursor?).
Let's continue.
"and just generally doesn't present you as a justifiably supportable individual." Wow. And the same can be said of making stupid grammatical mistakes. However, putting forward an argument could present one as a justifiably supportable individual (or an individual with a justifiably supportable position, even). You should try it sometime. =)
i thought we talked enough about anarchy in high school debate that you'd cut organized governerning bodies a little more slack ;)
just voicing agreement with you on the decision making for the budget. It seems like a better way of giving the individuals power than letting their elected leaders fight partisan battles over where the money goes. I think it would be fair if we let people decide where a certain amount of their money went. Not all of it though. One of the reasons for a having a government is helping the minority have a chance against the majority.
---
/bin/fortune | slashdotsig.sh
Oh, we both know it's illegal, but the cops around here don't seem to know that. This was an honest to god stop everyone roadblock. Happend in northern minnesota. I live on the ND/MN border, and stops like that, especially "sobreity checkpoints" are pretty common in North Dakota. That's why I hope that people who get busted realize that they need to get a lawyer and fight that. I also hope that the innocent who are stopped will raise hell about it.
---
/bin/fortune | slashdotsig.sh
Okay, I think I should speak up now.
I'm a friend of our author and work with him. While even I disagree with part of what he did, the idea that this was allright or even justifiable on the part of the police is complete and utter shit. Our rights are protected. Walking down the street minding your own buisness is something it should be okay to do.
Secondly, it wasn't durring the protests, it was over a day after they were over. The police were, simply, overreacting and making trouble.
Did anyone here listen to the police chief on TV say that he thought none of the protestors had a legitimate right to be there? I think this attitude by law enforcement is a real problem.
I sympathize with the police, and I lived in Philadelphia for many years- and I disagree with much of what Vergil did, but he had the right to do so.
That's my point.
- Serge Wroclawski
My favorite suggestion for a constitutional amendment:
Just think how many laws would fail to pass for lack of a voting quorum!
The Web is like Usenet, but
the elephants are untrained.
What states?
What laws?
When were they passed?
How long have I been living in a totalitarian dictatorship?
The Web is like Usenet, but
the elephants are untrained.
Guess I need to do a little research and see if Virginia is part of the totalitarian regime yet.
Probably is, if what you say is true about the other states.
The Web is like Usenet, but
the elephants are untrained.
The point is, they pass more laws than is humanly possible to even READ, let alone understand.
Personally, I think they get TOO MUCH done.
I'm looking for damage control.
An even better idea would be to require that for every new law that goes on the books, two old laws have to be repealed; at least until the total volume of laws is down to the level the average American of average intelligence could reasonably be expected to comprehend.
The Web is like Usenet, but
the elephants are untrained.
Philly protestor: "Me go protest evil capitalism. Me see cop. Cop enforcer for evil bourgeoisie capitalists. Bourgeoisie capitalists bad. Cop bad. Me go bash cop."
So how come the east coast isnt railed up like europe, The Bosnywash megalopolis is at least as dense as europe is, but it cossts a hell of a lot of money say to go from Washington to NY, about as much as flying there and its a bout 6 times slower than if you flew (600 mph vs 100)
Yup, they sure are, but the question is, create wealth for whom? people who work in sweatshops dont seem to be paid very highly, but CEO's certainly are, you decide where the wealth is going
Hmmm. Let's think about this. Ok, I wear a tutu and combat boots, shave my head with a Quake 3 symbol, and walk down the street singing "Copacabana." Are people going to look at me? Hahahah.
Ok, now. Do I have the right to do this? Abso-fricken-lutely. Do people have the right to reserve the opinion that I look like a freak? You bet.
Now, do I have the right to FORCE people not to think I look like a freak? HELL NO. So, is it harassment when people don't agree with my opinion? According to you, it is.
If I walk down the sidewalk dressed like Rambo (according to Slashdot types all rednecks do this, and of course all rednecks own guns) screaming "SCREW YOU PIG" I should attract no attention whatsoever from the police.
Riiiiiiight.
"We apologize for the inconvenience."
Protesting is not necessarily making a complete asshole out of yourself, especially to cops who are trying to do a job, and a difficult one at that. If you want to protest, and be an effective protester, you have to target the people you intend to affect directly.
Do you think you're winning any friends in the police department? They think you're a thug. Do you think you're winning any friends from people who live in that area? Heck no. Now the cops are down on them too, because you have to be a jerk.
Personally, I think you got off lightly.
"We apologize for the inconvenience."
You don't have enough money to make me wear a tutu. :)
"We apologize for the inconvenience."
If they're acting like the Author did, it's less like activism, more like playing chicken. I think if we posted a report about people trying to challenge freight trains to head butting contests, you'd hear the same 'defensive' behavior.
For crying out loud, he didn't even say what he was protesting to the cameras! Did he even know? His account states that he saw someone he wanted to be respected by, and used a proxy to secure a position. Didn't mention him actually asking 'Hey. What are you protesting? Really? How can I help?'
Weapons of Mass Analysis
Indeed. The poor and needy should protest for themselves. Let the Dominican Damnificados come to our shores, hitchhike to Philadelphia, and complain about their labor rights while their families starve.
Let the political prisoners have a pass from their nearly forgotton prisons, to stand in our streets and remind the government that its first and foremost responsibility is to mankind, not just those that line their pockets.
You make me sick. You don't want to see what is going on around you? Don't worry.. You seem to be doing a good job of ignoring it this far.
Weapons of Mass Analysis
Perhaps.. It's Jon Katz under an alias! Slashdot Conspiracy alert!
Weapons of Mass Analysis
Nothing like the song of 'Not in My Backyard' eh? I grew up in one of those parks, and my grandfather was one of those immigrants you wouldn't have let in. I hope you're merely trying to be funny.
Weapons of Mass Analysis
Actually, from the police's point of view, it's an intelligent move. There is an assemblage of people that they are protecting from what may become a violent action. We have justified their views, by the actions in Seattle, and other recent protests, where individuals /have/ destroyed property and threatened personages.
One image that comes to mind is that of a man raising a trashcan at a Starbucks window in the Seattle protest. The media showed this one looter to the world, and every mayor since has sworn to defecate on the constitution, if that is what it takes to protect his city.
Weapons of Mass Analysis
The problem with tyranny is that it is infectious. Once you've been subjected to it, people tend to think it's the only solution once they've gotten rid of the tyrants.
Weapons of Mass Analysis
Right. And the Democrats are basically the same thing.. Except they're much less obvious about it, and take more money from foreign governments than they do from the private sector. Only less so, on both sides, because some people are actually politicians because they want to fix a problem, not fill their wallet. Frankly, there are much easier ways for an educated man to make money. These politicos are addicted to contributions, because it fills warchests for their attempts to buy elections.
Weapons of Mass Analysis
A little correction. You have the right to peacably assemble.
That does not translate into "I can go cause sh@t wherever I wanna cause sh@t 'cause the constitution says so" Peacefull demonstrations and activism is one thing. Going out to taunt and provoke law enforcement is quite another. Cities generally work with activists to increase media exposure so this type of thing doesn't happen. Making designated areas so the police can do their jobs doesn't seem too demanding to me.
Freedom of speech != freedom to harrass.
That's like walking up to a cop, asking him "Guess if I have a gun or not?" and expecting him to walk away. I agree. You really are an idiot.
It's more like a cop walking up to YOU randomly and guessing that you have a gun. Who's the idiot?
Protesting is not necessarily making a complete asshole out of yourself, especially to cops who are trying to do a job, and a difficult one at that. If you want to protest, and be an effective protester, you have to target the people you intend to affect directly.
Do you think you're winning any friends in the police department? They think you're a thug. Do you think you're winning any friends from people who live in that area? Heck no. Now the cops are down on them too, because you have to be a jerk.
Personally, I think you got off lightly.
Got off lucky? From what? Walking down the street and wearing questionable clothing? Do you think he was trying to be friends with the police? Who do you think he was protesting against? As far as I can tell, police harrassment was what he was protesting.
"America, I smoke marijuana every chance I get."
OK, so you're implying that the police were operating at a heightened state of awareness during a political convention - i.e. a time when activities counter to good public order might occur. Hmmm.... and this is a _bad_ thing? I think not.
No. It's because idiot's like you keep posting twaddle like this that people like us don't bother protesting smaller violations. You truly are a jerk.
Absolutely spot on (the last para). As mentioned previously, all the guy had to do was explain, briefly, what was in his kit, and there'd likely have been no issue. To be asked the nature of your business, or attire, whilst in the vicinity of a potential/actual troublespot such as that, is perfectly reasonable. I assume all you whingers on here will expect sub-second response from your local police forces if/when your home happens to be burglarised? Kind of a shame that they'll all be busy dealing with jerks like this clown at the demo.
Then leave. Prat.
Of course police at a major national political convention are going to be a little overcautious. Protesters have proven that they can get carried away with their thing, and it wouldn't be too difficult for a protester to magically become a terrorist with a little bit of C4 and some balls.
There was no excessive brutality involved, nothing illegal on the parts of the officers.
This is a non-issue. If you don't want to be under suspicion, don't act like a lunatic.
Name one, please. I'd like to give them a call...
Most of the ones I have encountered were at the local level with a few a state. I believe that there are more at the national level, but I have not taken the time to do a thorough check-up on all or even some of them. My advice for finding one is to look up two or three laws that matter a hell of a lot to you and see who voted the way you feel is right. There is a chance that this person might try to represent the same portion of our population that you belong to. Do further research on the politicos that matched your initial set of requirements and see where that person stands. If there is a consistent pattern to their votes that fat bribes don't explain, I'd wager that the politician believes he/she is proctecting or pursueing something good and that it represents the people. I have known several people who have entered local politics simply because they couldn't stand the state of affairs in their communities. Some of these rise through the ranks and form those I am talking about: the ones who try to represent what they perceive the people wanting.
I can't name those whom you would feel match the desires of the people, because your perspective is different than mine and I would only give you those whom I agree with and think try to do what the people request. This is probably not going to match your opinions, because from what each of us has written, I think we view the world fairly differently.
B. Elgin
B. Elgin
"Read at your own risk; feel free to ignore."
That's funny, I thought they were protesting at the Republican convention. Obviously, the protesters don't belive people should have opinions that differ with their own.
I am not an activist, nor do I know any people who were protesting in PA, but I think that your statement is inaccurate. I doubt that most of them were protesting that fact that a Republican convention was or could be held, but rather were providing alternate views and ideas. There goal was not to eliminate speach that they deemed wrong, it was to counter it with ideas they deemed right. They want a Republican convention to not happen; not becuase the government should not let it, but becuase no one would attend a Republican convention in their ideal world.
---
http://www.au.org
_sig_ is away
What are you talking about, refusing to show ID and refusing to give up your 4th amendment rights (remember frisking is legal, but searchs of backpacks, etc are not without consent of the owner) are COMPLETELY LEGAL. Being beligerent to a police officer (or anyone for that matter) is a PROTECTED RIGHT. I can act however I damn please just so long as I don't break the law, which this journalist didn't. Being held just so you can be "checked on" is not legal. It constitutes arrest, which requires valid suspiscion of wrong doing (and no, "looking suspicious" does not count).
Pardon, does the fact that this country's constitution has a little clause called the First Amendment escape you??? What the journalist did was, admitedly, beligerent, BUT, it was not in any way illegal. He did not in fact have grenades in his pockets and based on the circumstances there was no reason to believe he had any. Thus, the excuse of arresting him for being armed was not valid. He was completely within his rights to tell the officer that he needed a search warrent to search his possesions (remeber that you can search his person, but not something like a backpack). This even holds true if he does use the word "fuck". Like I said, it was beligerent, but not against the law.
When you have a country where the police have the right to arrest someone for being beligerent without any other pretext (and then get to make up stuff after the fact to explain their motives (such as the rumor of acid)) it is called a POLICE STATE.
"Looking suspicious" and "mouthing off" are not illegal last time I checked. Remember that little thing called the first amemdment, it protects both of these acts. His stated goal was to get arrested, true, but I am sure you can see the difference between getting arrested for "looking suspicious" and getting arrested while involved in civil disobedience for an issue he believes in (or maybe he doesn't, but there still is a difference).
PS. nobody forces anybody to buy acid. It not even something that you can force someone to get addicted to, seeing as it has not addictive properties.
so, what's the deal with the Wawa's? my co-worker and i were in Philly on a business trip and nearly bust a gut laughing at the name. the *best* part was the sign hanging in the window "Chocolate Covered Big Ed - $0.45!"
"hey, let's go get a big ed at the wawa!"
hahahahahhaha
well, maybe it was funnier after gutting & redoing all the cabling/computer systems in an office building.
Why bother reading his rights, if you're not going to bother respecting them?
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
I would like to express that I don't think the writer quite realizes that he is a representative of the movement that he is a part of.
"What's in your vest?"
"Left my 'nades at home, officer."
"Let's see what's in your backpack."
"Fuck no. You need an arrest warrant for that."
Honestly, does it help to be a hostile, swearing smartass? The cops will be taking flack all day from everyone, and having a hostile attitude won't make them any more predisposed to being nice to you. Furthermore, if all protesters respond like this, the cop will be prejudiced in his treatment of all protesters in the future.
And appearance: Who do you think will look better to the media? A bunch of unshaven people in combat fatigues, bandannas and combat boots, or people moderately well-dressed? At the least, being well-dressed might give the illusion of potential civil legal trouble (i.e. people who look like they have more money will look like they have legal resources). For that matter, I'd also like to see a coordinated effort to have videocameras cover maximum area, to make sure that cops can make no move without being on tape.
If I was organizing a protest, I'd put everyone in their Sunday best and completely ban all profanities and name-calling. I'd want all the protesters to treat officers with sympathy and respect, since the officers are nothing more than people who are stuck doing a shitty job (I'm sure most everyone can relate to that). Honestly, how would it look on TV to see tear gas being shot at men and women in sportcoats and dresses?
I'm sick of seeing people dressed for combat bitch and moan when they actually find it. And it doesn't help their image when participants can't articulate their beliefs without resorting to profanity.
These protests will only get worse unless participants start playing the other side intelligently.
-JimTheta---
My stupid web site
We have no problem with people who "put their freedom, and sometimes lives, on the line for their beliefs" when it is done in an intelligent and not-self-publicizing manner.
We do have problems with people who do what they do in a juvenile and ignorant manner and possibly contribute through this behavior to making the job harder for those who do it intelligently. It doesn't help our opinion that this imbecile is getting his name in print and promoting behavior that many of us feel is stupid and will set the movement back.
-JimTheta
---
My stupid web site
Whoever moderated down my previous comment is abusing the moderation system.
Well seeing as how about 65% of this country is pro-death penalty, mainly liberals are against it. and 70% of the country is pro-abortion, mainly conservatives are against, yes the clear majority of anti-abortion people are pro-death penalty. I think the only person who's both anti-abortion and anti-death penalty is the pope.
And those actually exist?! Damn that's scary. Does the US have any?
And it would certainly work well when China decides to invade Taiwan: kill all the people, and leave all the high-tech infrastructure.
What the hell is a neutron bomb? I've heard of atom bombs and hydrogen bombs, but I thought neutrons bombs were something out of science fiction.
We are already sending money to schools. The question is which school we give it to.
So, why not have school vouchers? If a school can't preform why keep it? The school district provides busses and $x for each kid. Parents choose schools. The Washington Post has a very good article on the subject a few weeks back. It argues that part of the problem is teachers who are not teaching. However the school board cannot fire these teachers because of the union. If we hold monopolies are bad, shouldn't schools systems and teachers be included in the list we don't like.
A teacher with a BA is guaranteed $74,000 after seven years, in one school district in MI. This figure is independent of skill or progress of the students. Name me one other job, independent of skill were you can make 74k a year.
If a school is not performing kids should go else were. Do we leave kids behind to help teachers?
I don't think so.
"The poet presents his thoughts festively, on the carriage of rhythm; usually because they could not walk" Nietzsche
Why not set aside X dollars per kid and send that money to the schools that we already have? The idea behind vouchers is that our public schools are so bad that no one should be forced to go there. What we should be doing instead is spending money and other resources in an effective way so that it won't matter which school kids go to.
Of course, the other option is to raise taxes and do it both ways, but I don't see many people clamering for that.
--
"shake my head, and move on..." is that the poor misguided souls are also blocking traffic. ^^;; dammit, i just want to go home! what are you protesting anyway? our right to wear grenade carrying equipment?
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
What the heck is the point of this story??
/.??
It looks like something done to attract attention
In what context is this being posted at
Let me guess... this guy will be writing a book soon or something.
Actually, I thought the Blue Room he was referring to was the Big (Blue) Room. Allow me to quote:
I could be wrong, though.Sheesh!
:wq
Far left my ass; a mole.
Now go troll somewhere else you right wing nazi fascist pig!! ;)
:wq
I bet this guy would have bitched and moaned if he was not arrested. "I went out looking lug a thug and they ignored me. They must not be doing their job!" Police aren't bad everywhere, anyhow. At least, not in my area.
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
Hell is this? Protests are supposed to be peaceful, he acted like an asshole and got arrested.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
You know what I've been waiting for. When some wacko just like Virgil is wandering down the street during a protest and an officer stops and asks him. "What do you have in your backpack." and gets a response. "none of your fucking business, get a warrent". to the officer respond "oh, yes sir, don't want to violate your rights, have a nice day, sorry"
A couple hours later there are dead bodies, body parts, and 100's of injured people. What happened? He only just happened to be carrying C4 and dynamite. BOOM. Can you say extremist.
Now I admit this situation is most likely on the extreme side. But guess who's going to be complaining when they learn that the police stopped this guy earlier in the day and could have prevented a tragity. It's going to be the same people who are complaining now about the current situation in philly.
I'm certainly glad nothing like this has happened. But when the time does, i'll be waiting for the same people to start complaining all over again.
The same "figuring" people bankrolling these so-called "radicals". The international financiers who are terrified that an international system of governance will be put in place to curb their more extreme activities (such as building up and dashing currencies). Who wants another "Asian" crisis? Not the poor sods in Asia, I'll bet. Look instead to the organisations and massively rich individuals who are benefiting from the lack of international institutions to manage and regulate the global financial markets, in the same way most national financial markets are regulated and managed.
The sooner that organisations such as the UN, WTO et al reach a consensus the better. These meaningless protestations do little to address the issues of world poverty and are a check to intelligent and reasoned debate on the issues of globality and free trade. Saner NGOs voices have been largely unheard in the public debate since Seattle, to the detriment of the poor.
-- Free software on every PC on every desk
Eh... last time I checked it was illegal to stop specific people (ie. stopping all black people), however iy isn't illegal to stop say - every 4th person. And why do people always just spurt out stupid things like "apparently the fourth amendment doesn't mean anything anymore" ... if you're going to make a ridiculous claim - at least explain in detail what that is suppose to mean and why. Yes, privacy is a good thing - but you also like to live in relative safety don't you? That is the job of the police - enforce laws and provide you safety. They can do their job much easier/more efficient if people aren't completely uncooperative for *no* reason. IF you have nothing to hide, how does it hurt you to help them do their job? When the police officer asked this jackass for his ID and he absolutely refused how were the police to know that he wasn't refusing because he was some known terrorist or something planning to gun down a bunch of people? Anyhoo.. blah.. whatever.. i don't wanna write anymore :)
Um... you ever studied US government in any sort of detail? You have *any* idea how long it was before the bill of rights even applied to the states (this is *including* things such as cruel and unusual punishment). The constitution applies to the national government. Certain ammendments have been deemed by the supreme court to apply at the state level as well. So, just because the government can't do it doesn't mean states can't (A state can completely ban gun sales if they want -- congress can't do that).
The problem with court transcripts is that they tend to be heavily biased documents, admitting only what the prosecution allows to be in court. For example if the prosecution witholds evidence, which happens far too often in this country, no trace of that act will show up in the transcript. If the defense has failed to properly investigate, there will be little trace in the transcript. If the prosecution witnesses (specifically police) perjure themselves, which again happens far too often, there will be no trace in the transcript.
A well-crafted lie appears unquestionable - Dama Mahaleo
Incorrect on both counts.
Small CnP from /usr/share/docs/anarchy... (from debain with anarchy package installed) on the definition of anarchy:
And now from the section A.1.1 What does "anarchy" mean?
Organization does not preclude anarchy from existing. In fact anarchy is very organized in a decentralized or individual maner. Instead the rich few and the poor masses it is a bit more equal for everyone.
Now back to your first section:
Try some time to take a look around you at various things such as the DMCA, Cryptography, or any other controversial topic and take a stand. What I mean is don't talk unless you are doing the walking as well.
As once said before me by someone commenting on Nazi Germany (sorry from memory and not exact):
When they banned guns I did not speak up because I didn't own a gun. When they persicuted the blacks I did not speak up because I was not black. WHen they persecuted the asians I didn't speak up because I was not asian. When they persecuted the gypsies I did not speak up because I was not a gypsy. When they persecuted the jews I did not speak up because I was not a jew. When they persecuted the polish I did not speak up because I was polish. When they took away my right to speak in protest there was no one left to speak on my behalf.
--
The program isn't debugged until the last user is dead.
First reaction, may not have been the best reaction. Either way provides a little context.
Now I will have to agree in that it is a theory and it is possible but I myself am seeing some problems with the probability of the theory working with people today.
Sounds just like many of the unsung heros through history. I too have had the joys of dealing with a administration (ok, highschool) which tried to use social security numbers in plain view on mandatory worn chest level badges as a student ID. After about a year of not wearing it and watching them change their rules daily to keep up with having a reason to try to expell me for things they finally droped it.
I'm begining to think it is becoming cool to protest. Not really protest anything in particular but just to protest. I'm surprised we don't have a chain of people protesting protestors right now.
--
The program isn't debugged until the last user is dead.
Very true. Now I'm just hoping to see the people that participate on both sides of the fence (police and protesters and whomever else involved) would please grow up and find a civilized way to solve things like a good game of Quake III or Rock, Paper, and Sisiors. :) He with the most frags wins?
I agree. The only thing I have a possible issue is when is it right to go outside the system and change from the outside. In many cases I would have to say there is never a need, and I just hope the few that ever present themselves are handled in a sane manner.
--
The program isn't debugged until the last user is dead.
The future is the point. How oftern do you want to go through this scenario before society evolves?
You should go back to watching CNN if you need to be spoonfed the context, and don't want to accept the reality. Quit trying to blame your feelings of inadequacy on the messenger.
"The Internet is made of cats."
How about you provide statistics showing that anti-abortionists don't kill people? Should be easy, right?
Then let's go to 'advocate' (your word, I point out that I intially used more provable terms e.g. "anti-abotionist have blown up clinics and shot doctors dead", which I stand by and challenge you to disprove, btw).
You asserted that anti-abortionists in general don't advocate killing abortionists. Can you prove that? Didn't think so.
You may prove that they haven't actually killed very many people, but that doesn't say a damn thing about what they advocate. That was my point. I don't claim to have any information beyond personal experience showing what the intentions of anti-abotionists are.
So. My word against yours, eh?
Fortunately, no one on my side as bombed an abortion clinic, so I feel I have the stronger credibility of the two opinions.
You are, of course, encouraged to disagree. I would prefer if you did it elsewhere, however, since I don't really give a shit about your stand on abortion, or how many clinics you blow up, unless you care to somehow tie it back to the movement, and the recent activities in Philly, which is what brought me into this, and is my only interest here...
"The Internet is made of cats."
Furthermore, who the hell are you to say he failed? By your own admission, you don't know what he was trying to accomplish, so you certainly are in no position to judge his success or failure...
You mean kinda like the US, or any other country at some point in history, for that matter.... Debatable, based on your demonstrated lack of comprehension of this situation... You may have 'lived it', but you clearly don't understand it. So your criticism is just sour grapes? Have I? I'll let you sort that one out for yourself as though it matters a damn to you. You don't want to go there... No, you were just picking at somebody who tried to become part of something because he thought it might cause some things to happen. You're just telling him "don't bother", and now you're claiming additionally "I've already tried that and it doesn't do any good."People like you are people who make the world safe for republicrats and demopublicans. And since you don't seem to understand what I mean by that, you probably don't even want to be having this discussion.
"The Internet is made of cats."
"The Internet is made of cats."
"The Internet is made of cats."
My only point on this is: "Why do we not apply the same standards of legal and moral behavior to outfits like the the WTO, the GOP, etc, etc that we do to the 'protesters'?" The protesters can no more be assumed to be criminals than anyone else. The fact that they are congregating to advance and agenda does not, de facto, make them criminals.
The mayor of Philadelphia obviously disagrees, since he took rather drastic measures to ensure in advance that the protesters would not be allowed to assemble, speak, etc. By the same token, he took very definite measures to make sure that the convention went forward unimpeded, while the criminal activities of the political parties are pretty well known. Of course, the mayor is a politician himself...
If you and I go out and block traffic with a march, it's called a protest. If the GOP does it, it's called a parade.
Nevertheless, the laws have to come from somewhere. You're denial that said laws are supposed to originate with the people is hollow. Again, though, that sidesteps my original point that the cops (actually the bosses -- mayor, etc) should be acting in the interest of the private citizen, not the corporate or foriegn national interests.The fact that the bosses are not acting in the interest of the citizen is manifest in actions like throwing a 7 foot chain link fence around Philadelphia city parks the day before the protest.... I am personally outraged by that action. I was well publicized, yet no one seems to grasp the significance of it.
"The Internet is made of cats."
Sorry, I keep forgetting humor is lost on you. I didn't mean you personally were going to blow up abortion clinics, although I'm sure you support those that do...
Two things appear certain: 1) you aren't here to discuss the same things that I am, and 2) You prefer contention to discussion.You got your jollies; I'm done with you. I won't respond to your igmo bullshit further. Take that how you want.
"The Internet is made of cats."
Last I checked was about 15 years ago. States included Georgia, Alabama, Texas, California, Arizona, and Nevada ... iirc. It's been awhile since I did any hitchhiking.... ;)
"The Internet is made of cats."
"The Internet is made of cats."
Did I say right-wing? I don't usually. Not what I meant. I meant: "It's on television, therefore it's propaganda and should be distrusted." Like "How to tell when a politician is lying: His lips move." -- of course, Gore seems to be able to speak without moving his lips.... The media, imo, sells itself to the highest bidder, they are not inherently "right-" or "left-wing". They're like politicians in that respect.
And you're right, I've never seen the show. I don't watch t.v. news. Not since Cronkite. I get all my news from /. :)
"The Internet is made of cats."
I will look forward to your success, then. You are saying that 'trying' is all that's required, right? No mentor, special training, or priviledge of birth? Ooookaaay. Go for it, friend.
Hey, it'd beat working for a living:). Actually, though, I don't think I've ever called anyone a 'sellout to "the man"'... I will admit to having been tempted to, a few times. It just has such a ring to it, you know?I think you phrased that rather badly, as it doesn't actually say what I think you meant. I will accept, however, that you don't think you are a drone.
Y'know, you'd be a lot more credible claiming to know something about this if you realized that a lot of '60's activists would take it real ill you implying that they were 'sitting there doing nothing'. Especially the ones who were busy designing the internet while they were working through that really wierd trip... I submit that the current situation is proof positive that you are wrong, and that they, if they actually did as you claim (which I personally doubt very seriously), were wrong.Few, if any, of their objectives, have been accomplished. The children of the 'hippies' are far more constrained than the hippies themselves ever were.
What, you mean peace, love, and understanding? Sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll? I suppose I do 'identify' with those ideas, yes. I can certainly understand why a group of people might find such things desirable, whorthwhile goals, yes.However, I think you will find that by the time Nixon was elected, the 'hippy' movement was quite dead, and was being rapidly replaced by the 'yuppy' ideology. So no, hippies probably didn't vote for Nixon. There weren't any left, to speak of. I can tell you that the 'silent majority' that elected Nixon consisted primarily of persons who had loved ones who were eligible, or soon to be eligible for the draft, that they didn't want to wind up in 'nam. These people were 'silent' because they couldn't afford to be vocal about it after what happened to the 'hippies', the 'communists', the 'beatniks' etc,etc. Nobody needed to be lumped into those groups, since those groups had all been ground to a pulp by the military/industrial complex.
The fact is, if your assertion that the system can be fixed from within were true, somebody would've succeeded at it by now, and the current mess wouldn't exist.
And I am quite aware of how the electoral process in the US works ... or doesn't work, as the case may be, thank-you-very-much. Why do you think people are screaming bloody murder about it, anyway?
The demopublicans and republicrats will, of course, give you a somewhat different version of events....
"The Internet is made of cats."
VA? Heh; UCITA.
"The Internet is made of cats."
You seem to be reading a great deal into my repeated assertions that I don't care about your issue, and will not take to the streets to support it. I can't help that, but I can tell you that you are totally off the mark in accusing me of advocating the denial of the anti-abortion protesters' rights. I would be quite pleased if the anti-abortionists could figure out how to execise their rights without trampling the rights of (killing) others, and it's not my damned fault that they can't.
I really must demand you back this up. And what do you imagine I deem corrupt or evil? I really don't think you know what you're talking about. And I don't disagree. In fact, I think it would be valid to summarize my remarks as "In any instance, the will of the power mongers is no better than the will of the people." I see that as being a bit similar to what you said. You apparently believe otherwise? Actually, no. That is exactly this discussion. What I have been saying all along is that the politicians have not only failed in that duty, they have molested the corpse of freedom. Interesting that everybody seems to want to talk about everything and anything except that. No, I pointed out that murder is not civil disobediance. And that I frankly disbelieve mini-me^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H eduardo when he claims that the anti-abortion crowd is not a bunch of violent freaks.That said, if you want to paint Eric Rudolph as a protestor, and class murder as civil disobediance, I'm willing to discuss it, but be warned: I will expect you to apply the same standard to the WTO, Philly, and LA protestors. E.g. If they bomb the convention hall, you have to admit that it was just civil disobediance, not murder, and anybody who agrees with them should be allowed to get away with saying 'Oh no, not everyone who disagrees the demipublicans is a killer at heart.'
I'll start: the right of a protester against the status quo to walk thru the convention hall, or at least down the street outside, wearing a real bad attitude and combat fatigues. I mean realy, why wasn't Rudolph stopped? He dressed funny, acted funny, stood out like a sore thumb, and had an admitted desire to kill people. The reason he got away with it is because the police have more respect for the rights of abortion protestors than they do for those protesting agains the demopublicrats...
These are very simple facts. I accepted it long ago, and have been acting accordingly ever since. E.g. avoid fundamentalist nutcase anti-abortion protestors, regardless of your stance on abortion. They are dangerous.
You guys keep trying to pretend it never happened (imo), because if you admit to yourselves that it did, it calls into question your original stance on abortion, and you don't want to face that challenge right now. I believe this, but eduardo seems to think it's some psychic hotline mumbo jumbo, and it offends him, so I won't pursue it, since my goal is not to be rude, but to get a point across...
Okay. That's right. I only champion my own rights, but they are my rights, and you can't have them. If you don't like it, go champion your own damn rights."The Internet is made of cats."
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion. Of course I am. As are you. As are the republlicrats. As are the protestors. I don't need some young whipper-snapper to tell me that. I'll go you one better: You (and I, and so on) are entitled, within certain parameters, to act on our opinions. Under the law it's called "the pursuit of happiness", but some of us aren't always that formal... As you probably realize (I hope), the constraints on your right to the pursuit of happiness mostly derive from the rights of others. Now, when someone violates your rights, your pursuit of happiness may come to involve making damned certain that the individual who violated your rights in the first place never, but never is able to do so again. That's what the protests are about. The politicos, the republicrats, the demopublicans, whatever you choose to call them, have been trampling rights that some of our ancestors died to tryinng to secure for us and themselves. I personally think the protestors are not extreme enough, but I remain in the minority. Nevertheless, I think it's pretty pitiful to pick and faultfind with the guy just for testing the boundaries of his freedom. It is within his right to the pursuit of happiness. Sure, he could have avoided arrest, but by the same token, he could have blown up a building. Get a perspective. I think all you naysayers here are just jealous... I am not am member of the political caste, police, or military. So you admit there is a caste system. Well, that's a good start.... I am an average working person two years out of college. That's an oxymoron. The average working american doesn't have any college. I have worked to try to help change things that are bad in my view. And yet you would criticize others for doing the same? You are part of the problem, I think, not part of the solution. Unlike some people, I will work for it though. You're implying that the writer of the article doesn't work? What? That is such a typically elitist remark. I'm sure the republicrats will make sure your sheeplike existence continues without undo perterbations.
"The Internet is made of cats."
Of course I am. As are you. As are the republlicrats. As are the protestors. I don't need some young whipper-snapper to tell me that.
I'll go you one better: You (and I, and so on) are entitled, within certain parameters, to act on our opinions. Under the law it's called "the pursuit of happiness", but some of us aren't always that formal...
As you probably realize (I hope), the constraints on your right to the pursuit of happiness mostly derive from the rights of others. Now, when someone violates your rights, your pursuit of happiness may come to involve making damned certain that the individual who violated your rights in the first place never, but never is able to do so again.
That's what the protests are about. The politicos, the republicrats, the demopublicans, whatever you choose to call them, have been trampling rights that some of our ancestors died to tryinng to secure for us and themselves.
I personally think the protestors are not extreme enough, but I remain in the minority. Nevertheless, I think it's pretty pitiful to pick and faultfind with the guy just for testing the boundaries of his freedom. It is within his right to the pursuit of happiness. Sure, he could have avoided arrest, but by the same token, he could have blown up a building. Get a perspective. I think all you naysayers here are just jealous...
I am not am member of the political caste, police, or military.
So you admit there is a caste system. Well, that's a good start....
I am an average working person two years out of college.
That's an oxymoron. The average working american doesn't have any college.
I have worked to try to help change things that are bad in my view.
And yet you would criticize others for doing the same? You are part of the problem, I think, not part of the solution.
Unlike some people, I will work for it though.
You're implying that the writer of the article doesn't work? What? That is such a typically elitist remark. I'm sure the republicrats will make sure your sheeplike existence continues without undo perterbations.
"The Internet is made of cats."
"The Internet is made of cats."
This guy went out and actually did something that addressed issues that are important to him. That simple fact by itself should be applauded. Furthermore, the tone tone of the article is not 'whining' or 'complaining' as so many posters accuse. In fact, I thought it was quite equitable.
I am amazed by the apparent rise in 'law-and-order' sentiment on /., evidently it goes along with the rise in pro-M$ sentiment we saw, say, a month or so ago.
And what the hell is 'dressing confrontationally'? I think the way the goddamned convention delegates dress is confrontational, and their actions treasonous. Why aren't the police jailing them? Many of them were publicly drunk and disorderly. Some of them were drinking and driving?
Obviously, these are rhetorical questions. The reason the cops harassed the demonstrators is that the Philadelphia City govt politicos laid down and spread their legs for the big-money republicrats like the corporate whores that they are...
Anybody remember M.O.V.E?
"The Internet is made of cats."
The city revoked the constitution for the convention; the time when people might choose to exercise their rights. It's appropriate, what Philadelphia did, I think. It's a little taste of how the whole country will be run under the republicrats...
But you're not worried, are you? It's just those stupid protesters; they deserved it; it can't happen to you... can it?
"The Internet is made of cats."
Sounds like you believe that voting still matters, and that 'anyonoe can get elected'. Now that's just plain stupid. Drone.
"The Internet is made of cats."
Then there's the fact that the republicrats did exactly as you postulate the demopublicans would do, except that first they closed down all public forums for dissenting speech, identified any potential public speakers and arrested them first, and took measures to ensure that the mainstream media wouldn't encounter any significant non-pro-republicrat events...
Wake up, Bush lifted his entire plaform from the one Clinton got elected on, and now Gore is going to take a page from Newt Gingrich. They're all part of the same gang, just trying to making it look good...
"The Internet is made of cats."
It's quite simple, I don't want republicrats convening in my town for the same reason I don't want child molestors or thieves living in my neighborhood. And believe me, once I have exhausted all legal means to remove them, I will take the law into my own hands to accomplish it.
The law is there to protect the citizens. Why do you consider the republicrats citizens, when they are engaged in the demonstrably treasonous activity of selling out the government of the country to the highest bidder?
Politicians are criminals and should be prosecuted; since they have placed themselves beyond the reach of law, vigilante justice should apply.
"The Internet is made of cats."
you stupid fuck
"The Internet is made of cats."
"The Internet is made of cats."
Fuck you. I don't hate the country, I hate idiots like you make such assinine pronouncements like that to citizens who express concern that you (the politicians/military/cops ... all the fucks that use that stupid line) are fucking up so badly.
You will be very happy under the 'new' regime come November...
"The Internet is made of cats."
Cops are humans, too.
"The Internet is made of cats."
So you're not from the deep south, I take it.
"The Internet is made of cats."
"The Internet is made of cats."
"The Internet is made of cats."
You're right, and I agree. I find no fault with the cop. The guy took no measures to prevent himself from being detained, he was detained. I have issues with the people who were calling his action pointless, and who are saying essentially "if you look strange, you should be locked up". Bottom line, if they guy wanted to get locked up, he did an adequate job, and I don't hold with critizing him over much for it. He made the cops sound downright polite. compared to some.
Again my issues are with those who are critizing the whole concept of the protest, and with the city officials who chose to close the parks, which are the rightful areas for this type of protest. I mean, if you don't want protestors in the streets blocking traffic, let them use the park. I surptised the police themselves haven't complained about that one. I would, if I were them.
IMO, the fencing off of the parks is the proof that the city was looking to supress dissent (probably at the behest of the GOP) rather that simply protect citizens and property.
"The Internet is made of cats."
Yess, police are in a tough situation, and I sympathize, but that doesn't make the guy wrong for doing what he did. If were screaming 'filty pigs oppressed me' it would be different, but he's not.
I disagree. Vehemently. Your remark is gratuitous, and displays a deeply ingrained apathy. I appreciate the trouble he went to to write the article and the thought he has and will put into what happened to him. It will make him a better citizen. Too bad you can't learn from it, but then, that's not his fault, is it."The Internet is made of cats."
Geez, I really didn't need to know that... You know what rhetorical means, right? Or are you still trying to establish credentials?
I don't know what anti-abortionists you know, but the ones I ever met were definitely in favor of killing those who performed abortions. They just couldn't admit it or act on it without fear of prosecution.
Last I heard they were using pipe bombs, not guns, so your assertion about 'there would be more shootings' is invalidated on 2 counts.
"The Internet is made of cats."
"The Internet is made of cats."
Enlightened?! You call that enlightened? I call it avarice and selfishness... especially if you are in a 40% tax bracket. Oh no honey, those liberal bastards are insisting we give money to the hungry, no new yacht this month.
Gee, thanks O mighty master of enlightenment - everything is so clear now. The money that I work hard to earn, that I went to school for what seemed forever to prepare for, I don't deserve it! I should give it all away to the ignorant masses so they can sit on their asses and watch their relatives on Jerry Springer!
Yes, that was sarcasm. While I will always be willing to pay my share for what I use, taking the money I earn and giving it to someone who does nothing to contribute to society is wrong. I give to local charities (espcially battered women's shelters), so don't give me any shit about not helping the less fortunate. Taxing me, taking my money, and giving it to someone who hasn't earned it is nothing more than glorified theft. It should be my option to choose who gets the fruits of my labor, not yours!
Libertarian socialist
You do realize that this is a complete oxymoron? Those two words are essentially completely opposite.
Libertarian - in general, one who believes that an individual is primarily responsible for their own safety and well-being
Socialist - in general, one who believes that a government is primarily responsible for its citizens well-being.
These people are being arrested because the establishment wants to silence their views. I think everyone deserves to be heard, Dems, Repubs, and everyone else too. Granted, this particular story of swearing at cops & pointless arrest is stupid, but the reason that people were willing to be arrested is simply that they realize and accept the reality that speaking your mind in this country gets you thrown in jail.
And the issues that this is meant to raise are as follows: to show the the wealth gap between the upper 10 percent of Americans and everyone else, to show the senselessness of the failed drug war, to show the brutal treatment that the "criminal justice" system metes out, campaign finance reform, all issues that both major parties are totally ignoring. Republicans & Democrats are really the same party these days anyway.
For more info on the actual issues people want raised - http://www.shadowconventions.com
For protester stories with a point - http://www.phillyimc.org
From the IMC News Blast:
WHY PROTEST THE CONVENTIONS? by Mike Albert
The usual answer to "why protest the conventions"? is to list various violations of humanity that the two branches of our one corporate party - the republicans and democrats - persist in maintaining, and to note that we are demanding change in all these areas: bombing other countries like Iraq and Yugoslavia; starving countries to death as in sanctioning Cuba and Iraq; aiding and abetting massacres in Timor and Turkey, and with increasing danger, Colombia; propelling IMF and World Bank income inequality and ecological devastation; advancing domestic police and prison violence that turns communities into occupied battle zones; imposing welfare havoc that further impoverishes the already poor; facilitating generalized corporate rapaciousness that materially and socially diminishes workers?"
JELLO BIAFRA COMMENTS ON PHILLY AND SEATTLE:
Philly: "It's interesting the planners would have Republic National Convention here because it's one of the most third worldified dramatically unequal cities i know of in the U.S. Seattle: "When high finance becomes a street issue you know something is getting through and it's getting through outside the corporate mass media. What was different this time was seeing the activist environmentalists walking side by side with labor. I see a meeting of the minds and it's very important that everybody out there become a part of this, this isn't just about waiting for us to create the media reports for you. . . it's don't hate the media, become the media."
WHY ARE THEY PROTESTING? Letter to the LA Times 8/2/00
A recent article in the LA times makes no mention of why the protesters are in the streets; rather it drives a wedge between the protesters and the community the protesters want to help. Here's one person's response.
A MOVEMENT-BUILDING CRITIQUE OF PHILLY PROTESTS by Chris Crews
Did Philadelphia build on the momentum of Seattle, and DC? Did the movement get it's message across? This commentary critiques what happened in Philly with the hope of hitting harder in LA. "As this social movement grows, we need to begin to not only think strategically, but also about the big picture. Where do we want this Movement to go, what will that direction look like, what structural changes need to occur, and how will we begin to move there?
> How exactly do you know that these 2 people are
> American? I could easily imagine two Canadians
> or two Europeans having the same debate and
> saying the exact same things.....
Well, I can't. First, because the preoccupations expressed by these 2 people are rather typically American (I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just that a conversation between Canadians or Europeans would probably yield a different argumentation). Second, because one calls the other "Republican", which the other acknowledges.
Third, and this is the most important, because I don't know of any other country in which someone would say "this is the greatest place to live", or, as you usually hear from politicians, "the greatest democracy in the world", "the greatest land on earth". I only know of two contries which have been pretentious enough to see themselves as universal models: France, the "country of human rights", and America, the "land of freedom". France has gradually given up this idea after the series of trauma (wars, horrors and humiliations) of the 20th century. America is still very much in it. Having the French experience in mind, I know this kind of vanity is just nonsense.
Carrying a gas mask anywhere near a protest zone is only common sense, given the cop's fondness for indiscriminate gassing.
Actually, the Philadelphia City Council passed an ordinance banning masks of any kind at a demonstration, just before the Convention. So, yes, carrying gas mask in Center City was grounds for arrest. I'm unsure if this was directed at gas mask in particular or Zapatista masks and others that could obscure demonstrators' identities.
The ordinance was met with a lot of resistance, since many Philadelphians felt that it was simply baiting the protestors.
Somebody please, tell this machine I'm not a machine.
I happen to live in Philly and am horribly ashamed of the cops pre-emptive strike on the puppetistas, the confiscation of property and overall condescending attitude of the cops toward the protestors. I really, really take issue with your assertion that "we're all incredibly proud" of the cops.
The cops' manipulations of truth is only further supported by the DA's announcement that beating victim Jones could not have shot that officer, yet the news was not announced until the convention was over. The cops lied and the DA suppressed the truth until the convention ended. Hardly elements of a "justice" system.
Somebody please, tell this machine I'm not a machine.
They are there to uphold the law and ensure public saftey, give me one damn good reason why you wouldn't cooperate right then and there ...
Umm, they didn't have a warrant? It's the old 'if you have nothing to hide, why won't you let us search your bag/house/body/harddisk' question. Answer: ummm, BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE A WARRANT???
I have the advantage of living in Philadelphia, and I must say we're all incredibly proud of how the police conducted themselves, given the sheer amount of imported stupidity that arrived to "protest" in our streets. Last time I checked, "protesting" does not involve flipping the bird at police, tipping over dumpsters in the middle of the streets, or throwing mystery liquids (water? soap? piss?) into the faces of cops.
If you want to protest "big business", then get your groups together, and camp outside the front gates of Ford, Exon, Microsoft, Time-Warner or IBM. Oh, and if you think you're going to get any better reception at the Democrat's convetion, you're in for a surprise...
It often seems like many protesters today look back to the 60s and confuse their tactics with their goals. Back then people got arrested because they were protesting unjust laws. Conducting a sit-in at a lunch counter to protest the fact that it is illegal for you to sit there is effective, and getting arrested for violating an unjust law is an effective protest. Conducting a sit-in to block traffic because you think all Repuplicans are Fascist Pigs, or even because you think large corporations have too much political clout, and getting arrested for it may be mediapathic, but carries far less weight, and has nothing to do with the message you are trying to convey.
Now I'm not saying every protester in Philly was as clueless as the above author seems to be. But don't expect me to have a lot of respect or sympathy for someone who was is focused on getting arrested that he can't even explain to me why he is willing to do so.
Second, and more important, people like this author are the number one reason that the media didn't provide more protest coverage. If he had been interviewed by CNN, do you think he could have given a coherent explanation for why he was protesting? Other than a willingness (even eagerness) to get arrested? Obviously, everyone has a right to demonstrate for causes they believe in, but if you can't explain to me what you want me to do about it, other than agree with you, don't expect me to pay attention.
This is a chicken and egg problem. In Europe where there is adequate public transportation to begin with, the population lives in close proximity. Now in America, in most cities (not all, New York is an exception) the rise of the auto coinsided with the rise of a good portion of our cities. As a result, they are sprawled. Still, I have to say that there is little reason for not having at least some sort of bullet train system between places that are heavily populated. Boston-NY-DC, San Diego-LA-San Fran, and Houston-Austin-Dallas should all be able to support that sort of thing.
"My head hurts, My feet stink, and I dont love Jesus." -Jimmy Buffett
I believe I hate all republicans. As stated before, they're all a bunch of a fucking idiots.
BTW, I don't think something is about "expressing one's political beliefs" if one (john mccain) isn't allowed to do it.
The only reason Hitler lost in Russia was because he was fighting a two front war. Hitler tried to come to peace with Great Britain because he realized he couldn't win a two front war. Hitler was crushing Russia before he felt the strain of thinned supply lines and the brunt of a two front war.
But in a war with china, it's not about bodies, it's about technology. We have the technology to kill 100 of their chinamen with only losing 1 of ours. This war wont be fought on battlefields but in the air and in the science lab.
Ever since Bobby Kennedy got shot? Are you a FUCKING MORON? That was 32 years ago and he was a democrat you FUCKING IDIOT. Assasinations happen every year, every day, every hour, and if someone REALLY wants to kill somebody else, no pig nosed, fat ass cop is going to stop them. So suck a dick you god damn idiot.
The difference is HItler had military geniuses and might. China has nothing similar to the power and intelligence Hitler had at his disposle. Most Asians have little to no creativity or free-lanced intelligence. All they know is fed to them from books. The way to beat them is to suprise them, do something completely far fetched. They also have little military mind power because they don't let them think, therefore they have no grasp of real life scenarios, only shit that's been presented to them in a book.
Futhermore, I hope we get involved if China invades Taiwan. I wish we would just nuke China and get it over with. All China does is make cheap tv's and export all of it's people. And we don't need either.
Coalition to Nuke dah Gooks!
I don't know how we can have a SURPLUS when we have a nice 5 trillion dollar debt because the old whitie king, Ronald Reagan. I just someone has the decency to shoot you before you do something insane like vote for Bush.
That's awfully funny, because I coulda sworn that John McCain was forced not to speak about Campaign Finance Reform. HRM THATS ODD, I THOUGHT IT WAS ALL ABOUT FREE SPEECH?
I fucking hate republicans, a bunch of fucking idiots...
The 'drug checkpoint' thing happened here in Indianapolis but was quickly struck down as unconstitutional.
Icebox
Score one for an AC
Icebox
American politics is not news for nerds. News for Nerds should have worldwide relevance. Slashdot is doing a very bad job. You guys out there who're running /. -- keep your stupid politics out of this. And do something about the quality of articles you post on /. for heaven's sake.
emmett, i have been an avid reader of /. for a long time. you have probably heard this but i really don't think "Danger in the Big Blue Room" qualifies as "news for nerds. stuff that matters... "
all you have done is help glorify vergil . if you do a little research you will find that old verg was in seattle at the WTO. in fact, vergil is pretty good at the protest game and you have become a pawn in his game.
i hope that these types of stories don't become the norm at /.... i would hate to have to change my default home page.
"just another ugly toad waiting for a kiss from a princess"
Why do all these anti-corporate persons still feel a need to smoke? Of all the habits to pick up, you pick one that not only kills you, provides a very mediocre change of brain activity (alcohol is corporatized too, but that doesn't stop its effects), and is available thanks to advertising (corporate brain-washing) and the Tobacco companies, some of the eviliest organizations to have ever existed. What gives !? If you want to create change, don't be an asshole by proving what a rebel you are, do it with your actions and *STOP SMOKING*.
You are more than the sum of what you consume.
You are more than the sum of what you consume.
Desire is not an occupation.
What qualification does a degree in Economics give you to spend someone else's money? What special knowledge do they have that allows them to correctly decide that, for example, $2 billion should go to an airplane that cannot be exposed to rain, or that $15,000 is a good price for a screwdriver? Are these the people you're talking about? Or am I mistaking them for someone else who perhaps has ever displayed a modicum of competence? Just a question.
Aside from what everyone else pointed out to be wrong with the situation, there's the fact that the cops told reporters he was being arrested because he had LSD on him.
On a similar note, perhaps you have heard the quote from a lutheran pastor about the Nazis? I can't remember it exactly but its something like this:
_______________________________________________
All circuits busy.
Ok, so the guy's motives are questionable. His language and profanity is questionable. The manner in which he dealt with the cops is questionable. The fact that he still has 4th amendment rights is not questionable.
Refusing to submit to a search when you have done nothing wrong is not "being uncooperative" or "having something to hide", it's your right. Sure the guy was being a jerk about it, but if enforcers of the law (and of citizen's rights) don't have to respect his rights, they don't have to respect anyone elses 4th amendment rights. And quite often they don't. Protecting the rights of people you dislike ensures yours will be protected as well.
"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
Yeah, it was 32 years ago and he was a Democrat, so what? You don't think the Republicans took notice of this? You don't think that security at all Republican and Democratic conventions since then has been increased?
I brought up Kennedy to show a point: that when a political convention comes to town, steps are taken by the local authorities, Secret Service, etc. to make sure that some loon with a gun isn't given free reign of the place.
Your right, of course, no one forced them to become police. They are, however, willing to perform a necessary service that most would be unable or unwilling to perform. For that at least they deserve our respect.
Also, I don't believe that cops should be able to do what they please. On the contrary, they should be held to a higher standard because of the position they hold. However, it doesn't excuse the asinine actions of people like the author, who basically go out of their way to confront and otherwise abuse those in law enforcement.
How is this article relevant to anything else Slashdot covers? This is just some whiners account of his rather unremarkable experiences with the Philly police and an advertisement for a dumb website...
I agree. I think he is guilty of asking for trouble, then whining when it came.
This morning there was an estimate on NPR that 300 protesters are sitting in jail with 10,000 dollar bail! Many were not violent... I'd be proud to be on the philly PD this month.
The police department is responsible for enforcing many laws... and they are a HUGE union.. Why doesn't the union ever speak up? Oh... right... they agree with ALL laws... please...
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
However, what would you prefer, cops enforcing all laws (even the ones they disagree with) or all cops striking (or quiting) over the laws they don't like and nobody enforcing anything?
For me personally... I would choose the second option... I have a gun.
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
I'd shoot the fucker with my consealed weapon!
I believe rape and murder should be against the law, as that is someone violating your *right* "to pursue happiness"... and if cops weren't WASTING so much time on stupid laws maybe they would have more time to enforce the important stuff... like rape and murder.
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
Nice! :)
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
I guarantee that you could be enough of a pain in some lawmaker's arse to get something changed for the better
My passion isn't law changing, it IS technology. But as a citizen of this country, I should have the ability to effect the government in some way without disrupting MY quest for happiness completely. Many, Many laws are passed that I had absolutly no say in. The net growth of the number of laws and spending in this country is increasing at a scary rate. And we have no substantial say in it unless you want to become a politician.
It IS a free country, and you are free to leave if you really hate it.
Almost time now... 4 more months.
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
Sometimes enforcing bad laws is what gets them changed.
I know. It sucks.
your problem is with the legislature, not the cops
Why can't it be both... because it is. The "they told me to do it" defense doesn't hold much water.
As far as what laws would change if none were enforced....
I'm not advocating anarchy! I just think the police department needs to be more aware of what they are enforcing. I don't believe I have ever heard a case where the police department stood against a law.
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
It isn't easy, but it can be done.
Doesnt that bother you? Its not easy to be heard...
The internet is another tool we can use to help that.
you sound like a concerned citizen.... if you are truely interested in this, email me, I've got a project I'm working on... you might be interested.
I sincerely hope that you are happier wherever you are going. Our world is far from perfect, but I would like it if more people found a happy life.
Thanks! I think it is going to be a long quest.
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
Ahhh unreasonable detention at the whim of the police. Good point.
Actually, a VERY good point. He was stopped and questioned as a suspicious character. Perhaps a person matching his description was seen with a bunch of people that were planning to start a protest? Perhaps that protest was supposed to get ugly with violence? Perhaps one of his "buddies" cracked and said he was there? It would be REAL nice to get both sides of the story before we automatically assume the cops were jackbooted thugs.
And being 'lippy' and annoying and having no respect for authority or this cop was illegal how?
Depends on how exactly he approached the matter. Had he said something like, "I'm sorry officer, could you tell me what exactly you're stopping me for? Perhaps I should have a lawyer present?" I would have to say the cops would be wrong. If he said, "Hey PIG! You can't search me without a fucking warrant. I'll get you for false imprisonment and police brutality. HEY MAN, CALL MY LAWYER AND A NEWS CREW HERE!" then yes, he deserves to be removed. I believe the charge would be something like creating a public disturbance.
Yes, all people with dissenting opinions who were very (resonably) angry were quickly 'apprehended' to thwart the possibility of a 'violent outburst'. We wouldnt want anyone to 'stir up trouble'.
This is flat out wrong. There were several protests that were not authorized. They did not have proper permits, and in fact hadn't even FILED for them. And yet the police allowed at least one march to go ahead. In fact, they closed down one of the busiest streets in town and protected the protestors from traffic and other issues. They did this because these people were peaceful and not intending to start any form of violence.
There is a difference between legal protest and illegal protest. A legal protest does not incite violence. A legal protest gets a proper permit so that the city can prepare for it (ie: Provide those policemen that stop traffic and protect the protestors).
Let's be fair here. Everyone that's screaming is doing so because it was a bunch of long haired men and short haired women that were out protesting their favorite bitch of the day that were stopped. Had the KKK showed up in Philly and tried to do a protest march, you would have all been screaming for the cops to bust some heads. Had the Pro-Life crowd showed up and threatened to cause violent interruption to the proceedings, you'd want them in jail until at LEAST the next decade. Yet when it's one of YOUR guys... Well, that's a different story because he's protesting something YOU believe in.
Frankly, I think that from the article written above these officers showed great restraint and handled the situation in a most appropriate manner. Had the person merely responded that they chose not to be searched, that the web gear carried pens, pencils, and granola bars, and that they didn't see a need to show their ID, and done so in a polite manner, I'd say the police had handled it wrongly. Instead they violated the first rule of apprehending someone by not cuffing them in the wagon. For both the officers sake and the suspects sake, it is standard procedure to cuff ALL individuals placed in temporary custody. Yet these officers allowed the person to get into the vehicle without cuffing them. They asked politely if this person was getting enough air, and if the air was cool enough. They then released the suspect, probably after calling in and observing him for a few minutes.
I hope that the next time this asswipe calls for a police officer to help him out they don't bother showing up. These people that hate all police until they need them really burn me up. Maybe one day they'll understand WHY the police are the way the are. Hopefully BEFORE some punk blows their brains out.
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
Ummm... Jimmy, it's a Democratic town and a Democrat Mayor. YOU are missing something. This is not the same situation as walking down a street in NYC wearing fatigues and webgear and getting stopped. This is a potential riot situation.
Would you want me stopped in YOUR hometown if I was dressed like that and slouching down the street toward you? Perhaps accompanied by some people that you had seen yelling and screaming earlier?
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
Aside from what everyone else pointed out to be wrong with the situation, there's the fact that the cops told reporters he was being arrested because he had LSD on him.
My friends met me at the curb. One said that he had summoned the television cameras. After waiting for me to calm down, he explained that a reporter had asked him what I was being arrested for. She nodded knowingly -- "Word on the Street" was that I had acid on me. For the first time in a week, my friend was speechless, stunned by the simple stupidity. "Where the FUCK did you hear that?" he finally blurted. She told him that a cop had told her. I still can't fucking believe it. I hope you understand that it took me several days before I could write the last few sections. At least my friends in Baltimore saw me on the news.
And that is called HERESAY in a Court of Law. Perhaps the cop was talking about the guy in orange? Or some other freak they picked up earlier? If the cop didn't say it directly to you or your friend, while pointing to you and saying "THAT GUY RIGHT THERE," I don't know if I would believe it. Also, perhaps some of his friends picked up earlier had acid on them, so it was assumed that he may possible be carrying as well.
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
Remember that these are the people that gave us The Art of War. They are not idiots, just Communists. You're right, the way to beat them is to surprise them, but not by saying "Surprise! We don't HAVE an army anymore."
Most soldiers don't need to think, only act. The Generals in China are the elite, not only of the armed forces, but of the country. They are well trained and informed. These are not your average grunts. Plus, as Hitler found out when he went after Russia, enough warm bodies can win a war.
If we were in war with China, they could afford to lose 4 to 1 and STILL win the bloody war. And since their people are all military trained and ours are not, they could probably win out at 10 to 1.
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
Hi Racist!
Had I wrote something similar, say about Jessie Jackson, and written the old blackie king, and said that I hoped someone had the decency to shoot you before you vote for AlGore, I'd be in hot water, wouldn't I? Isn't it amazing how we can shit on whitie all we want and no one gets riled up? We can even advocate killing someone because they MIGHT be a Republican who would vote for Bush, and we're AOK. But let a white guy say something about a black man and suddenly he's a racist.
*sigh* This again bears me out. I'm not a racist. I hate everyone equally.
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
Yeah the US has them. Where do you think the Chinese stole the plans from?
Amtrack recently started their new Acela service from DC to Boston. It doesn't go 200 MPH, but it's certainly fast, I think the trip takes 4-6 hours, I forget how long exactly.
Neutron bombs are a special type of nuclear weapon. Their detonation causes a massive expulsion of neutron particles (duh) in the blast radius. The sheer amount and velocity of the particles SHREDS any organic matter. Basically, it kills all the people and leaves the infrastructure. Very vile, and at the same time, would undoubtedly be part of China's first wave of attacks. They'd need power points in their invasion area, and this would be an easy way to get those.
Why should he have any reason to be aggressive to the police? If he KNOWS he's in the right and free and clear of the law, what problem should he have with answering the police's questions? Once he became aggrevated, the police had every right to remove him from the situation before it turned violent, and he should have known that. Personally, I don't see why he's bitching. He said he was willing to be arrested. He wasn't EVEN arrested and he's still pissed. He got what he deserved.
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
The officer had EVERY right to question the guy. Free speech much? While no response to the officer's questions would be a justified response, it sends its own message. What concern do you have if the police know you're a law-abiding citizen? You're far too paranoid about a regulatory presence in society. If you're afraid of something going on record, chances are you broke the law anyway. Just live a good life and you don't have to worry about the cops arresting you. Is this hard to understand?
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
Damn troublemakers.
Interesting that they didn't confiscate the gas mask, aren't they illegal in some places now (such as Seattle)?
Um... this is Slashdot's first Presidential election year, isn't it?
Yikes. It's gonna be a wild ride.
The police have a right to ask for your id,
if you can't provide a valid id, then can arrest
you, otherwise, if you were a wanted criminal, why
would you ever carry an ID?
The officer doesn't need a legal justification,
ever hear of DWI checkpoints, no legal justification there either.
Philly is part of the United States, just because
we have more freedoms, doesn't mean we are totally
free to do anything we want.
How many true anarchists, Communists, or even just plain old-fashioned liberals have you known? I, for one, have known a good number; some of them settle down and sell out, (or buy in, depending on your POV) others just keep on bucking the system when they can.
Yes, "causes" can be hip, and can attract people who care about nothing but the attention. Don't assume that automatically means they're *all* just in it for the glory.
OK, so the guy working at McD has the money to pick up and move?
And not everyone has the freedom to do so. Often times in a divorce decree when there are children, you are restricted to the county or state.
And that is happening.
One of the groups moving away from Silicon Valley is teachers, leaving schools understaffed. Is this a good thing?
I also agree that those doing the budgeting know more about it than I, or most average americans do. That's why I like a Republic over a Democracy. I know that I could screw something like that up, so I want a designated representative to do it for me. However, I do want them to take my opinion into consideration before the decision is made.
Dave
It wasn't just "certain types of clothing" that we are talking about here. He had a gas-mask case (when there was a city ordinace banning gas-masks in town), taget-shooting protective eyewear, a "body count tally scrawled on the back of my flak jacket", and a military-surpluss utility vest he proudly refers to as a "load bearing harness," one which was designed for carrying grenades.
In other words, from all external evidence, he was perfectly outfitted for a killing spree. Any cop that does not confront a nut-case like that and ask what he's carrying in his vest is failing to protect the public.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
There is such a thing as verbal abuse. "Fighting words", as they are often called, are not protected speech under the First Amendment, at least not as the law currently stands. Sorry if that ruins your utopian view for America, but that is the way it is.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
sorry for the typo.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
On the other hand, certain sections of the protest crowds were actually gathered there by lobby groups (AKA PAC's), who support Al Gore, so the numbers might be a little smaller during the DNC... unless the NRA or the various fundamentalists decide to make asses of themselves.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
ROFLMAO
God that's funny. There's not a whole lot of need to "raise awareness" that poverty is bad. Well spotted
If all the energy these goofballs are spending on calling attention to how bad poverty is was instead used to actually help actual people, there would be no poverty to protest.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Then again, spending a day working at a soup kitchen or detox center won't result in an article in /. about how '1337 you are, will it?
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Asking somebody a suspicious looking nut what he has in his military surplus vest is not a violation of civil rights. It's just a question. If he had politely said, "nothing really, officer, just a pad and pencil. I'm a writer covering the protests," he most likely would have been sent on his way. Instead, he chose to pick a fight and act like a punk.
He gets no pity from me. Dicks like this are diminishing the social impact of real police violations, such as the fellow who was recently shot in NYC when he went for his wallet.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Secondly, he was mouthing off to the cops and probably creating a much bigger disturbance than he is admitting to in his story. (It would be nice to get the other side of this tale from the cop who had to deal with him.)
Thirdly, the cops should be congratulated for the stellar work they did last week. No riots broke out; violent outbursts were brought to order quickly; most importantly: no deaths or serious injuries, in spite of a whole bunch of people like this guy doing their very best to stir up trouble.
If I ever am in town and meet one of these cops, I will want to shake his/her hand.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
No, he was shoved into a paddy wagon and given a chance to cool off before he incited anybody to violence.
Do the same thing a hundred times in a hundred cities and the same result will occur, because that's what the cops are trained to do.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
You obviously have never seen the show.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Well said. This kind of "activism" is not standing up for social justice; it's just a popular alternative to stage diving at a Phish concert.
Okay, everybody was looking at you for a few seconds. We're happy for you. Now go back to the mosh pit and play.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
No, I was being deliberate about pointing out how outlandish his behavior was. Perhaps my statement would have been more obvious if I said "at a Jewel concert". You just want to get mad about something, don't you?
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
You stop someone who looks like a trouble maker. Perhaps you suspect him of drug dealing, but probably not. You ask him what's in his vest, which IS WITHIN YOUR RIGHT AS A GENERAL CITIZEN. He just doesn't have to answer. Instead he says:
"Left my 'nades at home, officer."
Now, by his own admission, he had
pens, granola bars, cigarettes and notebooks
in his vest. Through the vest, these look exactly like granades. And, since poor negative use and sarcasam are common in English, his statment could easily be taken as "I'm a wacko with a vest of illegal weapons!" And from the cop's point of view, it looks like he is (remember how he's dressed).
If I were the cop, he would be getting aquainted with the pavement and Mr. Colt untill I could have him strip searched. The cop acted with INCREDIBLE restraint in the face of potential personal injury or death. And this guy has the gall to complain about the cops violating HIS rights...
Were the cops looking for the right sort of person?
If I were hoping to get my weapons to where I could do something seriously bad I would not dress like Rambo.
I would dress like a Republican.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
So another moron decides to disrupt a peaceful gathering with no clear purpose. He then decides to bravely challenge the 500 pound gorilla, and whines when he gets in trouble for it. Why don't people do this BACK to the granola-sucking troublemakers who have no real desire to change anything but headlines, like Greenpeace or PETA?
(Sure, the Packers were going to change their name to the Pickers. Yeah, right. When cheese doesn't melt in Hell, they might.)
+5 for having a good issue to protest against.
-2 Dressing like Rambo, hanging out with losers, and forgetting that some protesters in the past (dressed like Rambo) have chosen to speak with bombs and guns...And it's the cops who have the fun job of deciding who may be deciding to plant some C4 next door to a day care center.
-1 Bad mouthing the cops (who like it or not, have a job to do...)
-2 Writing a big old long article on
I would think with the issues at hand, the American public would rather see examples of the downtrodden individuals, and here of their painful exploits and endeavers rather than having a bunch of camoflauge wearing, potty mouth spewing, militiants marching the streets and then talking about how "the man" unjustly searched and suspected that someone with camos, a backpack, and a militant tone of voice -- may just pose a danger to the peace.
Final Score 0
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
1) It was inspired by the poem Hiawatha, which has a wawa in it. 2) It was inspired by that Peter Frampton bit with the harmonica and the vocoder. Wa... wawawawa wa... wa WA wawa, wa wawa...
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe Better a smartass than a dumbass.
I don't have a problem with protesters being obnoxious. I have a problem with them being clueless. I have a problem with them being phony seekers of attention. But I have no problem at all with them being obnoxious when that's what's called for.
And quit dissin' the American Revolution. It worked, mostly.
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe Better a smartass than a dumbass.
What we need is a marijuana patch so hopheads don't need to get emphysema.
...Naw.
Either that or they could go sober.
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe Better a smartass than a dumbass.
...their parents paid to them when they were kids.
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe Better a smartass than a dumbass.
Why not an anti-rain march? You know, agitate for more federal finds to go to weather control research, or something.
I'm old enough to remember Vietnam and the war on poverty. The parallels between the two are too numerous to list.
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe Better a smartass than a dumbass.
Mostly.
I grew up among poor people. Deservedly poor people. Not immigrants. Just trash.
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe Better a smartass than a dumbass.
I know what he's against, and it's hard not to agree with him. But what's he *for*?
Once he's overturned the current order, with what does he hope to replace it?
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe Better a smartass than a dumbass.
It should be against the law.
Here's what I'd do: make it against the law to be poor. Revive the old vagrancy statutes and make them federal regulations. Bulldoze the trailer parks. Dynamite the housing projects. Deport all the immigrants, and don't let `em back in until they get their finances together. Build more debtor prisons.
Well, it makes more sense than any other plan I've heard.
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe Better a smartass than a dumbass.
Oh, give me a break. It's all too obvious this guy just wanted to get some attention.
Just because somebody makes no noises about what a heroic self-sacrificing idealist he is doesn't mean he is one.
Pardon my cynicism. I've lived too long, and seen too much.
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe Better a smartass than a dumbass.
I don't see that being effective was in the cards, no matter what he did.
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe Better a smartass than a dumbass.
What a good idea. The government is destroying your country, so rather than stay and defend it, you just let them have it.
>> Most times, if you are civil to the cops, they will be civil to you.
Probably true, but from my experience they certainly aren't when it comes to potentially volatile crowd control (political rallies, football matches - in Europe anyway, don't know about US). People are treated as the enemy, just for being there. They act in a very aggressive way, and tend not to ask politely for things.
At football matches I have had plastic water bottles confiscated (and been threatened with being thrown out when I complained), seen people tear gassed for singing in a pub, had guns pointed in my face when trying to leave the ground after a match had finished, seen people arrested for trying to swap scarves with opposition fans etc,
At political rallies I have seen people batton charged for chanting political slogans.
Non of these incidents were the result of criminal behaviour, and the police were certainly not polite.
I think in the case of this article, he was certainly acting in very stupid way if he didn't want to be detained (although I'm not convinced that being an ass is neccessarily an arrestable offence) but there are plenty of cases where people have been detained in these kind of situations when they have acted perfectly reasonably. Don't assume that the police are all nice civil people, and only arrest those who are 'asking for it'.
Tak, vy rozumiste comunism? A domil jste nad comunismu? Nevidel jsem nekdy americky SitComy na telivize nad comunismu...
What, you understand communism? And you have lived under communism? I didn't see any American SitComs on communist television...
No, communism wasn't evil, and America is hardly free. But the Eastern block certainly was a 'police state,' by all reasonable definitions.
And if the only form of 'public participation' the American left has left is the shenanigans (er, "Ruckus") in Philly, America may very well be one soon, too.
You go down to Selma to protest... you volunteer with some activst types to get arrensted, you sit down in the white section of a restaurant, and you are bitching about getting arrested? Am I missing something?
Why do these people bother? I see people like this and all I think is how misguided they are, shake my head, and move on...
Yes, his comments seems to be something like:
"I was carrying a long round case... of the kind issued to field personnel to carry surface-to-air missles. All I had in it was my flute and some dirty underwear, but the stupid cop stopped me and asked what was in it. So I said, 'fuck off, you ugly shit-eating Nazi pig, and the asshole asked me for ID.'"
(So, no, this ain't the same as Selma... Boy seems to want some real southern pigs to tangle with, but since they burned white boys from the North, I bet he wouldn't have been around a real protest for long...)
Daan
Who moderated this up? This clown is *definitely* missing something. Someone assembling for a peaceful political protest is hassled by security forces *before* protesting - and you have no issues with this? This is moving down the road - not there yet, but close enough to be ashamed - toward rule-by-goons as practiced in Yugoslavia. It's unAmerican. But apparently it's consistent with Republican values. Free speech is what makes America worthwhile. You can find purple mountains and amber waves of grain lots of places.
To whoever posted that as 'troll' - did you disagree with my argument so much to think that it wasn't 'serious'? Take a look at my posting history; you'll see Im dead serious and not at all intending to be inflammatory. America needs to turn off their televisions and make some serious changes before they wake up and realize they have been pimped so badly their is no longer any recourse for the pursuit of justice. Do you think your government is _NOT_ on the 'take'? Do you think legislation isn't an extension of corporate policy purchased by lobbyists?
I think most would agree. The question is what to do about it. And how angry people are.
How were the railroads built (hint: cheap Chinese labor)? How many people died building the bridges and canals that helped make this country prosperous (hint: a lot)? I could mention the wiping out of pesky indigenous animals, plants and people, too. Do you live on land that used to have an American Indian tribe on it? Seen them lately? Is that not enough? How about Child labor? Unsafe factory conditions? Wholesale devastation of content-wide forests? Labor problems put down via government thugs? The US had all of these things in spades. So did other countries, but I'm most familiar with US history.
;) ) If we apply the technologies and wealth of the present world to promote equality and social justice. Advocating slavery and raping of the environment, as a means to a questionable end is disturbing.
Arent you simply proving my point? If these kind of acts are 'right' and 'just' in order to emulate the American standard/system, maybe the thirdworld (and the rest of the planet) should think about at what cost does 'success' come. The planet is tremendously prosperous at this time. What you are saying is that it is necessary for the planet to 'spend' these natural resources, to exploit people, and to victimize labour all in order to emulate a system that is corrupt and morally sickening (as your assertion above demonstrates). I would say that the last 200 years of enlightenment and prosperity is equally owned by all people. By Ethiopians and Mexicans, Canadians and Greeks. American legislation allows what would have in the past been a public good, now be used as a tool of an endless Money Machine (multinational corporation). Think copyright, think patent, think registered trademark. (The idea that these are necessary to promote the production of art and culture, which protect artists, is a myth maintained by the likes of the RIAA et al. But that is another discussion
All that the Third World countries are saying is "Look at how your countries developed! You had no standards for safety and labor until you could AFFORD it! Why can't we have the same chance?" Then a bunch of rich, white, idiot teenagers come along and tell them, "We know what's best for you."
I disagree that the 'third world' is demanding that at all. I would venture a guess that it is the same American Money Machines saying 'Americans are living so well that we need a new, more desperate land/people to exploit in order to maintain the ever spiraling rate of consumption.' With out that America will have to do a little sharing, or better America will have to leave a little for these peoples. Like 'save some water for the fish'.
Please point out the time, date, and place where the average person had more of a say in how their government worked.
America - July 4, 1776. I suggest you read a little about John Lock, and his ideals that Jefferson based your Declaration of Independence. Familiarize yourself with Social Contract that it was based on. If you think the US is such a hopeless, awful place to live, I will pay for your one-way ticket to any country on the planet if you promise to never return to the US.
See beyond your rabid jingoism and realize the world is no longer a collection of countries. What is it that you deserve to be treated better than ANYONE else in the world? I am not American. I am Canadian. I see America and its powerful corporations as an extreme threat to my own country and its policies as Power Rich Americans convince other Power Hungry world 'leaders' that this system will enable them to live the same lives of 'prosperity' as they (American PoweRich) do. That if you just sell your brothers and sisters, the ones you are supposed to be caring for, that you will enjoy the fruits of the planet for the rest of your life (and the lives of many of your children).
NOTE My apologies to any Americans who have a conscience.
They are there to uphold the law and ensure public safety, give me one damn good reason why you wouldn't cooperate right then and there
Because he is not obligated to. Because it is his choice not to. Because capitulating to every whim of a pig in the street is volunteering for a prototypical 'oppressive police state'. What other reason do you need?
Ill assume for a second your post isnt simply a Troll...
not arrested, he was apprehended
Ahhh unreasonable detention at the whim of the police. Good point.
Secondly, he was mouthing off to the cops and probably creating a much bigger disturbance than he is admitting to in his story.
And being 'lippy' and annoying and having no respect for authority or this cop was illegal how?
No riots broke out; violent outbursts were brought to order quickly; most importantly: no deaths or serious injuries, in spite of a whole bunch of people like this guy doing their very best to stir up trouble
Yes, all people with dissenting opinions who were very (resonably) angry were quickly 'apprehended' to thwart the possibility of a 'violent outburst'. We wouldnt want anyone to 'stir up trouble'.
...You have the right to remain silent...
That's only after you've been arrested (along with right to attorney, etc). The fact is, you can be arrested for being silent (depending on the question). It can be regarded as obstructing justice/investigation. Ironically, you would be placed under arrest and given the right to remain silent.
You declined to provide identification when asked for it.
Some others in this discussion have pointed out that cops are people just like you and me and should be treated as such. Following that concept, if I were to stop you on the street and ask for your ID would you give it to me? There is no reason to give anyone your ID; unless you're just feeling extra generous and don't care what personal information you give to others.
If I appear suspicious because I don't feel like giving someone my ID, then so be it! I'd rather protect my rights than feel like I'm being bullied into actions that I care not to carry out.
When a cop confronts a protester wearing gear designed for carrying grenades and gas masks, that is what is known as "probably cause"
First of all, it's "probable cause".
Secondly, there is a difference between "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion". Wearing certain types of clothing doesn't fall in to either of these categories, but if you had to force it into one, it would be "reasonable suspicion" (which does not warrant a search).
There is a big difference between being hassled by clueless cops, and being killed by a nazi police force.
... but we have a long way to go before those horrors start happening.
Though you could argue that one can lead to another. In other words, the police hassling/brutality could get out of hand and they'll start rounding up the "handicapped" (rapists, kiddie pornographers, etc.)
I've had my share of run ins with the law, and I do see some of the paralells with nazi germany. Try having long hair and driving a muscle car in utah. I had police "intervention" on a weekly basis.
One future, two choices. Oppose them or let them destroy us.
I get more entertainment by watching /dev/random for a couple hours.
Like, who hasn't been hassled by the cops for no reason? They're only doing their job. What else is new?
One future, two choices. Oppose them or let them destroy us.
I like your post and I'd like to elaborate some more on that. True non violence, and civil disobediance, means being polite and kind to the policewomen and men, regardless of how outrageous they are being. Non violence means trying to overcome the evil not those who committed it. Exibit "A", a summery of Martin Luther King, Jr's definition of true non violence
(taken from the handbook for non-violent action )
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote that the philosophy and practice of nonviolence has six basic elements. First, nonviolence is resistance to evil and oppression. It is a human way to fight. Second, it does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win hislher friendship and understanding. Third, the nonviolent method is an attack on the forces of evil rather than against persons doing the evil. It seeks to defeat the evil and not the persons doing the evil and injustice. Fourth, it is the willingness to accept suffering without retaliation. Fifth, a nonviolent resister avoids both external physical and internal spiritual violence - not only refuses to shoot, but also to hate, an opponent. The ethic of real love is at the center of nonviolence. Sixth, the believer in nonviolence has a deep faith in the future and the forces in the universe are seen to be on the side of justice.
Non violence does not mean simply not fighting with weapons or fists, it means treating your oppressors with kindness and respect, not lowering yourself to their level and corrupting your cause. Ever notice how the right way is always the hardest?
So quick with fear you tiny fools!
You know, I always hear about all these protests for causes I belive in happening all over the country, but I only hear about them on the news after they have happened. Does anyone know where I can find out about the organization of similar events so I can attend next time?
So quick with fear you tiny fools!
The problem I have with post generation x activist, is that thy reflect the whole post generation x culture. No focus. They appear to have no clearly defined issues, goals or any intelligent solutions. If they do, they have certainly failed to get this across. Civil disobedience is all well and good, as long as you have issues that justify it, and as long as the civil disobedience brings attention to the issues. The actions of these protestors, are only bringing attention to the protestors. This is not only ineffectual, it is counter productive. I applaud them for wanting to get involved, but they need to get their act together.
Oh, no, everybody is entitled to an opinion. But I'm not obligated to hear it. While arresting for no reason is VERY BAD, blocking the traffic to force your opinion down the drivers' and the passengers' throats is pretty BAD too. Remember how annoyed the Blues Brothers were when a demonstration blocked their way? And that was a legitimate demonstration -- the organizers had a permit...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Actually, you coward, you sound much more bitter about life than our republican friend. Money is not necessarily a bad thing (that is not to say that greed is a trait to pursue). There is nothing that makes a person better or worse because of their financial situation and to say that it does is prejudiced and this makes you just as bad as some of the more authoritarian Republicans. By the way, you really should attach your name to your posts. If you believe in something you should not hide your identity, it makes your argument weaker and makes you seem a bit hypocritical.
Well the anarchists do have their own free (as in freedom) news service which I as an anarchist pro-lifer have been "banned" from posting on, but take it for what it's worth.
A-Infos
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Philly - Key activists were earmarked by police
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Oops thanks for the correction.
The point of my post was that his statement about the backpack not being searchable, is not cut and dry.
The writer of the article was hit up with a jerry stop. It's completely legal, and yes if they can prove reasonable suspicion, they can search your back pack.
"I left my nades at home" is probable good enough.
Contact the Philiadelphia police department, find out the oficial reason for the arrest. I doubt it was the acid.
Any how these stories crack me up. How are they tech news? Slashdot is now a member of the the far left, congrats.
Protesters are being denied the one thing that will placate and empower them- a voice.
You have one of the more intelligent AC posts here, it's a shame the moderators are off ignoring the moderator guidelines to give you *your* voice. Anyway, I was under the impression that the "arrestables" in these instances are there specifically to be detained, so that the other demonstrators would have an opportunity to get their point across. All the folks saying he was an asshole and should have been arrested, and the others defending him. I think the point is that if there are people walking around looking like kazinski-on-acid and the police are busy rounding them up, then the ones carrying signs and singing songs have a little more breathing room, right?
Fist Prost
"We're talking about a planet of helpdesks."
-Jaron Lanier
I wonder if the Democratic convention will bring out the hoards of wacky protestors, most likely little to few will be of the conservative republican kind mostly because they dont have enough time and actually work for a living. I think that most of these protestors dont really care about issues and are just "proffesional" protesters that just want to cause trouble at any venue possible, and just hide behind some sham cause. I wouldnt be surprised if a quite a few of the so called prostesters are going to be at both conventions.
You dont respect the laws and dont respect the police because they enforce the laws. Maybe you should have a problem with people other than the cops, like the people who make the laws themselves. "Imagine what lwas would change if no one agreed to enforce them" How bout imagining what laws would change if people werent so stupid some times and instead of finding inane methods to further thier so called cause they actually tried to get out there work with and get in the system and change laws the way they were meant to be. Or maybe these people who protest are on the fringes for a reason because no one cares about thier sensless ideas.
Wonder what people will think if and when some guy with a backpack nuke tells the cops to fuck off and that they need a search warrent to check his backpack.
A bit of theory first. The Supreme Court has pretty consistently ruled that a person must either be doing something illegal or there must a good witness saying that person has been doing something illegal before a search can be ordered. So, although a person may be (maybe) searched if the person flees from an officer, that same person is usually pretty safe if they are just minding their own business. An anonymous tipster or an overzealous officer cannot, in general, search a person who is not doing something wrong. For instance, I often wear a photographer jacket, which resembles a flak jacket. If I am walking from my downtown apartment to the bar, I do not expected to be stopped and searched by an officer. On the other hand, if I enter a federal building while wearing this jacket, I must allow a search in order to enter the building. There is a fine line between enforcement and harassment, and, as several recent cases have shown, the police force is not beyond harassment.
The practical side to this is that the police are sometimes as responsible for belligerent behavior as anyone else. I have spent a fair amount of time on street corners and in the street protesting various injustices. Most of the time these have been peaceful, not only because my cohorts and me were committed to peaceful action, but also because the local police were committed to peaceful action. There has been more than one case where a plain-clothes officer would come up to us, give us his card, and have a pleasant conversation. I have also been present when pro-life people stormed a women's clinic. Again, the officer did not beat the pro-life people with sticks, or spay them with tear gas, even though these pro-life people were doing their best to injure the people guarding the door. They used minimal force to do the job.
We must remember that protestors are usually angry and scared. The cops are sometimes angry and scared, and feel they have a duty to discourage future protests. As we heard in Philadelphia, the police office did not like the protestors invading his town, and felt that he had a right to do whatever was necessary to secure his town. The Philadelphia police largely behaved themselves, even in extremely trying circumstances, but legal observers have reported several beating.
People certainly have a right to congregate in a peaceful manner. Police have a duty to insure that everyone rights are protected to highest degree possible. This does not mean that no one is inconvenienced. In much the same way that we tolerate the occasional man being shot 42 times or innocent person's house being broken into during a botched drug bust, we should also tolerate the occasional mass congregations of peaceful people.
We will see more of the same at the Democratic Convention. I hope that everyone is respectful of the others needs, but I suspect we will see non-optimal behavior on all sides.
I am going to have to agree with everyone else on this. If someone tells you they want someone who is willing to get arrested and you volunteer, don't whine when you end up in a paddy wagon. This whole story seems like fuel for everyone's anti-government fire. The Philly PD doesn't exactly have the best record in the brains department, granted (remember the firebombing of a residence a few years back over suspected protests?), but cops have a job to do too. There are plenty of real stories about abuse of power from last week (2600), so check them out. Stop wasting my time with people who have nothing better to do than protest for any random cause.
Free as in speech, free as in beer, or free as in lunch?
"So, you went down there, specifically, to protest something.
You placed yourself in a group specifically designed to get arrested.
You decided to be both belligerent and evasive to the officer involved.
You declined to provide identification when asked for it.
You implied, on camera, that the officers involved might steal your money."
What DIDN'T he do? He didn't do anything ILLEGAL!
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
While I'm interested in Vergil's story, I am more interested to learn what, specifically, does an "e-commerce policy analyst" do and how does one become an e-commerce policy analyst? While stuck with code-block for too long, not interested in cold-calling (aka 'business development'), not at all interested in 100% travel (aka 'consulting'... yes, I like to live somewhere), this position really sounds interesting to me. I would welcome the opportunity to be stuck in some cube, making good $ and writing "e-commerce white papers" with technological and competitive analysis. Any info on e-commerce policy analyst positions?
Never called a cop a sadist. Never stereotyped, but suggested that "If you ever want to know what kind of culture cop-life is like, get to know a cop," followed by some personal experiences.
A female cop assaulted me once. She arrested me for being drunk. During the drive in, she swerved from lane to lane, turned corners real fast like, causing me (handcuffed in the back) to roll around violently, occasionally striking my head against the window. Jee whiz, maybe she forgot I was in there...
Is there a correlation between education and better cops? I'd like to see more info on this.
Would cops be happy if drugs were legalized? It would mean less violence and less police.
Does having a docile, stupid, compliant, citizenry make a cops job harder or easier? Does it improve democracy or hinder it?
I think these are important questions since they reveal a serious conflict of interest.
So, what's the difference between "an innocent protestor" and "a beligerant thug"?
Innocent protestors do not wear dangerous *looking* atire. They also comply indiscriminately to police requests. If you ask them to do something they will do it, indicating an excellent education, as well as evoking a comforting feeling of trust from the police officer. He can trust you to be subordinate to him, to be predictable and easy to control. Innocent protestors do not use profanity. They treat the police with grateful respect, and are especially polite, since the police work towards a safer America, an America where one day, police may not even be needed! I bet they can't wait to start cutting down their numbers! Imagine the honor: to be the first police officer retired early due to a safer America! "We are happy to announce that your services are no longer required. Congratulations and thank you."
But do the police work for a safer America? No. They work for a more dangerous America. For example, the police lobby for stronger drug laws. This puts more pressure on the black market, pushing drug prices higher, creating a greater incentive for drug dealers to use violence, creating a greater demand for more police. Hmmm.... I've heard that the police are considered (in certain circles) business parteners. They keep an eye on pushers, and if someone gets sloppy, they get busted. Kind of like how wolves might cull the weak or sick from a herd of buffalo. By doing so, they make the herd stronger, and the wolves get fed. It's a win win.
If you ever want to know what kind of culture cop-life is like, get to know a cop. Get to know a young cop, whose too stupid and green to keep his mouth shut and will inevitabley brag about his exploits over a few beers. Like that time when a junkies arm "got broken" while he was "resisting arrest". The junkie, who was passed out at the time, wouldn't do what he was told. He would not comply. Resistance is futile! *Crack!* (Insert chuckle here...heh heh...)
Go out for a night on the town with a bunch of cops when they're off duty. Don't be surprised if they start a couple of fights while they're drinking. (They don't know who they're messing with! Insert chuckle here...)
I'm not saying cops are supposed to be perfect, but if the people in control are stupid, if they refuse to examine the reality of their situation, if they insulate themselves from critical information and thought, if they make up their minds based on status quo friendly TV shows and newspapers, if they were well 'educated' (AKA behaviorally conditioned) as children, and if their image of police is the one they've been preserving since they were first introduced to 'Officer Bob' at the age of six, what do you expect????
No, the vast majority do risk their lives. Every single day.
Then explain that when surveyed, the majority of police said that they have never had to pull their gun?
I would suggest to the author that he perhaps needs to think a little more about what exactly cops mean to our society. These are men and women who every day literally risk their lives to protect the general public.
No one forced them to become cops, this is the job that they chose. Just because they might have to risk their lives (which a vast majority of cops never do), doesn't give them the right to violate the laws of the USA. You need to think a little bit more about what freedom means, and what you will have when you give it all up.
And, of course, Kennedy didn't start WWIII because he wasn't a wimp, but, by the same token, wasn't a hotheaded military man either. He stared down the Soviets and came out of the Cuban crisis not only without loss of life, but with the prospect of detente stronger than Eisenhower had ever managed.
And finally, yeah, there are jobs. But you try to go out and make a living on minimum wage and tell me how much good that does you.
Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
That said, all things considered, I think Reagan was probably better than Thatcher over in Britain, but I personally wouldn't have wanted either of them.
Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
But, in any case, I'm voting Green, at least until something better comes along.
Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
Not that all cops are bad-tempered and not that the approach taken by the protestors was the smartest one available, but you get the idea. The police aren't required to tell you that you're not required to cooperate unless you can be told what the suspicion is, so a lot of people don't realize.
Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
This is true, but generally untested, and about the same as saying "indecency" shouldn't be allowed on the Internet: the definition of "hostile speech" is difficult to make, and any attempt to prosecute would be held up for a rather long time trying to make sure everyone was working off the same page of the dictionary.
Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
Oh, please, let's not dillute the importance of the concept of human rights by tieing it up in capitalism. The traditional definition of human rights, practiced by what would we call "enlightened" governments is taken directly from the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it doesn't say a damned thing about the right to make investments, let alone to earn profit from said investment (in which case the 1929 stock market crash would be the worst violation of human rights in history...).
Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
Good grief! All this guy was doing was refusing to show id without legal justification. For this he was arrested and incarcerated? I thought Philly was part of the United States, not Soviet Russia!
Really why does some hippie political protest have anything and I mean anything to do with technology or any social aspect of technology? Could someone fill me in? Also you do realize that you are paying into the social security trust fund that will eventually in some way add to your retirement right? That is to prevent individuals engagint in stock speculation and the like.
Respond to s
Then of course it's "Ohh please help me..." and you start to hide right? Ever wonder why Great Britain lost so much of it's power? Ever since WWI they steadly lost various territorial posessions (well earlier if you count the Americas) and that war sapped them. THen they decided to basically eliminate the military's effectiveness with cuts and funding various social programs. Look at it now. Say China decided to invade there? Well that battle would be over in about 5 minutes at max.
Respond to s
Really. It's a political convention. If you don't like what they do then get elected yourself and stop thinking that rioting will change anything. Guess how people like Nixon and Daley got elected in the first place. Yes that's right they got elected because of stupid hippies trying to encite riots. People want security from anarchy and crime and so they elect people who promise them that. But I mean really besides looking like an idiot do you really think you can change a damn thing? Do you even hold a law degree? Even lawyers have a slight chance to change something unless you are a lawyer, politican, or a lobbiest you don't stand a chance.
Respond to s
It's really interesting that you say people are going hungry in this country because there is ample opportunity to get a job. It may not be glamorous and interesting with fringe benefits but you still get one. We have the lowest unemployment in years and people are bitching about not having enough? Feeding people is only a stopgap measure and you know it. Eventually you have to feed them again. Teach them skills that allow them to get food on their own and they will fair quite well. Not all republicans are rich white people. How do I know this? Well ever heard of a guy called Ronald Reagan well he really did a number of things to help average people. So my family and I voted for him then. Democrats in the last 20 years have shitted up this country and made it feeble. We lost Vietnam because of democratic incompetence. Kennedy was a democrat and almost started WWIII because he was seen as a wimp to the Russians.
Respond to s
One of the reasons that I like living in the USA is because it isn't so damn expensive like most of Europe. Really do you want *even more* of you pay check disapearing from your wallet? Do you want to have to subsidize almost every lazy 2 bit beer guzzling person in the US because they just don't want to work?
Respond to s
Really most people ignore the obvious problems with thinking that protesting will work at all. Righteous igdignation only goes sso far and you have to take *intelligent* action. Protesting is not an intelligent action. I remember all sorts of protests against the government. One such protest was against the Fair housing act. Some people in Chicago rioted and basically started a civil war in Illinois and caused an active army devision to be taken out of service in Vietnam. Even after it was all over the law stood and the protestors were found and later tried as individuals in rebellion against the state and tried for trason. So perhaps the laws should be *changed* instead of rebelled against.
Respond to s
Look how can a man who really isn't in political office actually arrange beatings for anyone? Oh and just to clear things up did anyone watch the Newshour with Jim Lehrer? It was quite clear from the evidence that protesters were trying to beat the shit out of policemen. THat is fealony assult with intent to kill. Most of these guys didn't give a rats ass just about trying to kill cops. Want to blame someone blame the mayor and the police comissioner not the person who is running for president.
Respond to s
Add to that developments in stealth technology in the last 15 or so years and you get something that is possible and non detectible
Respond to s
Just martch your army across Europe and take it piece by piece and then you can get entrenched there.
Respond to s
I did study about the period that you describe. Yeah people did crummy things but that dosn't mean people have to actually buy addictive things do they? It's a choice and it's one that the chinese made that they shouldn't have made. Also it happened quite a white ago and really dosn't have any logical bearing on contemporary politics.
Respond to s
Well looking at the avaible data is seems reasonable to assume that Iran was a better country than the up and comming Iraq. See at the time Iran and Iraq were having a bit of a problem getting along. And well the leader of Iraq (gee who was he now? maybe Saddam) wasn't exactly a nice guy. Plus if you have American hostages you need to extracate them quickly beore they can be tortured for vital data about US plans. So you either send in the troops and get them out or your bribe people to get them out and thereby kill two birds with one stone Saddam and the hostages from Iranian control
Respond to s
You see rail transportation works with European countries because almost everyone lives in a small area and the population is very dense. Contrast this with the united states where people live all over and such systems (take the Los Angeles system for starters) don't really go where you need. So basically it's either cars or spend sever hundred trillion dollars to get subway systems to every Mayberry town in the US.
Respond to s
Don't people get the hint. Usually pushers do dress shabbily and hand out in slums that's where the customers and besides would you really buy smack from a well dressed (and potentially an undercover cop) person? Secondly people have noticed this little thing called for more light discussion a "craving" wheather or not it is an "additction" or seperate from it that's another matter. Why do you think drug dealers work so well if it weren't for the addictive properties of the drugs they sell? Theoretically someone could say yeah this shit is ruining my life, threatening my safety and my freedom if I get caught and making me broke I think I will stop now. That can't happen as easily because the stuff is addictive and have power psychotropic properties. But I guess all those friends I hd who lost everything for these "non-addictive" "non-harmful" drugs are just idiots right? begin sarcasm: yeah thanks for clearing that up :end scarcasm
Respond to s
You just have to be 40 or 41 and be born within this country and it works if you actually try. Oh that's right you would rather smoke pot and call everyone a sellout to "the man". I am not a drone because I work within the frame the system sets up. See all the hippies of the 60 and 70s got it together and figured oput that siting ther and doign nothing wasn't really going to work at all. That's right they actually figured out that trying to become part of the system and then change it from within was the best idea. I take it from the tone your posts have been made in that you identify at least somewheat with the hippie ideas. The hippies didn't vote for Nixon I actually did bother to look at the stats. In fact what Nixon personally credited to his personal success was a group called the "silent majority" who elected him who was (guess who you'll never guess) *NOT* the *hippies*. Do you even vote anymore? I don't think you do. If you don't stop whining and vote in the national elections for someone hell if you're elegible for running you can under federal law do a write in for yourself or your friend Jill or Bob or whatever.
Respond to s
With the way you are suggesting that people act I must ask if you have been arrested scores of times or perhaps are currently in jail?
Respond to s
I believe there was a case of a person who had violated the sidition acts around WWI and the leading judge stated that there is such thing as what is termed speech that can incite anger. Further it is comparable to yelling "fire" in a crowded cinema. It just isn't protected. Since this was a hostile protest scene and has similar properties this would apply.
Respond to s
Hmm. hackedtobits.com, the site that was linked to in the story, proclaims itself as the home of irresponsible journalism. I always thought that was slashdot.
I don't have any love for the cops, I know from first-hand experience that they sometimes abuse their authority, and I am always, always very impressed when they don't. And in this particular case, they did not.
Virtually every Canadian I have ever talked to will tell you that Canada is the greatest country in the world to live in. But then they have a very valid claim to the title, IMHO.
a) only peripherally responsible for Iran-Contra--it happened under his nose, but (probably) not with his knowledge. The Iran-Contra dealings were motivated by good and appropriate intentions, but ended up trampling all over the Constitution in a most heinous fashion. Lewinskygate was small potatoes by comparison. (Geogrge Bush was definitely instrumental in Iran-Contra, btw.)
b) Admirably competant in his dealings with foreign powers in general and the USSR in particular. He dealt appropriately with Libya. He was not, however, in any significant way responsible for the collapse of said Soviet Union.
c) A failure in the realm of domestic economics. Under his administration the rich literally got richer, the poor literally got poorer, and it is almost unarguable that his voodoo economics (which may or may not have been justified) drove the nation into massive debt. d) a B-rate actor, a B-plus-rate president. Not bad, but not great either.
How exactly do you know that these 2 people are American? I could easily imagine two Canadians or two Europeans having the same debate and saying the exact same things.....
I live in DC, we have no voting rights, taxation without representation, clear and simple, AND we are prohibited from owning handguns.
So move. DC isn't a state, its treated as an administered territory much like Puerto Rico and Guam, thus you don't get the rights guaranteed under the Constitution to the American nations who reside in states.
actually, the quote was: "there ought to be limits to freedom." and if you don't agree with that, you can move to Sierra Leone, Liberia, or any other nation afflicted with an impotent government. twit.
http://mgoblog.com
Alright folks....
:)]
Hi. I am a long-time lurker on slashdot, and I have just seen something reprehesable.
[other then my spelling, I know about that. Leave me alone
This was the most poorly moderated argument I have ever seen. Whoever did it (probubly a young republican) should be ashamed of him/herself. Just moderating every post you agree with up and every post you disagree with down does not make for a good debate. In fact, it is bad Kharma.
Most of you have never been to a protest rally. You should try it some time. Go as an oberver if you disagree with the prostesters, but still go. I can tell you from personal experiance that having your civl rights suspended is not a good experiance. Even if you think that is the police's right....
I went to the "Battle in Seattle" last December as a photojournalist for my school paper. (I work for a real paper too, but it is local in scope) I saw some things that would rattle the nerves of anyone, whether or not you think the police should be trusted and allowed to do what they want. I saw a girl (couldn't have been more then 20), dressed in civilian clothing (She was not involved in the protests), pepper-sprayed when the police decided to clear a sidewalk which had about 50 union members kneeling in silent protest (not a street, a SIDEWALK) They brought in their armord personell carrior, tear-gassed the people on the sidewalk, then ran across the street (where she was standing, just watching) they sprayed pepper-sprey right into her eyes, and she started to run, screaming. She got about 20 feet, and slowed down to rub her eyes. The cop then ran back up to spray her again. (he did it) He then turned towards me (an independant journalist with nothing more thretaning then my 35mm Cannon AE-1 camera) and started running with his pepper-sprey can. Needless to say, I ran, as fast as I could.
The police CAN get out of hand, and they hurt real people. (pepper spreay REALLY hurts) (so does tear gas) (so do nightstiks). Some people have criticized the protesters and their causes. (Someone wondered why they were protesting poverty) That is your right. But they have the right to protest. It's in the constitution, something the repblican who moderated most of the string did not seem to understand. (read the 1st ammendmant, folks) I guess you just need to have your civil rights revoked once before you understand.
-Daniel
P.S. POVERTY STILL EXISTS IN AMERACA. A LOT OF IT!!! I'm sorry that some of you can't see past the hood ordament on your expencive german cars to the rest of the world. We can argue about the causes for ever, but there are starving children in ameraca, whether or not you want to admit it...
Ownyourphone.com. Custom ringtones, cheap and easy
"Don't take any of my fucking money!"
I think this means he was really in town to visit some...uh...ladies of the evening.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
he problem with anarchists is they're too disorganized. The problem with anarchy is once someone gets it organized it isn't anarchy anymore. Incorrect on both counts.
What? You counter this with a definition of a THEORY? C'mon, you can do better than haul out a dictionary.
When it comes to standing up and being counted, I do. Not out in the streets pleading to have my skull cracked open by a Daly cop, to lord knows what ends, but everyday where I work and play. I've stood up to a college administration, which repeatedly asked me to write applications to record information which would violate a students rights to privacy. I stand up for the environment by packing out my, and others trash. This is the first you've heard of it, probably because I have not desire to see my face in the news. I'm too busy living to entertain such visions of self promotion.
BTW nice quote.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I'm begining to think it is becoming cool to protest. Not really protest anything in particular but just to protest. I'm surprised we don't have a chain of people protesting protestors right now.
Too often a good peaceful demonstration turns to violence and bloodshed because a few rable rousers throw something, start fires, overturn cars, etc. The whole cause suffers, so they clearly don't have the cause's best intentions in mind. I feel the author (Vergil) has been so duped. Better to work for change from the inside. Never forget who you are.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Fascinating account of someone looking for trouble and actually finding it. Really. I'm sure I could do no better.
The problem with anarchists is they're too disorganized.
The problem with anarchy is once someone gets it organized it isn't anarchy anymore.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
You know, I'll say one thing for you....you are definitely consistent. Consistently absurd. You are white, yes? Male, yes? Upper-middle class, or even wealthy parents? Perhaps Protestant? I'd guess I'm right about at least 4 of those 5 things. And that is why you cannot grasp the importance of not having your rights taken away from you....because you've never experienced it. I guess I can't dislike you for that, but I do pity you, as it seems you are like so many people in this world who are unable to learn from those who have gone before them. You won't understand just how troubling police abuse is until it has happened to you. When it does, if it does, you will change your opinion rather quickly, I'm sure.
Um, it'd be fascist to deny a group the right to assembly, the right to free speech concerning their views, etc, which would be the effect of not allowing a convention. Regardless of citizenship. It is not fascist to remind someone that they are connecting themselves with another person in a way that reflects poorly on that person. It wasn't "Take out that sig before i deny you your rights." Don't want child molestors? How about womanizers? I don't think I should have to tell you who you should be looking out for, and I don't want to flamebait so I won't. Now, to why I actually decided to post: "Why do you consider the republicrats citizens, when they are engaged in the demonstrably treasonous activity of selling out the government of the country to the highest bidder?" That's stepping over the line. Sure, the Republican candidate did a bad thing and took $70+ million dollars in soft money, but that doesn't mean every Republican believes that was right or that money should flow freely. McCain wouldn't still be Republican if there wasn't some hope to the contrary. Bush's official position is that he'll stop taking big business money when the Donkeys stop taking big union money. Don't associate party supporters with every opinion of a candidate or official, and I won't suggest (wrongly) that people like Lieberman agree with Clinton's actions. I know Republicans are associated with business, and that corporations own approximately 90% of American money, but "the business of America is business." Businesses pay people and create jobs, and pro-business policies- within limits (no sweatshops, etc.)- help people, like those hungry people some here have worried about. Oh, and about that article, did anyone else notice that this guy obviously started out as a reporter on assignment to cover the convention? Now I don't know what kind of journalist this guy is, but that protesting/near-arrest stuff doesn't fly at a mainstream media outlet. I know journalists have a reputation for being liberal, but this realy makes me suspicious of his intention/honesty/such/and/such. Not to mention he "recognized an activist" and "gave him a couple of contacts." If you're really so worried about your freedom, start giving a second thought to the trustworthiness of your media.
Sorry about the formatting, forgot the html.
Now, what was your cause?
As the editor of hackedtobits.com, I agree with our Webmaster and I welcome you to write a counterpoint to Vergil's article. If you haven't read us, then don't condemn us. If you have and you hated us, then let us know. We don't always agree with what our writers and contributors have to say, but we fully endorse their collective right to say it.
George Orwell: Only in a police state is the job of a policeman easy.
Judge: Ma'am, are you showing contempt for this court? Mae West: Ah was doin' mah best to hide it, your honor.
You wouldn't know enlightenment if it bit you on the ass. Gods fucking forbid you contribute to the betterment of society, but the cut that goes to making more useless overpriced millitary penis extensions must be allright since the Republicans like it.
There is nothing inherantly wrong in being old and white, but the fact is that 90%+ of the wealth in this country is controlled by 1%- of the population all of whom are old and white and who are dead set on that money only going to more old white people when they die. And they are damned sure they don't want the government to have it, hell they would just give it to those disturbing poor people and then who would they get to clean their pools?
Fuck them, and fuck you too.
Betcha never thought these laws would apply to you and the left wing. You'll never turn this one back. Hope you like broken heads. Moron.
NyahNyahNyahNyah.
this is Bush's vision of America where "too much freedom is a bad thing". Straight from Dubya's mouth.
Like most of the Seattle protesters, this group has the same demographic: twenty-something suburban white kids who have been raised in a relatively sheltered environment and educated in the humanities. Since they've moved beyond Nike and McDonald's (more for fashion reasons than ethics), they've decided no one else should have a choice either. This is elitism all over again, painted with a thin veneer of free speech.
Nobody cares about the Republican convention enough to watch more than five minutes of it on TV, why should anybody care about the GOP love-in enough to protest it unless they were just childishly trying to get attention by blocking traffic and annoying the local cops?
This is not just flamebait, it is known and well-established that a lot of those "protesters" were paid to stir up trouble by whacko left-wing groups trying to draw attention to their causes. These groups didn't give a crap about the convention, they just wanted national coverage.
Not a single one of them was able, when interviewed by the press, to articulate any specific recent action of the Bush campaign that they were upset over... They just pretended to get worked up about republicans in general over issues like homelessness, drug laws, and civil rights (as if these haven't been issues for decades) so they could get their 15 minutes of telling us how noble they are in front of a TV camera.
Here's a reality check for you: Nobody cares what you have to say.
Wow, im glad your analysis of the constitutional rights is way off, having gear designed to carry a weapon (in this case, its not even designed for that purpose) hardly constitutes cause for a reasonable search or seizure- no more than the word on the street being that he had acid on him- only consent, arrest, or a warrant will allow an officer the right to search your person- the officer could have given him a "Terry Pat" to search for any weapons legally, but ONLY weapons may be searched for.
Arresting him in this case was an absurdity- the officers could have very easily checked him for a weapon within the realm of their rights- and protected his rights as well, instead- he was held- for the same reason all who fight the powers that be are held- its easier to vioalte their rights now- and have them removed from the scene only to be released when the bs charges are dropped- then to allow them their freedom of expression/presence.
I also find frightening this shite about if a person is profane to a cop- the cop should arrest him before violence breaks out? what!?!? where is it illegal to say "fuck no!" to a cop? theyre not your 4th grade school teacher and they cant spank you for saying "fuck"; it may not be protected speech (tho in that case it was an expressive portion of a protected statement), but it is certainly not criminalized speech. Im sick and scared of the "just do what the cops want- cause if you dont, they get pissed and do it anyway" attitude these days- have we no concern for our rights? especially in this case- the profanity was not designed to rile up the crows or promote violence and destruction- it was merely expressive "fuck no i wont give my rights up to you" versus "fuck! everyone kill the fuckin pigs!" the second may be likely to fall under the "stop that speech for the greater good" argument, but the first certainly does not. being rude to a cop is a right we all have- breaking or abusing the law is the last power any officer should ever have. if the police are not strict adherants to the law- then the law which they enforce becomes bankrupt. the law is not simply commands written in arcane language and tombs- it is a living entity- resting in this society upon equal protection- if that protection is afforded unequally- or the law implemented in differing fashions- the law is truly bankrupt.
The law cannot tolerate room for emotion the way it is now- emotion can factor into the judicial process (ie. with juries and nullifications) but not in the enforcement process (ie. officers acting illegaly because their pissed).
Protesters are being denied the one thing that will placate and empower them- a voice. If the disenchanted and disenfranchised have a voice- they have power- and with that power the violence that is feared is no longer so much of a threat. Responding to excercises of the democratic process (protests etc.) with violence and harrassment is the end of the democratic process (what little is left). All these protesters want to do is give their message... but they have no million dollar convention- they werent born rich- they have no media circus following them- they dont own the media corporations or fashion laws that effect the flow of capital. They are the citizens, it is their government, and their streets to protest in, and their air to shout in.
*shrug*
Perhaps the 21% poverty rate which relates to the 1500/100,000 youth (10-17) arrest rate which indicates a high (double the average for United States metropolitan areas) crime youth culture (overall rate is also double the national average, as of 1997) which would probably indicate a hostile learning environment.
To be honest, I don't know, there could be lots of factors, class size, etc, but I'm not going to take the time to find them out to argue an AC.
----------------------------
if by "operating at a heightened state of awareness" you mean "abused their power" then yes, you understand my opinion.
----------------------------
But could you please show me the proof that most welfare recipients are able to work despite living in depressed neighborhoods with poor education systems that don't allow them to make enough money to move out of the depressed neighborhoods?
How about public school funding? It's a great scam. Pay for it all via property tax, which means, ooooh yeah. rich people get lots of money for their schools, and good educations whereas the depressed neighborhoods, not enough money to get a good teacher. or a good book. or a good building.
this of course leads to an undereducated and poor population who... well.. can't get out. there are success stories, but it's *hard* for these people. I dare you to do social work for a year and see how much of an option these people have.
I'm not claiming nobody abuses the system, just that there's a large body of the population that's stuck in a downward spiral, and it truly isn't their fault.
----------------------------
don't expect the cops to care. you see, by the time you appeal alllllll the way up to the point that it matters, you'd have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. you're much more likely to take the '$1000 first time offender and 1 year probation' option.
----------------------------
He deserved to go to jail, he was dressed like a punk!
and somewhere in an alternate universe, a GQ model gets stopped for wearing Armani.
----------------------------
No, but I dare you to dress like that and walk down South Street in Philly, now that the RNC is gone. I bet you don't get any trouble at all, despite the fact that South Street is heavily policed.
----------------------------
Do you think he deserved to get arrested?
Do you think children should call 1-800 numbers to warn school administrators about trenchcoats?
If your answers to the above are not the same, you should rethink your positions.
----------------------------
1) yes. 2) no. he was protesting the police arresting everybody who looked a little shady.
----------------------------
How else are you supposed to see it? If I dress like a pusher and mouth off to the cops, who then treat me pretty fairly all things considered, am I supposed to be outraged?
His stated goal was to be arrested, and he seemed to be trying to go to jail; so he manages to get the cops to arrest him, where they put him in a comfortable (at least temperature wise) van and let him go once they are satisfied he isn't peddling acid.
what are we supposed to take a stand against here? Saftey in our streets?
I read the internet for the articles.
The cop's _job_ is social justice, whether done well or poorly- ideally the cop does this well, doesn't step on people's toes too much and successfully stops the people who want to throw grenades/blow up stuff/mug you/con you/etc. There are always going to be people like that, but the only way you'll get decent cops is if people _are_ willing to believe in social justice and willing to sacrifice themselves for it, because I don't think OSHA rules cover 'stopping guys with grenades'- by definition there can't be effective safety rules for cops because the cop's whole job is defusing unsafe situations.
I have to wonder- was the original poster thinking of 'urban guerrillas' sacrificing themselves for social justice- or of cops? It could be read either way. When reading it I immediately thought of a poster I once saw here in Brattleboro (a biggish Vermont town). It said in big letters, PROTEST POLICE BRUTALITY! Then in smaller letters it said, actually here in Brattleboro we're not aware of any police brutality, but we would like to invite any Brattleboro police to come join with us to help protest police brutality in _other_ places...
and the parties forced to allow independants like myself to vote in BOTH primaries.
Err, accually parties should not allow anyone but members to vote in their primaries. The purpose of a party is a bunch of like minded individuals get togather and decide on one person they can all agree on to represent them. Without the party 7 like minded people run (like minded should be read to allow differences, but more agreement with each other then not)
When an independant votes in the primary they are screwing up the process. They are not a member of the party, but they are choosing what the party wants.
I personally belong to a party. (Those who know me can probably guess, but it doesn't matter for this point) When I go to a primary nobody looks at that membership. I often vote for the worst member of the opposite party. If amnisty International would endorce a Hitlet/Stalin ticket over the idiots the other party is running, then my party has a excellent chance of winning. (Saddly canidates that bad are rare and I have to work the campaign trails in other ways to assure the "good guy" wins.)
I'm not the only one who works as the above. After Gore secured the Democrat nomination, Rush Limbaugh managed to find several people who claimed to be democrats who voted in the republican primary. Their goal was to make the other canidate with a chance (and face it, only two canidates have a chance) someone who is a good second choice. This is wrong, and I don't understand why parties allow it.
That's odd, I could have swore we had a budget surplus for the forseeable future....
Unfortunately, we also have the 'boomers starting to retire pretty soon. We also already have a substantial debt ($5.6 trillion) from those years where we had a deficit. And Congress is pushing an Estate Tax elimination bill which won't do a whole heck of a lot for that guy's first paycheck.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Doesn't sound all that bad(of course it might have been worse if you hadn't got the camera lenses there fast). In any case, if they really thought you were breaking the law, it's not a problem(note: I am against the drug war).
What I see as a bigger problem was the way Philly was enacting all these rules as to when and where people could protest, with the purpose being to keep them away from the convention. We have a first amendment right to assemble, and that doesn't mean assemble only where other people can't see you.
Also, the national medias lack of coverage of the protests, and the issues the protesters were trying to bring attention to, was shameful. There was hardly anything interesting happening at the convention: no debates, no arguments, just a big GWB love-fest. I'd like to have seen CNN pull one of the more articulate protest leaders off the street and let him argue with some Republicans.
Sigh. I wish people would stop repeating this crap. Humans are born with only one natural right -- the right to die. Anything else (the right to life, free speech, etc.) is just an artificial construct that we, as a society, have chosen to use as a way to live our lives.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
I've always wondered why so many users here feel the need to badmouth those individuals who put their freedom, and sometimes lives, on the line for their beliefs?
And what, exactly, was this guy's belief? I read the article, and I sure don't know. Did he have a cause he was representing? I sure can't tell. It seems that his "activism" wasn't very effective if I can take the time to read his write-up and still have no clue as to his cause.
If he had a cause, why wasn't it plastered all over his write-up? If he is so gung-ho about his beliefs, that he's willing to get arrested for them, doesn't it seem that he would take the opportunity to explain them to his audience? Typing out his ideas is certainly easier than protesting.
"Social justice" sounds great, but I don't see what it has to do with this story. This guy wasn't fighting for a cause. He was just looking to get arrested, and the cops obliged him.
--Lenny
We all give up certain rights to protect others, yourself included. If you don't like it, too bad. The majority agrees that certain rights are worth giving up to protect other rights... Sorry, but that's the way it is, and while you may not like it, if you want to live in this society you have no other choice.
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
I still find it hard to sympathize for the teller of this story. One who sets out to get arrested should not be so surprised when he does... And people blame police for inefficiency... hell, they arrested him hours before he was planning on it... And yes, the guy should shut up and return to his microwave dinners, his nightly sitcoms, and his domestic beer. Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? is about to come on...
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
Yes, and I don't have to resort to insults to get my point across. Do you think that those who believe in legislation limiting gun sales, gun production, etc. are all idiots who talk before they think?
Did you ever carry a concealed weapon when you lived in the state that allowed such actions?
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
Sigh... I usually don't bother responding to ACs... but... do you even know what social contract is? You live by it, I live by it, we all live by it... read http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/so c-cont.htm to learn more about what, exactly, a social contract is...
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
I agree wholeheartedly with you... if you go looking for trouble, don't be surprised when you find it.
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
If I see a guy walking down the street wearing army gear, I would hope a police officer would inquire what equipment he or she was carrying. Furthermore, if I heard a police officer ask someone wearing army clothing, "Whatcha got on under that army vest," and the person responded with cursing, I would hope the police officer would detain that person and ensure that they weren't a danger to those around them.
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
And what would you be saying here if the police did not arrest someone in that situation and that person was carrying grenades and killed a lot of people. Chances are you'd be blaming the police, singing an entirely different tune. The police really are in a Catch 22 in situations like these. It's easy for you to sit back and blame them either way. I think the police officer acted in the correct way and handled the situation well. Hell, the guy wanted to get arrested and he did, so he should shut up, return to work, and continue to persist on quietly.
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
I'll assume that you're genuinely curious, and not flamebaiting.
For me, at least, the issue is largely one of taking responsibility for one's actions. An unborn child is legally killed, not because of anything that the fetus has done, but because its presence is not welcome. A convicted murdered is legally killed because they committed a violent act judged, by the state, to be worthy of the death penalty.
The fetus, then, is being held responsible for the actions of others.
The criminal is being held responsible for {his,her} own actions.
So yes, at least in my case, it can be easy to reconcile the pro-life and pro-death outlooks.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Evaporate this: http://nativenet.uthscsa.edu/archive/nl/9507/0122. html
It's midnight, I'm on a 33.6 and don't have the energy for a comprehensive debate on every piece of evidence in the Peltier trial. Let's go straight to: Anderson's most glaring error is his false assertion that a red and white van belonged to Leonard Peltier. He ties Peltier to the van with the testimony of Angie Long Visitor and a thumb print on the van's mirror. What he omits is the fact that Ms. Long Visitor testified that the van belonged to Sam Loud Hawk.
OK, looking at the Anderson article, I don't see any point where he states that Peltier owned the van -- simply that he was driving it. And what difference does it make who owned it? The van used in the shootout had Peltier's fingerprints on it and Angie Long Visitor testified that she witnessed the shootout and saw Peltier involved in it.
If that's the "most glaring error" I doubt if the rest means a whole lot.
One of the worst enemies of justice are those who fabricate plausible and rational, though entirely incorrect, counter-arguments to make the opposition look like fools. Of course this "rational" alternative is much more appealing then the vehemence of those seeking justice, and people looking for answers blindly accept it and go on peacefully.
Uh, yeah. That explains why activists and the media keep repeating these nonsensical claims of overwhelming evidence for the innocence of Peltier, Mumia etc. while completely ignoring the mountain of facts underlying their convictions. Slashdot readers, the next time you see someone collecting signatures for Mumia, ask him or her if to name a single point of evidence supporting his guilt -- and then tell me who blindly accepts the claims of one side.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
OK, one last time:
So, faced with a sweeping indictment of Peltier, the most damning objection his defense organization can raise is both irrelevant and false. Doesn't this raise at least some doubt in your mind about the claim that his innocence is beyond question? If it doesn't, you clearly don't have the slightest willingness to question your preconceived notions.
In any case, if we are unsure of the innocence of Peltier, the fact that the FBI falsified evidence, that the only eye witness was a mentally disturbed woman, and that there were 24 other fingerprints on the bag containing the gun, and that the FBI has never released the prints on the actual gun itself should themselves be mitigating circumstances.
Well, sure. If you assume that the only pieces of evidence against Peltier are claims you see disputed by his defenders. (Just to pick one:
By the way, to anyone else still reading this 12 hours and 800 comments later, the case for Mumia Abu-Jamal's innocence is orders of magnitudes shakier and riddled with falsehoods than Peltier's is.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Absolutely. You know, the whole point of civil disobedience as practiced by Gandhi and Martin Luther King is that people demonstrate the magnitude of their concerns by breaking the law. The power of it comes from the fact that individuals violate the law, in spite of their respect for it and the punishment they will receive.
Today "civil disobedience" has become a charade. It is invoked for any passing enthusiasm, cheapening it. It is practiced with the expectation that it will be met with no consequences, and protesters are irate if they receive any punishment, completely blunting the point. It has been turned into an empty game, like doing the Wave at a football game, which eliminates the impact of citizens putting aside their respect for the law because of the even greater importance of the moral issues involved.
Incidentally, Emmett, as a Slashdot reader since Chips and Dips, I'm disappointed in you and Rob using the site as a platform for your political agendas. It's every bit as much an abuse as "F1rst p0st!". How can you expect posters to respect the system when the editors don't?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
I'm guessing you haven't read the exchange in Outside a few years back between the author of an article laying out a clear case against Peltier and Peter Matthiessen? It made it clear that he is 100% guilty and that his supporters' arguments evaporate in the face of the facts. I mention that series (by far the most important discusion of this issue in decades) to the Peltier supporters I meet. Invariably they haven't heard about it and generally have no idea that the nonsensical "facts" they invoke are even questioned. They never display the slightest hint that there might be any other sides to the story.
Same thing with Mumia Abu-Jamal, by the way. The "facts" raised by his defenders (the bullet in the dead cop was a different caliber than Mumia's gun, witnesses saw a different man fleeing the scene, etc.) are lies, pure and simple.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
They're doing it for Status and Peer Acceptance.
Idiots.
**>>BELCH
It's a good thing I'm not a cop. I don't know how they deal. If someone threw a 'mystery liquid' at me or a friend of mine, I think I shoot first and ask questions MUCH later! I'd be in jail for life or dead after my first week on the job.
**>>BELCH
That a 'talking guitar' trick, where you have your guitar signal going into a small amp ('Pignose') with a cover over the speaker. The cover has a little hole with a long rubber tube sticking out of it which gets attached (usually with duct tape) to a microphone on a mic stand. When the performer wants to do a 'talking guitar' bit, he (she/it) gets the tube in his mouth and plays, shaping the sound with his mouth (like a jew's harp) into the microphone.
Joe Walsh pioneered this technique, although Frampton generally gets credit for making it famous. Aeorsmith, Bon Jovi and countless others have used it since to interesting effect.
**>>BELCH
The paramilitary garb was another stroke of true genious.
He's got his 'war story' now to share with his eco-hippy friends. Good for him.
**>>BELCH
Exactly. So were all the people he was with. We recently had an anti-poverty protest (read riot) here in Toronto. Most of the protestors weren't a problem but there was a group of hard core protestor (like those the author appears to have hooked up with) who are there to stir up trouble and nothing else. There were the requisite gas masks and some came armed. They weren't out to prove a point. They were out to stir up trouble. They, and the author of this article included, are doing a diservice to the very laws/rights, who's violation they are trying to illustrate.
--locust
The sad thing is that both the author and emmett figured that they could cash in on the outrage generated by the 2600 nextel arrest story to generate some more righteous indignation I can't believe the same people (/. staff) who keep reminding us to read the advocacy FAQ, everytime a someone says something really bone headed about a certain piece of technology, would post this article.
--locust
To pick a nit...
Why do you consider the republicrats citizens, when they are engaged in the demonstrably treasonous activity of selling out the government of the country to the highest bidder?
In the US, there is no such thing as treason during peacetime. What they are doing may be fraud, extortion, bribery, and assault, but nobody in the US today is committing treason, period.
Also, legally, current officeholders are largely immune to prosecution to anything other than treason.
In conclusion: Support the only true form of participatory democracy: Assassination.
--G
He came, joined a group that's specific purpose was to cause problems and get arrested, and got arrested.
Good job.
There is one thing most protesters have to remeber though: they will all claim to right to assemble. Absolutely right. Everyone has the right to assemble, even the people who were there for the convention.
Yes, thats right, the people there for the convention have as much right to be there as the protesters do. So any protester who flipped a dumpster, or held up traffic or tried to stop or block the convention, congratulations, you just violated the same right to assemble that you hold so dear.
Personally, i think you should lose the right at that point.
Oh, and anyone(like the author) who protested just to cause problems should've been locked up.
...can be found on the Philadelphia Independent Media Center website. Warning: this information is heavily slanted to the protesters' points of view. On the other hand, it's also a neet application of Slash.
The Tyrrany Begins....
Finding God in a Dog
No one made any cop be a cop. they do it on their own free will. That means they must agree with what the job enforces.
You're assuming that they must agree with *EVERY* law they're enforcing. If this were true, all cops would have the exact same opinions about all laws.
This, however, is not the case.
People become cops because they want to enforce laws like murder, robbery, rape, etc.
They usually don't become cops because they want to enforce mopery, dopery, barratry, and conspiracy to commit trespassing.
A lot of cops risk their jobs to be a part of the political process, in between shifts of risking their lives to protect you and me.
Hating all cops because of one or more graphic depictions of individual stupidity is like hating all programmers because of Windows.
--
Have things really sunk to that level?
If so, kudos to the protester for standing up to them and forcing them to show their true colors, instead of caving in fear of a merely implied bogus arrest like the rest of us would have.
Back when I was 13/14 years old, we (mostly high school and university students) protested against General Manuel Antonio Noriega, in Panama.
We would get shot at, tear gassed, and the unlucky bastards that got arrested suffered worse fates.
I find it amusing when I see this batch of protesters, that go expecting to find trouble, find a little of it, and then incessantly whine about it.
I'm not saying you shouldn't complain if you feel your constitutional rights where violated, but please get some convictions before going to a protest, don't just go there because somebody is looking for "people willing to get arrested."
- sigs are for wimps.
No one made any cop be a cop. they do it on their own free will. That means they must agree with what the job enforces.
Contrary to popular belief, most cops (the ones I know anyway) are cops because they like to help people. They catch criminals and try to stop crimes from being committed.
Many don't agree with all the laws they have to enforce, the same goes for plenty of judges.
I agree with your point about the author, and on the same token I agree that there are bad cops around. However, what would you prefer, cops enforcing all laws (even the ones they disagree with) or all cops striking (or quiting) over the laws they don't like and nobody enforcing anything?
Finkployd
(1) Political demonstrations are certainly interesting to me, but why is this "news for nerds", as opposed to just news?
(2) There are stories leaking about some *serious* abuses of police authority going down in Philadelphia, like severe beatings before and after arrest, protestors held for several days without a charge, and so on:
http://www.phillyimc.org/
http://www.indymedia.org/
(3) As far as I can tell, these stories are not making it into the print media. If you're not on the net, you don't even know that there are thousands of people protesting, and over 300 people arrested. Oh, wait a minute, I guess there was this *one* story in a local SF paper, I just missed it:x aminer/archive/2000/08/08/NEWS114 31.dtl
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/e
(4) If it makes you all feel any better, a bunch of the lefty activists I know are running down to Los Angeles to protest at the Democratic convention (anyone who's paying any attention realizes that the Democrats aren't all that much different from the Republicans these days):
http://www.sfbg.com/News/34/45/45nfdnc. html
You can try and work inside the system or outside the system, the important thing is the "work" part, and I personally am a little reluctant to jump up and say "No, no, you're doing it all wrong, you should do it *my* way." Maybe you should do it your way, and he should do it his way. And if you don't want to be associated with someone, go ahead and dissociate yourself, but don't expect them to act just like you to make things easier for you.
If anyone cares, I personally would not have handled things the way the kid in the story here did. For one thing, I think he showed far too much trust in the police: they easily could have maimed him for life, and then pulled a "I thought he had a gun, I thought my life was in danger."
(And anyway, what do you want with all those flies?)
B-U-D-G-E-T
"Budget" and "actual money" are two different things.
Refusing to submit to an illegal search is _not_ grounds for arrest, _nor_ is it grounds for a search. What you expect is _at most_ a frisking for _weapons_.
He's not an idiot, he's a citizen with rights. The fact that the police regularly forget that is not his fault.
On the contrary, if a cop isn't allowed to stop and question somebody who is dressed in combat gear (even if the pockets are filled with candy bars instead of grenades) and headed for the scene of a potential riot, and then detain that person if he is uncooperative, then something has gone seriously wrong.
Sure, if it were just for wearing something like a "Fuck cops" T-shirt in a public park, that'd be something to worry about too. Context matters.
And I see some moderators have taken it upon themselves to decide that my original questioning of whether the subject was worthy of Slashdot was itself offtopic. Pity we can't moderate original posts. (Yeah, yeah, I know we don't have to read them. But moderating them might provide some useful feedback as to how better to select submissions to post.)
-- Alastair
Had the KKK showed up in Philly and tried to do a protest march, you would have all been screaming for the cops to bust some heads. Had the Pro-Life crowd showed up and threatened to cause violent interruption to the proceedings, you'd want them in jail until at LEAST the next decade. Yet when it's one of YOUR guys...
Face it, these Philly protestors don't give a shit about anyone's rights but their own. They're living a double standard. It's okay to for cops to break the arms of Operation Rescue protestors, but asking for Emmett's ID is the ultimate proof that we're living in a police state.
The Sixties: place flowers in the barrels of the national guard.
The Naughts: pretend to have a backpack of 'nades and cuss at the police.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
If dressing in a "deliberately confrontational manner" or pissing off a cop is grounds for arrest, then something has gone seriously wrong.
For some sanity. The posts over the last few days on the subject of the philly cop has been driving me crazy.
as you hinted, the cops' behavior have been outstanding (eventhough it may have been because of the camera) and from living a few miles out of Philly and getting a whole lot of news about this - this has been my feeling exactly.
This article only confirms what I've been thinking all along.
You'd be surprised what other garbage this guy has written. How he got posted on the front page of /. is totally beyond me.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
You know kiddie, one of these days you will got out of school, get a job, look at your first paycheck and notice 40% of it is going to the government, and you'll suddenly become enlightened as well.
Besides whats wrong with being old and white? Typical racist bullshit..
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Is an anti-poverty coalitions? Where are the pro-proverty coalitions? What's next? Where is the Anti-Eating-Babys coalition, or the Stop-Kicking-Weiner-Dog coalition?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
What he did right:
He was well within his rights to refuse to cooperate with any action on the part of the police which is not granted within their range of power. It is furthermore not a reasonable argument to say "If he has nothing to hide, don't arouse their suspicion by acting as though he did." If we yield to the pressure that "good citizens" cooperate with the police even to the extent of giving up their civil liberties when it doesn't cost them anything, then soon, someone who exercises said right, for whatever reason, becomes a target for increased scrutiny and ill will. In such an atmosphere, does someone truly have the right to protection from unlawful search?
The only way to protect your rights is to exercise them, even and especially when you have no reason to need them.
What he did wrong:
The use of profanity and the occasional hostile tone used towards the police did not help his case any. As is evident from many of the reactions here on /., he comes off as someone looking for a clash. Which of course he was, in one sense, but in doing so in the manner he did, he stepped over the line. Many civil activists of years past, the great Martin Luther King among them, advised protesters to be polite to the extreme when dealing with the authorities, without actually sacrificing those rights and privileges that are due you. In such a situation, you are already in conflict, and the authorities are itching for an excuse to arrest or disperse you which, if not valid, could at least be presented as an "honest mistake" or an "expected reaction" under the circumstances. Only the person who stays well within the boundaries of acceptable behaviour while exercising a right can hope to turn such an incident into an example via public opinion.
Just some thoughts. BTW, I am neither a Republican, nor a Democrat, nor any other flavour. Je suis Canadien; my system is, however, similar enough (and I know of yours from exposure) to comment, I think.
-TBHiX-
In both cases it seems to me that the less words like "Fuck" are used and are being thrown around, the better the final result. It is hard to tell if the author is trying to express his strong emotions in the narrative, or if he really talked this way to the police, but I believe there are better ways to convey a damning verdict of the wrongs done to him over that week.
Try to imagine yourself in the cop's position. Someone's speeding, and you pull them over. You have no idea why they're speeding. They could simply be late for church. They may have just stolen the car. They may have just robbed a store. They may have just committed murder.
You approach the car. The windows are tinted. Is there somebody else in the car? Do they have guns?
That is what it means to put your life at risk every day. If soldiers are told to march through a minefield, it doesn't matter if that minefield contains 1000 mines, 1 mine, or 0 mines. They are still putting their lives at risk, and must approach the job the same way.
Very, very true. But as others have posted, it seems that his rights weren't violated, and that this was a reasonable search under the fourth amendment.I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
Peltier has been in jail for murder. When you get right on down to it, Peltier was accused of common crimes and had his day in court just like anyone else. Peltier is not someone special. He is a common criminal, and is being treated like any other common criminal.
While many people believe there's a Government conspiracy to keep Peltier in prison for political reasons, I find that very hard to believe. I don't think the Government is competent enough to pull off a good conspiracy.
Unfortunately, the problem with Peltier's supporters is that they've never bothered to read the court transcript. (I have, after hearing Rage Against the Machine give a pro-Peltier speech. I was so moved by Peltier's plight that I rented Incident at Oglala and read the court transcript. It's amazing just how much you can learn by studying both sides of a story.)
As soon as you do, then I'll be happy to resume talking with you. Until then, you're a zealot who's looking to scream loudly about the abuses of the system.
Screaming about abuse is not the same as quietly demanding justice. Governments don't give a damn about the former; the latter sort of person scares the hell out of them.
Where does "treating like a human being" come in?
... was being deceptive in implying that the reporter could be required to open his backpack, show ID, etc.
It comes in because I feel that we all, as human beings, have a duty to treat other people with a modicum of courtesy. Sometimes this isn't possible, but as as a general moral principle, that's it.
The police officer
I didn't see any implication. I saw the police officer give a challenge (in the legal sense of the term--as in, `issued a demand'). I expect that the police officer was probably reasonably polite about this; "Please open your backpack, sir." Where's the implication? Even if it was "Open your backpack," it still wouldn't have any implication of it being nonvoluntary. "Open your backpack or else get arrested and then we'll open your backpack for you" is nonvoluntary (and, oftentimes, illegal).
If you choose to treat every police officer as if s/he is an unquestionable being whose every demand must be acquiesced to, that's your problem.
Insofar as deception go--the police are allowed to be tricky and cunning. Police are allowed to lie to suspects to elicit confessions; they're allowed to deceive suspects to get them to act in incriminating ways.
Even if you don't care if the officer sees what's in your backpack or what your name is, it's a service to society if you refuse.
Not really. Neither the law nor the Constitution permits you to withhold your name from authorities. You have the right to remain silent, you have the right to an attorney, you have the right to refrain from self-incrimination, you have the right to have a judge or magistrate approve warrants for searches of your property... but you do not have a right to refuse to give the cops your name.
Insofar as the resistance to illegal search goes, I'm in complete agreement with you. However, the search wasn't illegal. If someone shows up at a protest which is expected may turn violent wearing military load-bearing gear and acting belligerent to the cops, that's probable cause that the person may have violence in mind and as such, ought to be detained.
Police take WAY too much advantage of the average person's ignorance of the law in cases like these.
How do they take advantage of someone's ignorance? I own a 1995 Eagle Talon ESi, in very good shape and about 80,000 miles. I'm willing to sell it for $15,000, first-come first-serve.
Am I taking advantage of someone who pays me that much money, certain that they're getting a good deal? No. The Blue Book is widespread and easy to find. If you're paying $15,000 for a car which is only worth (optimistically) $10,000, that's your problem, not mine--caveat emptor.
Similarly, if you're ignorant of your rights as a citizen and you wind up not knowing enough to stand up for your rights when the police make demands of you, that's your problem, not the cops'--it's your responsibility, as a citizen, to know your own rights.
You wake up at 5AM on your day off. Got to get up and patrol the city because every cop in the city has been put on overtime for the convention. Patrol Officer gives a brief telling you that undercover surveilance has revealed that extremist groups plan to get violent and provoke the police. You think, "damn, I'm not even a Republican, why should I put up with this crap". A brief picture forms in your mind of having to feed your family on anything less than the 24thou you might make this year. Suck it up bucko.
You pick up your riot gear at the office and head out on patrol. First corner you get to someone screams, "Asshole...Pig" in the window of your cruiser. This is only the start of the day.
By 10am things start getting hot. The loonies come out en masse. You are told to get out and pace the block. SOmeone walking by in the crowd sprays you with skunk scent. Not too bad but the smell lingers for 15 min. By noon things are getting out of control. You are exhausted but come across a gaggle of trouble. Guys wearing flak jackets and dark glasses are walking down the street screaming obscenities and blocking pedistrian traffic. Other people on their way about town seem scared of these troublmakers. You decide to check things out.
"What you got in those pockets?", you ask the commando. The guy cracks a smile and says "Left my 'nades at home, officer." "Let's see what's in your backpack." you say. "Fuck no. You need an arrest warrant for that.", he replies. Last thing you need, a guy dressed like a comando talking about grenades and swearing at you. Again. You decide there is a real risk that this guy could be dangerous. "Let's see your ID.", you ask. "No", the commando replies. Time to call in the calvary.
Have some respect. That police man is some underpaid schmuck wo risks his life every day on the job. Why does he do it? I surely don't know. one of my best friends was a cop. He didn't get paid shit, sucky beneeeeeeefits, if anything goes wrong the government is gonna leave you to hang, everyone hates you and the stress is enough to crack most people. You get in a car accident chances are the cops are the first ones there. Some crackhead decides to start harassing you there is noone else to call. So what do you do to show your appreciation? You take the weekend off ot go to another city and act like a terrorist. And you have the call to call the cops assholes. Look in the mirror.
Y'know, I've always wondered why so many users here feel the need to badmouth those individuals who put their freedom, and sometimes lives, on the line for their beliefs? So some of us believe in social justice, and some of us are willing to sacrifice for it. Smart-ass criticisms from the slashdot peanut gallery smell like defensiveness to me. It'd be interesting to find out what, exactly, has people getting so defensive.
Think Different
What exactly was he protesting and what did he hope to accomplish by his protest? How did any of his actions further his goals?
So you went out and dissented and got arrested for being suspicious. Why? The only reason to go out and do these things is to raise awareness of some issue. The author obviously failed because I don't know what he's so upset about.
Going out to play rebel just distracts from the protesters who have something important to say.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
It doesn't and I never said it did, which is why I bristle when you imply I don't believe the Democrats are due the same.
No, obviously both, and all, certainly can have their say. But protesters exposing their lies have just as much right to a voice. I support freedom of speech, but the mass propaganda and crimes of omission they let flood is pushing it a bit. Protesters should be allowed to pull the wool back from people's eyes.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Evaporate this: http://nativenet.uthscsa.edu/archive/nl/9507/0122. html
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
By the way, that link took about three seconds to find. One of the worst enemies of justice are those who fabricate plausible and rational, though entirely incorrect, counter-arguments to make the opposition look like fools. Of course this "rational" alternative is much more appealing then the vehemence of those seeking justice, and people looking for answers blindly accept it and go on peacefully.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
You have a man who may or may not have been at the scene (Poor Bear is flaky, and there is evidence other witnesses were coerced), firing a weapon which may or may not have been Peltier's (Leroy Casados also had an AR-15, was in possession of agent Williams' revolver, and owned a vehicle which possibly could have looked like Peltier's and was suspected to be involved), which may or may not have killed the agents (Stuntz was supposedly firing a .44 magnum, which was the type of the one bullet retrieved from one agent's body. The bullet the prosecution claimed to be the .223 that killed one agent tested negative for blood residue which is highly strange).
Add to that the failure of the FBI to follow up other leads (Casados, Sky), in favor of a big AIM member, very strange documents suggesting agent Adams had been on the scene *before* the firefight, apparent suppression of Poor Bear's earliest and contradictory affidavit, weird removals of information from FOIA availability, contradictory statements from the ballistics analyst which indicate the analysis of a supposedly fatal shell occurred at various times, which could lead one to believe said shell may have been replaced in the time period from submission to analysis, and alleged evidence tampering...and you have at *least* an very large shadow of doubt.
Just as I shouldn't take everything I read on activist websites at face value, you should neither take everything you read by Outside magazine or the FBI at face value.
Canada at least thinks there is a large enough shadow of doubt in the whole process to continually submit formal requests that Leonard Peltier be returned to Canada where his position, and requests for clemency may be supported.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
It is also stated that the van was shared by many people. I don't see what line of reasoning he uses to conclude that the van was in fact at that moment being driven by Peltier, besides the fact that it had a fingerprint on the mirror (which would be totally possible since it was being shared).
In any case, if we are unsure of the innocence of Peltier, the fact that the FBI falsified evidence, that the only eye witness was a mentally disturbed woman, and that there were 24 other fingerprints on the bag containing the gun, and that the FBI has never released the prints on the actual gun itself should themselves be mitigating circumstances. Which leads one to wonder why he has never had an appeal heard. If anything there is one big black honking shadow of doubt. But it doesn't matter. They got their man in jail.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
How about this timeline:
Casados in his pickup (a "red and white vehicle") is tailed by FBI, leads them/drives to the camp, where he has either previously informed people there that he is being tailed or they discover it after he arrives. Persons in the pickup stop, get out and engage in firefight with FBI, others possibly joining, possibly including Peltier. Agents are shot, Casados kills them with *his* AR-15 (original analysis indicated Peltiers AR-15 and several others around had been cleared), and steals William's revolver. Stuntz ("guy in the white shirt") takes an FBI vest. Everybody runs away. People see somebody, possibly Peltier, with a shoulder weapon fleeing the seen. Sure, Peltier may have participated, or possibly even instigated, but no one can say for sure who shot the fatal shots.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Casados has a red pickup with a white tent top on the back. I can see that as being described as a "red and white vehicle". A "pickup", not van, was also seen leaving the scene. Unless the agents specified a red and white van, which I haven't read anywhere, I can see them following Casados's truck. Why does that matter? Because that is at least one point that prosecution is using to tie Peltier to the scene, and as one of the people who stepped out and fired.
I don't back down. There were allegations of coercion of witnesses which I don't entirely disbelieve. Anderson indicated he was coerced and from what I've read Long Visitor identified three people who got out of the red and white vehicle, not including Peltier, and then later saw Peltier leaving.
To my knowledge Peltier has said that he shot *at* the agents, and also said that one point in time he saw the bodies of the agents. I'll have to find out if he actually explicitly stated he committed the two murders.
I don't think this is an open and shut case.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I'm reading the NPPA site and the light cast on Peltier is looking worse and worse. However I still reserver a healthy skepticism of the FBI's and government's behavior in the case. I'm still trying to hunt down real court transcripts...
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
The point is to make a Republican convention something that no city wants. Harassing police is part of that. Sure, he should have expected what happened to happen. But the police should also be trained to act as police officers, not as authority figures annoyed that some little bastard is evading them. The police provide a public service. They should be scrutinized. I wonder what would have happened if there was no camera.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
It's not a conspiracy. An Indian had to answer for the deaths of two officers and the one they picked was Leonard. The FBI didn't like the fact that a paramilitary group was protecting its own land, which was not under FBI jurisdiction in the first place, and presenting a threat to the US placed puppet government ("Tribal Government") there. Leonard Peltier was one of four people originally accussed, and after three of them were acquitted, the government fixed on Leonard, and through "government misconduct and investigative abuse", by the words of the judge who admitted the government shared equal responsibility for the deaths of the agents, fabricated a weapon which evidence would later show could not have fired the shots that killed the agents, and convicted him. His appeals have been refused. Of course there is no conspiracy. As you aptly show, nobody gives a fuck about a red man rotting in jail for a crime he didn't commit.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Leonard peltier has been rotting in jail for 24 years because FBI agents chased somebody who supposedly stole *a pair of used cowboy boots* into the encampment he was in. They needed a fall guy to "resolve the deaths" of the FBI agents. Sucks to be a Native American don't it?
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I thought this was amusing:
5 /0731254&mode=thread
http://www.phillyimc.org/article.pl?sid=00/08/0
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
So good to see you are very well versed in the art of debate....
And this would differ from the Democrat primary how?
OK, so you say you aren't a Democrat. However, you still seem to feel that Republicans are less deserving of freedom of speech than the general populus, so my previous comment still stands. Sorry, but it is far more important to support the freedom of speech of those you disagree with than to support the freedom of speech of those you agree with.
www.eFax.com are spammers
I'm glad to see you feel that freedom of speech is important. However, isn't it better by far to allow (those who you believe to be) fools to speak, and then demonstrate their foolishness, than to drive them out of town and prevent others from seeing their foolishness? That was the point I was trying to make: that "making a [Republican|Democrat|whatever] convention something a city wouldn't want to host" was counterproductive.
Also, while I support anybody who believe strongly enough in something to protest and risk arrest, too often "protesters" at these sort of things sound something like this:
In other words, no clue why they are protesting, just being a tool of one or the other faction.
Personally, I'd like to see the electoral college replaced by direct election, the parties denied the use of public facilities for the primaries (which are not a part of the electoral system as set forth in the Constitution, as I am sure you know but many
Sounds like we are a lot closer that we are apart. Shake?
www.eFax.com are spammers
I think you miss the point. Unfortunately, the political parties in large part control whom I may vote for on election day. Therefor, I should have a say in their selections.
Consider how it is now: the bulk of people tend to be moderate. The two major parties are anything but. Now, if I am a moderate, I have two choices: I register as a party member, select one candidate from one party in the primary, re-register as an independant on election day, and vote for the lesser of N evils, of which I had a hand in selecting only one. Or, I can NOT vote in the primary, and vote for the lesser of N evils, of which I had NO say in selecting. Either way, what happens is the parties avoid the more moderate candidates, and I get to pick Dumb or Dumber.
Now, what if everybody could vote in the primaries: the parties would then be forced to select individuals who were more in line with the majority in the primary. The average Joe/Josephine would have a better selection on Election Day. We might actually see participation increase.
Besides, why in THE HELL should the political parties (entities that have no especial standing under the Constitution) have access to whether I've registers Republican, Democrat, or Slashdot Party?
In short, I assert that the formation of the party machines has been one of the most detrimental developments in the American political scene: candidates need to campaign for the primary, then for the real election, more than doubling the amount of money they need (increasing their ties to PACs), and reducing the choices the voter has, driving down participation.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Dude, most /.'ers are libertarians. Here's a brief explanation of where they stand:
Imagine that instead a 1-dimensional political spectrum(left-wing and right-wing), it is 2-dimensional: One axis represents personal freedoms, while the other represents economic freedoms.
Democrats support personal freedoms but not economic freedoms
Republicans support economic freedoms but not personal freedoms
Authoritarians support neither economic freedoms nor personal freedoms
Libertarians support both economic and personal freedoms
Note that "freedoms" is not the most accurate term. On the economic axis, "more freedom" really means small government, less welfare, etc. etc. On the personal axis, "less freedom" includes censorship, abortion bans, and drug prohibition (anything that's "for the children").
Also note that this is not a precise description of where the parties actually stand; it just is a useful generalization.
--
Friends don't let friends misuse the subjunctive.
Who said I'm some pro-lifer who advocates blowing up doctors? Didn't you read where I said that killing is wrong, in any context?
I claim to keep no company with the "pro-lifers" who destroy lives and property any more than I keep company with violent skinheads or executioners in China.
Killing is bad...what part did you miss?
I am anti-abortion and anti-death penalty. I am not catholic or christian..in fact I rather despise catholocism for its mangling of the Bible.
I'm not an athiest, and I don't object to either on religious grounds. I just think killing is wrong. Period.
Know what, you narrow-minded, pompous, arrogant ass? Lots of people think the way I do.
It's called Amnesty International (I couldn't find their official stance on abortion, but I believe it violates their declared basic human right of Life).
for some of you that might not be familiar with the term due to its localized appearance, a WAWA is a convenience store similar to a 7-11, Stewarts, etc. that is located in the Philadephia area and parts of New Jersey and a few other states.
Yes, it is bad. It's like pretty much admitting that you have no ideals, that you're more than happy to sell your soul to the system.
nader 2000!
--
Matt Singerman
Matt Singerman
http://matt.vegan.net/
I'm a flaming bleeding-heart liberal and *I* think he acted like an idiot.
-Vercingetorix
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
But it goes further than this. Recently in my area, a highway was blocked off and a "drug checkpoint" was set up. This resulted in hundreds of innocent people being stoped, their cars searched without cause. It lead to two possesion of marijuana arrests, and a few open container alcholol violations. I hope those arrested get good laywers, and the courts are willing to listen. Apperently the 4th amendment doesn't mean anything anymore in law enforcement.
And it used to be that law enforcement needed cause and a court order before they could proceed with a wiretap. Now we're going to have carnivore hooked up to the ISPs so the FBI can will have the ability to watch anybody anytime (not legally, but that doesn't seem to have stopped them in past similar situations). This sort of thing needs to stop (btw, you can click here to send a free fax to your congressmen and the president urging them to stop carnivore).
I applaud the gentleman who wrote this article, as he was willing to stand up for his rights even when he was doing nothing wrong. More people ought to refuse to be searched even when they have nothing to hide. If you get stopped for speeding and the cop wants to look around your car, say "plain view, officer". The idea that only the guilty have something to hide is wrong. Everyone has a right to privacy
---
/bin/fortune | slashdotsig.sh
Clarification: you can hardly blame the Philly police in this case. Woudln't want to be misconstrued.
Ok, I don't like to bash slashdot. Its done too much already really. "Slashdot went to hell when..." Its damn near a Jeff Foxworthy slogan. But...
Is it just me or does Slashdots technical objectivity ("Slashdot is owned by VA Linux Systems", etc.) not carry over to non-technical topics that show up? I mean "the GWB is the devil and I will never vote for him" (rough hyperbolic paraphrase) on the last RNC post was a bit much.
Why is this showing up on slashdot anyway? It is technically "Stuff that Matters" but Taco wouldn't post the Dot Com stock plummet until he was overwhelmed with submissions. Is the behavior of some cops during a protest really more relevant than something that effected most of tech sector? I think not.
So far I've gotten all my Karma from telling people they are wrong... :)
Ummmmm NO! in Nazi germany protestore would have either been shot on the spot, or trucked off to a concentration camp to contribute to particulate air pollution. All this guy got was a ride in an air conditioned van, made a new friend, and got on TV. /sarcasm/ Dang thats harsh!/sarcasm/
No wonder you don't understand what he was protesting, you would have arrested him for not breaking the law too.
That is what he was protesting by publishing this story.
I will grant you that he could have written a better article about it, making his point more clear.
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
Great point. I hadn't really realized that they had closed off the parks. I think that this was a situation where a lot of different people were at fault for it turning into a stupid mess. The biggest reason I was mad at the author is that I felt what he did was meaningless, because he never even let anybody know just what he was protesting. It bothers me when people give protesters a bad name because they don't seem to understand what the whole thing is about.
B. Elgin
B. Elgin
"Read at your own risk; feel free to ignore."
I hate this country.
Get out there and work to change it. If you really tried, I guarantee that you could be enough of a pain in some lawmaker's arse to get something changed for the better. If you aren't willing to work to change it or everybody else in the country just flat out disagrees with you, the border is right over there. It IS a free country, and you are free to leave if you really hate it.
B. Elgin
B. Elgin
"Read at your own risk; feel free to ignore."
What convictions? He got detained for no good reason without ever spreading his message. This article doesn't even tell us what group he was half-assedly representing. How does that help their cause in any way? How does this do anything but waste a police officer's time? If people protest the way it should be done, the police aren't worried about the lives of themselves and random passers by. This means more police can be dedicated to preventing crime like rape and murder, as someone else pointed out. Proper protesting gets news coverage and more people learn about the issue at hand. The movement gets larger and there are results. This is stupidity.
You, sir, are a foolish idealist who hasn't bothered to grasp the fact that there are multiple perspectives in the world. Why was this moderated up?
B. Elgin
B. Elgin
"Read at your own risk; feel free to ignore."
He said BREAKING the law, not MAKING the law. I assume that you meant 'city hall', right?
While in a perfectly free and ideal society (i.e. one without people), attitude wouldn't matter worth squat, in ours it does. If you behave in a fashion that leads a police officer to believe that you are a threat to public safety, his job is to prevent you from harming anyone. Police mortality in Philly is pretty damn high, so of course they are going to play it safe from their perspective. Idealism is great, but police are people who don't want to die for their idealism. So, they behave in a way prepared for the worst and hope for the best. If some police somewhere in the country overreact or commit legit brutality, police everywhere get more abuse. They are in a lose-lose situation and do the best they damn well can to protect ungrateful people like the author. If you expect them not to get jaded, you are an amazing idealist.
I just thought the author was immature when I started reading this, but I am continuing to get angrier as I listen to mindless people who can't seem to comprehend that a person, who has no idea when someone might try to kill him, is going to err on the side of caution if presented with someone dressed in military attire who responds with extreme hostility to any questions. Even if the person is just a peaceful protester, it is better to detain that person (who was not arrested from anything I read) than to allow a true nutcase to get through with real grenades. Police dislike reactionary nuts who blow things up every bit as much as they dislike radical nuts who blow things up.
B. Elgin
B. Elgin
"Read at your own risk; feel free to ignore."
It isn't easy, but it can be done. Campaign finance reform is at the top of my list of things that have to happen and soon. If you find a politician (there are some who truly try to represent the people) who agrees with your most important cause, support that politician. Help that person get the changes made. When you achieve enough of a victory to make that problem no longer you main concern, tackle the next one. If more people did this and joined watchdog groups, many of our problems would not exist. The internet is another tool we can use to help that. I don't know of any perfect solutions, but this is better than nothing.
It IS a free country, and you are free to leave if you really hate it.
Almost time now... 4 more months.
I sincerely hope that you are happier wherever you are going. Our world is far from perfect, but I would like it if more people found a happy life.
B. Elgin
B. Elgin
"Read at your own risk; feel free to ignore."
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion. I am not am member of the political caste, police, or military. I am an average working person two years out of college. I get very sick of people who bitch all the time about this country's problems, but aren't willing to lift a finger to change it. I have worked to try to help change things that are bad in my view. My cause has not "succeeded" but it is closer than it was because people got involved rather than cursing at people who try to make a difference. I'm entitled to my opinion, too. Unlike some people, I will work for it though.
B. Elgin
B. Elgin
"Read at your own risk; feel free to ignore."
What the policeman was asking him to do was surrender his rights, explicitly granted by the 4th amendment, not to be searched unreasonably.
In view of his attitude, it sounded totally reasonable. He was, on purpose, acting in a fashion which was calculated to make him look as dangerous as possible, in an environment where the groups were breaking laws.
Getting arrested on purpose and then complaining about it is stupid. It is a violation of Larry Niven's First and Second Laws, if nothing else.
Please don't tell me that you can't see the difference between getting arrested for walking down the street and getting arrested for actually doing something AGAINST THE LAW???? If he was going to the protest, willing to get arrested, he intended to get arrested for engaging in civil disobedience, not arrested for no reason. Please, moderate the comment to which I am responding down. It is not insightful at all.
Have you read the story or not? The guy was arrested for walking not for protesting! He was stopped and arrested for no good reason other than big brother wanting to recreate Disneyworld in Philly.
~~~Please pass the salt, I hate unsalted MD5s
There's a political position that needs to be articulated in this area, but these guys are getting nowhere. Maybe if they linked up with organized labor against NAFTA and GATT they'd get somewhere.
I'm no fan of the Republicans, but:
The point is to make a Republican convention something that no city wants. Harassing police is part of that.
is referred to as "disturbing the peace" and it is indeed a crime. The Republicans have every right to hold their convention. I mean, geez, you're not even protesting an issue (like school vouchers, which are evil and should die die DIE), just the general fact that they're Republicans and that they're having a convention in public. The police can be scrutinized without violating any laws or creating reasonable cause to be detained and searched.
Oh, by the way: Californians! Vote NO on 38!
--
Come see the violence inherent in the system! Or am I the only one who flashes on Monty Python and the Holy Grail when reading this article?
"Fuck no. You need an arrest warrant for that."
Try a search warrant, dumbass.
--
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
No. He may have been approached because of his attire, but his response aroused suspicion (and probably raised the hackles of the officer) and that, coupled with the sensitive nature of the place and time might have been sufficient to move him from a position where it would be an unreasonable search to probable cause.
I find it interesting that a number of people here are willing to take the witness of a single individual as an exact narrative. This isn't even the views of an objective third party, but a participant. There may have been something about his actions that brought suspicion rather than his clothing choices alone. Maybe I'm reading something into the prose, but his characterization of the various participants and the eyes boring into his medulla..... c'mon. It sounds like he was creating his own pulp novel. "What's it to you, flatfoot?" The names have been changed, but the attitude still hangs in the air like stale cigarette smoke above the scarred felt of a dimly lit billiard table.
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
Again, activism has to start somewhere. Creeps who sit on their hands and criticize are nothing next to the most dumbass protester.
"The Internet is made of cats."
> and i'll also know that this is the greatest
> place in the world to live
Funny how for many Americans this statement is not even questionable.
Yet, it is. Badly.
Signed: A "half-time in Europe, half-time in the US" dude, who hasn't made his choice yet, but who knows it's not simple.
Bingo. Thanks for playing. Seems to me he fell short in his attempt to get beaten and arrested on national TV for minding his own business. Kind of dissapointing, really.
I was expecting to read something along the lines of 'I was standing there, with my sign and holding hands with the others and singing when they gassed us, beat us to a pulp, threw us in jail and held us for three days without charging us with anything, etc, etc.
This guy went out asking for it, and didn't even get it. He walked around the area, not so much minding his own business as making a silent plea to the cops, 'arrest me, I look like trouble'. When they stopped him and asked him a few questions, he was uncooperative. This is his right. No one says you have to kiss the cop's ass.
So they show him the inside of the paddy-wagon until he's ready to show some ID. He then walks away. He failed miserably to make the cops look bad, IMO.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
We'd get just as much done as we do now :)
I don't think it would make a difference cause those guys don't understand those bills half the time anyway I'm sure.
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
Those laws are created by your lawmakers. If you don't like them, then work, peacefully, to have them changed. If you are unwilling to do what it takes, then shut the fuck up.
Give me a fucking break! "Ooooo just go change it... or shut up.." blah blah blah... you know lots of people live in this country who have better things to do than become polititions! I would LOVE to change all sorts of stuff... but I'm more valuable and happy as a programmer. We have no voice in this country unless you are willing to sacrifice every thing to be heard. I vote.. I've even writen a few congressmen... but the issues that concern me and millions like me never come up or get mutilated in congress... why? because the people that run our government DONT FUCKING CARE! They are a public opinion and entertainment machine! the beaurocrats run the country and the polititions cater to special interest groups and "public opinion polls" its a crock of shit. Laws are made every day that I as a citizen NEVER had a say in! Sure sure you can say how i helped elect the people that made these laws.. The people I get to choose from on voting day never represent my beliefs! The system here in the US in antiquated and useless.. it was created in a time before the damn phone... I mean seriously... there is no need for a congress anymore... we can all vote on congressional issues! there is no need for a president! the only people of power in this country should be it's citizens... I mean christ! we dont even choose our own president!!! the electoral college does it for us!!
The US government is a blackhole of corruption, waste, apathy, and lies! It is not run as the founding fathers intended.. not by a damn long shot! states were supposed to have more power than the federal government... HAHAHAHAHAHA imagine that!!
ok.. done now... thanks...
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
Or maybe the system has been so degraded from its origonal design that doing ANYTHING "the way they were meant to be".. Or maybe the system creates such sheep now that no one cares and would just as soon be in a police state than get off their ass and react.
I do have a problem with law makers. and the electoral college and the census, and the USPS, and the NSA,FBI,CIA,FCC, FTC, FAA, DOE, EPA, etc..
I hate this country.
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
On my way... prat?
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
Typically of slashdot - and anywhere else for that matter - this disscussion has degenerated into a bipolar argument over which side, cops or portesters, is better than the other. But we cannot divide things this simply
The truth is, there are very good reasons that the protesters are crowding Philly. These reasons did not come out in this article because frankly, the author seems to be caught up in a power trip which percludes him from utilizing what little intellectual capacity he may have. Guy, it's a very bad idea to aggravate a bunch of highly trained police officers with weapons, no matter what some piece of paper drafted in Washington says, especially when you're just doing it for the sake of aggravation. Being polite and insistend gets you much further than screaming obscenities. In this situation, the police seemed to do the exact right thing.
This does not mean that in other places they behaved properly. I can very easily believe that they overstepped their bounds in many situations. Remember, the police do not serve us except on paper - they serve the existing power structure, the very power structure all these protests are against. (Though they must maintain a good image or said power structure will be undermined.) They are protesting the corruption of our governments and the out of contnrol corporate power grabs that have been so successful recently. No wonder the media and the police are doing their best to suppress attention onthese issues as much as possible.
It is a pity that uneducated, unthinking people like the author of this article are giving so many opportunities for the media to spin the police actions as justified. If the protesters behaved in a courteous manner, calmly but firmly demonstrated their views, instead of insulting everyone who does not agree with them, they might convince people to listen and agree.
Precisely what need is there to carry a weapon concealed. Personally, I'd like to see a law that requires people carrying lethal weapons to have to wear a Bright orange sign that says "Fuck with me at your own risk, cuz if you do, I'll kill your ass dead." In Virginia, you can even conceal a weapon in your car (perfect for those drive by shootings/road rage attacks). The idea is thus: Guns do kill people. Granted they are being used as designed by other people. I'm more afraid of a criminal with a knife than one with a gun, to be quite honest. Most people who get shot, die.
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
The police were not objecting with his viewpoint. They were objecting to his CONDUCT. Conduct and belief are two different things (hence, do as I say, not as I do). The police were trying to maintain order (their job). Trying to maintain order includes keeping the freaky-freakies off the street during a political convention, when delegates need to be free and unencumbered while doing their social duty. If you want to demonstrate, go right ahead, but blocking main street will get you arrested. This is part of maintaining order.
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
How is asking for proof of identity living in a police state? He could always have answered "I don't have one, I don't drive/work, etc." We're not living in a police state, we're living a state that is controlled by hippie-freak protestors who think it's okay not just to defy authority but to disrespect it as well. THAT's the problem.
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
If, as has been stated in previous postings here, you consider the entire post as true, the man in the story never stated an intention to incite riot. He stated an intent to get arrested as a demonstrator.
Isn't that the same thing? That would be like me going into downtown DC and saying "I want to be arrested" in a mob of angry people thinking the same thing. When in fact I *DO* get arrested, as per my request, but without charge, the people riot, then are not my actions incitement of riot? Could the author's interpretation of request for identification (perfectly legal request BTW) have been incitement? Sure. I agree with your second and third paragraphs, but NOT with your first. If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
----
In this mass of 'reportage' one fact is missing: what were these people protesting? Did they even know? What the hell was the 'consensus' the group came to? The only clue I saw in the whole piece was the phrase 'environmental slogans' but that isn't much help. Just what was the purpose of all this organization, dividing up into 'arrestables' and non-arrestables', sloganeering, and general hell-raising? Or was the purpose secondary to the effort itself - was this just some batch of malcontents giving voice to some inchoate rage against 'the establishment'?
Uhhh. In case you haven't noticed Slashdot has a relatively large international contingent. Seriously though, I've seen all viewpoints expressed here. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Socialist, Communist, Green Party, and don't forget the indifferent. I like to call myself an individual, because I like to listen to them all and form my own opinions.
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
Only if it's obeyed. It apparently wasn't here.
4. Just laws
You mean like the DMCA and people with drugs getting a longer sentence than rapists and murderers?
6. Cheap and good housing for anyone
Go to Silicon Valley and say that with a straight face.
Bullshit.
He has a full-length column right here on Slashdot... and what did he use it for? To raise our concern about the plight of the homeless? To call for improved race relations? To express his views on the DEA?
No. He spent it telling us all how '1337 he was because he managed to act like an asshole in front of a cop until he got pulled off the street.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
You have the right to convince law enforcement officers that you are a dangerous nutjob. If you choose to do so, they have the right, authority, and responsibility to ensure that you are not a danger to yourself and others, by confronting you, searching you, and even apprehending you. That's what we pay them for.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I think this all boils down to something I remember John Perry Barlow saying a few years back:
"I quickly learned, that if you treat cops like pigs, they'll act like pigs."
The sad thing here, for democracy and protest, is that the cops will never respect people who treat them like pigs.
If the Russians in Red Square had acted like this, the soldiers would have fired on them, and Russia would likely still be a police state. The Russian soldiers didn't fire, because they respected the common Russian people -- who we're being "AssHoles," after all, unlike these guys.
Of course, all these "lets get arrested" guys would like to think that they're involved in something as important as bringing down Communism. I live in Berkeley, and it's amazing to sit in coffeeshops listening to the bandana-wearning pacholi-smelling kids talking about the old-white-male convention in Philly and trying to find things wrong with it. "Geez, half the people there must be millionares!" I heard. Little rebels without a cause, hopping from Dead show to the next protest, spending their parent's money and wishing that they were poor working class folks... this is liberalism in America, circa 2000.
Geez, I wonder if we could find some way to charge them to get into the protests as well as the concerts?
Yes, I think it would be fun to go dress suspiciously and mouth off to police. Was there actually a point to this article?
I dont mind having 40% of my paycheck go to the government, I just wsh I could specify where it would go. Tax forms should have bugetary areas on them Defense/Nasa/Soc. Security/Welfare etc, you should be able to put down what percent of your money goes where. 0% to NSA 100% to NASA.
Hear! Hear!
I'm not above paying my fair share, I just want it spent wisely. I don't give it to the IRS so GWBush can give it back to his campaign contributors.
The US needs better Rail transportation. After two trips to Europe I feel like I've come back to a 2nd rate country where everyone has to own some excedingly expensive machine, which gobbles up resources, gobbles up a lot of my paycheck and has to be replaced every so many years. If we had rails like Europe I'd never own a car again. Then I'd really have some money!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Assuming, for the moment, that the account was accurate, the police acted with questionable propriety, in a manner more resembling the former police states of Eastern Europe than that of a "free" country.
That most certainly is one of the "negative features" of the world's Police States. You walk down the street, and may be confronted at any time with the demand: "Passport, please."
If there was a desire to change the rules on a temporary basis in such a sensitive area, there is a well-known way to do so. It is commonly called martial law, and allows for the suspension of many of the rights usually provided for by the legal system.
I am by no means "pro" the protesters. And I agree that the result was essentially what he "asked for."
But I see significant danger in suspending the rule of law outside the specific frameworks permitted in the law. That road leads towards Police State.
It would be a terrible shame if the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain fell in Eastern Europe only for the United States to throw itself into a paroxysm of despotism, having "won the war against tyranny" only to leap into tyranny itself.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Very well said, especially the comment about declaring martial law. However, the situation is not nearly as dark as you portray. First off, I would argue that under the circumstances walking around in a "load bearing harness" and carrying a gas mask could very well be considered "reasonable cause." The rule of law does not require that our policemen become idiots. This character was clearly looking for trouble in a very dangerous situation. One in which the policemen are in very real danger. Mob violence is a very real and very explosive thing. This clown was actively seeking violence, and yet the police treated him quite fairly and decently for all of that.
Furthermore, there is nothing sinister about the police asking suspiscious people to identify themselves and their possessions, in fact this is standard police procedure. They can legally ask to see your ID, or see what is in your backpack. They can also legally ask you to open your trunk or let them inside your house. They can't force you to comply without a search warrant, but it never hurts to ask :). Many criminals willingly give permission for searches that would be illegal otherwise. If you can't be bothered to learn what your rights are, then I would suggest not becoming a criminal.
The suspects own accounts show that he was, in fact, conspiring to incite a riot. Any honest citizen, even one dressed in a load bearing harness, would have almost certainly been spared the paddy wagon just by apologizing to the police and leaving what was clearly a dangerous area. That's why the police were there, they were protecting innocent citizens by keeping them out of harm's way.
I personally wouldn't stand for the government declaring martial law every time that there was a political gathering. Martial law should not be easy to invoke as a protection against abuse. The police in this particular encounter did a marvelous job of balancing their duty to protect the citizenry with their duty to uphold this particular person's rights. The police broke no laws, and violated no one's rights.
The author of this particular piece can't say the same for himself.
the problem is that philadelphia created a protesting "pen" and incredibly restrictive rules about its use so much as to place an undue prior restraint on free speech.
as a matter of fact, the ACLU took philly to court about this and won.
ANd the reason that the protests were ignored? Not because there was no clear goals, but more for the reason that no one wants to expose the real problems out there that are being swept under the table.
Think about it. How many /major/ protests have we had in the last couple months? We had Seattle, Washington, and now philly. Soon there will be similar protests in California at the Democrat's convention.
To quote a 60's song: There's something happening here, but what it is ain't exactly clear.
tagline
... hi bingo
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
It seems Vergil has stumbled across a very valuable resource on the web. First he writes a rambling story in serious need of some editing, and only about 20% finished. Then he gets Emmett to post it on /., with a birthday wish for a random female someone hopes to impress.
/.ers point out all the minor technical points (its a search warrant, dude, not an arrest warrant) and ask questions about the whole point of the exercise. After a few hours, there are 390 comments containing a lot of material for Vergil to use when he re-writes his story for hackedtobits. This random scribbling didn't even get to the Blue Room, which we can infer was a police holding cell he got thrown into later.
Then all the
When the longer story gets published, Vergil will have answered many of his critics on this dry run. It will allow him to look like a clued-in protester with a cause rather than a society reject hoping to draw attention to himself and perhaps winning some easy cash from a wrongful arrest lawsuit.
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
Attitude has nothing to do with law. What the policeman was asking him to do was surrender his rights, explicitly granted by the 4th amendment, not to be searched unreasonably. Under the circumstances, I would say it was totally reasonable, if not polite.
Walt
P.S. Come to think of it, when you consider 1st vs 3rd degreee murder, intent / attitude does matter. But not in the case of the cop.
What does this have to do with the rest of the story? I saw no mention of him being forced to sleep outside, or of him or any of his friends being beaten. So he got profiled as a seller and arrested. Big deal sue them for false arrest. He didn't even get cuffed for christs sakes.
Honestly I've been abused more when I got pulled over going 37 in a 30.
Imagine that. People who have taken oaths to enforce the law aren't standing against it? Mon dieu!
Seriously, though, I think that you're really messing up here. If the cops don't enforce laws, they get fired and replaced with cops who do. Furthermore, if the police began to selectively enforce the law, what if they started enforcing laws that seemed ok to them, but to you, seemed wrong? You'd be demanding their asses in no time.
You can't have it both ways. The "they told me to do it" defense actually holds a lot of water. It's only in very rare cases that it doesn't -- really, only when it is absolutely, incontrovertably immoral to enforce a law. I can think of maybe three or four real world examples, and they're all pretty obvious.
But in this case, you can hardly blame the police for enforcing the laws they did. At least, I hope so.
You catch more flies with honey, than vinegar. Which group got more done, in the ongoing battles against discrimination and segregation? Martin Luther King, or the Black Panthers?
/politely/ ask for your lawyer.
What got the British to accept the fact that other nations weren't chattel, to be held and exploited like a resource? The American Revolution, or Ghandi's nonviolent protests?
The fact of the matter is, people today are scared. They don't want to upset the quo, because all they know is the current authoritarian government. By becoming more terrifying than the government, you run the risk of not only justifying the violence of the establishment against you, but also cause the people you are trying to help to fear you.
Don't make it easy for them. Don't give the media a chance to portray you as a bunch of drug addicts and gun nuts trying to overthrow the government. Think and look smart in your protests.
The author, while his heart is in the right place, perhaps, his head wasn't, until he was already in custody. If the officer wants to see what is in your pack, politely say, "I'm sorry, officer, but you need a warrant." If he insists on identification, or information, again,
Don't dress in the latest downtown Kosovo styles, but dress intelligently. Unless there is a reason to be costumed, for example the media-savvy homeless protest mentioned earlier, dress much like those you are protesting. Not only does it make it harder for them to identify the protesters before the protest, but it helps your media image. Everyone expects starving college students to protest. Who expects the well fed, but still outraged I/T professional?
And please, try to keep in mind, that some of the people working for the powers that be, don't do it for an ego trip, or for the money, or because they are, innately, evil. They do it, because they are trying to change things from the inside, and that things would be worse if they weren't there.
Weapons of Mass Analysis
The fact that he ignored that the police regularly forget is his fault. Obviously, the police should have respected his rights, but they didn't and he knew that they weren't going to, especially dressing like a thug and acting like a thug.
This is not the way to protest, plain and simple. If he had not been so beligerant and was either searched without reason or arrested, he would have made his point a lot clearer. True, thugs have rights that should be protected too, but it's a lot easier to sympathize with an innocent protestor than it is a beligerant thug, and he would get more people on his side if he weren't acting like one.
--
He was expecting to have his rights respected.
No he wasn't. He was expecting to go to jail from the start; he was expecting to have his rights trampled on, and he was going to do everything in his power to facilitate that trampling just so he could prove his point. These people make it hard for the police to respect their rights on purpose. It's sad, it's stupid, and it's pointless.
--
Sometimes enforcing bad laws is what gets them changed. That's part of civil disobedience's effectiveness. You're confusing the police with the policy. If you've got a problem with the laws, your problem is with the legislature, not the cops.
They are nothing special in that they are just people like you and I, but anarchy is exactly what would result if there were not a deterrent force. There are any number of people who refuse to govern themselves and must be held in check by the threat of incarceration or some form of punishment (let's be realistic, recidivism rates are so high in our current system that rehabilitation is not a reality). The system isn't perfect, but it beats chaos. As far as what laws would change if none were enforced.... No laws would change. Why bother? How many antiquated laws are still on the books simply because they are universally ignored and not enforced?
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
As Winston Churchill once said, "if you're young and republican, you have no heart, if you're old and democratic, you have no brain".
How's it feel to be a heartless prick? Stupid asshole.
I dont respect the position. I dont agree with half the laws they enforce, so how can I respect the people that enforce them?
No one made any cop be a cop. they do it on their own free will. That means they must agree with what the job enforces.
I dont agree with what the author did either, he's an ass to be blunt. But, people who become police officers are nothing special, they uphold senseless laws and help support a decaying system. I dont believe in anarchy or anything. But imagine what laws would change if no one agreed to enforce them?
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
Two wrongs don't make a right, so it goes. There are really important things to learn here.
1) First and foremost, no matter what the circumstances, the police force abused their authority in Philadelphia. That's what the story is all about.
2) Protesting for no reason at all, what the reporter did, is wrong. It diminishes the importance of the act of protesting and demonstrating.
But, these two wrongs did not balance out. You do not arrest people without "just cause," a primary complaint when debating "profiling." And even though the protester failed in responsibility, no matter how much I may disagree or misunderstand (or agree with), it is a Constitutional right.
Let me state this fine point. People who do actual budgeting and cost analysis for various programs that the government runs are people who have actual degrees in Economics and usually are on Senate or house subcomittees and the like. Or better yet work for the GAO (General Accounting Office) and make a difference. If most of the people in the US were making budget decisions we would be broke in about 3 months if even that long a time.
Respond to s
Guys like this twit gives real causes that need help a bad rep. I will admit being conservitive and republican, but I have been cheering on the anti-WTO just as much as the next guy (who would have figured that both conservitives and radicals have issues with large multi-national power structures?).
On the other hand, it's all about the press for these guys. (It is always about the press to some degree, that's why you protest). But rather then press for some greater purpose, this is just a attempt for lime-light time. How do I know? Where in this article (which is being read by thousands of affluent americans) does the author even mention what he protesting. You don't protest to protest (you riot to riot), you protest to raise the social cost and awareness of issues.
On the other hand, this guy now has his 10 seconds of fame, gets to call policy various names (gee.. anyone else walk away feeling sorry for the police in this story). If I were them I would have simply hand cuffed him, read his rights and dealt with it later.
To badly quote Bush, So much talent to no great purpose.
I agree. When I saw that 40% of my check was going to the government I realized that they must be taking 40% of *everyone's* paycheck. That must mean that it's a complete wash!
At that instant I realized that I wanted them to take 60% of my paycheck, and give a little bit more to NASA.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
but I kinda don't.
:)
:P ). They are there to uphold the law and ensure public saftey, give me one damn good reason why you wouldn't cooperate right then and there. It's stupid. It's on public land patrolled by the police. It is their jurisdiction, and while they can't and won't violate your rights, there's no reason to be an asshole about helping them.... except... You _seem_ to think that being 'oppressed' by the police, when all they did was detain you for a little while during an overwhelmingly intense situation in that town, is either the best way to bring your point across. That, or you just happen to get your rocks off by being taped by the press while getting thrown in the paddy wagon. I don't know your reasons, and I don't care. You were not violated by the government in any way, nor were you physically harmed. Sounds like the police did a fine job to me.
First of all, dude, you -really- suck at reporting your story. Read a book once in a while, learn a little bit about how to effectively write.
It's not that I don't care so much about the protesters, many of whom are peacful. But, for many of the extremists, whose combined combined lack of wisdom, respect for the law, and care for anyone but themselves, coupled with an overall lack of personal responsibility... Well, excuse me if I personally think many of them are assholes.
#1: As made very clear by this story, the "protester's" main goal was to, more than anything, bring the police across as a horrible oppressive force meant to crush the little stupid guy. Sorry, I don't buy it. There's a difference between keeping an air of order and civility and attacking random citizens on the streets. If you refuse to help out those who protect the law and keep people the innnocent of the country safe, then you are an idiot. I'm sorry if you felt like your "rights were violated" when all they wanted to see was your ID. Legally, they couldn't force you to show it, and by all means, you weren't obligated by law to show it or answer any questions without your attourney. But it's your problem if you didn't bring your attourney with you. Trust me, they'll have no problem making one availiable for you (unless you get caught by the oh-so-realistic actors of NYPD Blue
#2: Which brings me to my second point. Bashing the police for doing thier job is unamerican and stupid. I understand protests and revolts, but I do not understand undermining the law of this country, when the people of the country as a whole, through their vote and public expression of their opinion, shapes the law of the land. The police are doing the bidding of the people of a whole. Attacking the police is dumb. They enforce the law, they don't write it.
#3: Maybe your positions really are wrong. And maybe the majority of Americans have come to that conclusion. (People with difereng political views can skip the rest, lest they get mad. Don't say I didn't warn you.) Anti-poverty coalitions? Hell, get off your butt and work if you don't want to be poor. Welfare rights? Complain to God if you think that you should get money and food without struggling or working to get it at all. He's the one who created the world, not the damn government. Just because it can be done nowadays DOES NOT mean it should be done. Partial birth abortion. Guys, my daughter was born at less than 25 weeks old, and managed to make it. There are babies that will never get that chance because of partial birth abortion, and they will be much older than my daughter ever got before birth. It is _WRONG_, and it is murder. Just ask my daughter what she thinks of it. If you can't be responsible for your own child, then find someone who can be. Equal Rights? Try removing affirmative action. The governement should at least be color blind before we can expect our people to be color blind.
Maybe a lot of the protesters just don't get it, and thier target audience understands it.
Of course, this is all just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Really. He had a stand in there? Wow. I must have missed it. He was too busy complaining about the cockroaches, the police and everything else around him. If he was a protestor, he seemed to miss the fundamental point which is to raise awareness of issues.
In this case, given the way he treated everyone around him, I am not suprised that they snagged him. There is no excuse for treating other human beings without respect. Just because someone disagrees with your outlook on life does not mean that you instantly fall into cursing etc...
I feel real sorry for these guys. Protests are one things, whining is another.
You go down there to protest... you volunteer with some activst type to get arrensted, and you are bitching about getting arrested? Am I missing something?
Why do these people bother? I see people like this and all I think is how misguided they are, shake my head, and move on...
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
So, you went down there, specifically, to protest something.
You placed yourself in a group specifically designed to get arrested.
You decided to be both belligerent and evasive to the officer involved.
You declined to provide identification when asked for it.
You implied, on camera, that the officers involved might steal your money.
I say, what DID you expect to happen?
For God's sake, if a cop asks to see your ID, show it to him. You look damned suspicious otherwise. If you weren't carrying any contraband, why bother hiding it. You can crow about "the principle" of it, but the fact is, you're a reporter looking to get a story. So far, your story boils down to "cops picked on me after I gave them reason to".
The cops didn't cuff you. Sounds to me like they held on to you while they checked your record. Standard operating procedure. You were belligerent, uncooperative, acting like you had something to hide. THey didn't cuff you. When you implied they were robbers, they responded by calling you "sir" and assuring that your stuff would still be there. They checked on you to make sure you were comfortable, temperaturewise. WHen they saw you had no record, they released you.
But, because they were cops, they MUST have been wrong, right? God forbid they would ever arrest you, because you MUST be an upstanding citizen. Here's a clue for you - if you intentionally try to make life hard for anyone, they will probably reciprocate.
Sheesh.
1. R-E-S-P-E-C-T (DIS, THAT IS)
If you want to get arrested, nothing tells the cops "troublemaker" quite like someone whose first word to them is "fuck". In fact, for maximum get-arrestedness, make sure that about every fifth spoken word is an invective. Feel free to mix in words like "pig", "lackey", "fascist" and "thug" with the more conventional vulgarities.
Do not: "I'm sorry, Officer, if you'd like to see my bag, I'd like to see your warrant." This is too polite and subtle.
Do: "Eat penguin shit, you ass spelunker. No fucking way am I letting you pigs get in my bag without a Goddamned warrant!"
2. WHO'S DA MAN? (YOU ARE!)
Never forget who's the really cool/hip/in-charge guy. You are. And if you're feeling generous, you can bestow Magic Coolness on your buddies, too. That means that anyone who gets in your way, even for the most routine of things, is automatically Naughty In The Sight Of God, and deserves a good smiting.
Do not: "Identification? Why, sure, Officer, here's my driver's license." This actually treats the officer like he's a human being who's doing a job. Since the officer is getting in your way and is Naughty In The Sight Of God, this is a no-no.
Do: "You can have my identification when you pry it out of my COLD DEAD FINGERS! LEONARD PELTIER WAS FRAMED! YAAAAAHHHHHHHH!" Even this is not optimal. For best effect, use various profanities and insults liberally (see point 1 above).
3. ALL THE WOMEN LOVE DANGEROUS MEN.
Let's face it. Nothing turns on those lady cops quite as much as a sweaty, smelly, foul-mouthed Lothario. They want your attentions and affections. If they say otherwise, they're just playing hard to get.
Do not: "I'm just heading to the Port-A-Johns, ma'am." This is respectful, it treats her as if she's not Naughty In The Sight Of God for getting in your way, and you're missing on a perfect opportunity for police poontang.
Do: "Yeah, baby. I'm just heading to the Port-A-Johns... say. Does the little piggy wanna get porked?" Rude, crude, crass and utterly offensive to any woman within earshot. This is just about perfect.
4. REMEMBER:
No matter what, The Man is trying to get you down. The Man is trying to break you like a twig. The Man wants you dead, crushed underfoot like a snake.
Do not: "Thank you for helping me with directions, Officer." Don't thank the pigs. Everything they say is a lie.
Do: "Yeah, I'm sure you'd LIKE me to believe that the street ahead is closed! <shoves aside cop, charges forward anyway>"
* * * * *
If you do all the above diligently, you, too, can get arrested! And afterwards, you can write a self-important screed about how evil The Man is and how Naughty In The Sight Of God the Man is, and how your rude, subhuman, and utterly crass behavior is actually the culmination of two hundred years of American civilization.
Hmmmm, let's see...
"What's in your vest?"
[...]
"Left my 'nades at home, officer."
"Let's see what's in your backpack."
"Fuck no. You need an arrest warrant for that."
OK, and you were expecting exactly what from the police at this point? A smile and a wave?
In my backpack were several pieces of soggy clothing, and a folded flak jacket nothing explicitly illegal, but I didn't feel like baring all to the first cop that asked.
So you wanted to go to jail as soon as possible, instead of staying out on the street as a protester, being more effective.
You, sir, are an idiot.
I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
Demonstrations are supposed to be shows of support for some cause, person, ideal, whatever. The idea that people were being recruited that were looking to be arrested is comical. It shows how activism in this country has degenerated into spiteful, self-aggrandizement.
The local news radio broadcast carried a so-called "activist" taunting a police officer with things like, "Have you ever felt love?" That shows the simplistic outlook of so many of these demonstrators. Haven't we gotten past the od "Off the pigs" mentality yet?
There were also many groups deliberately blocking traffic. I don't know about anyone else, but if I see people blocking traffic my first thought is "Get these assholes off the street so I can get to work/home/South Street/wherever." I can't imagine anyone saying, "WOW, they're blocking traffic! I wonder if I can join their cause-- whatever it is."
And it doesn't matter whether I agree with their cause or not; thanks to the sensationalistic actions of some, I'll never know what they were protesting. Could have been any one of a number of things. I might have even joined them.
Berkemer v. McCarty (1984) 468 US 420 allows an officer to arrest someone in order to obtain a person's identity if they refuse. But it does not make it a crime for the individual to refuse:r t=US&vol=468&invol=420
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?cou
Gregory S. (1980) 112 CA 3d 764, 779 refers to a "vagrancy law", Penal Code 647(e) that "imposes a duty to identify oneself when such person loiters or wanders upon the streets or from place to place without apparent reason or business, and the surrounding circumstances reasonably indicate that the public safety demands identification." but this was overturned in Kolender v. Lawson (1983) 461 U.S. 352, although it remains on the books.
Basically, unless you're on parole or in violation of a traffic code, not showing ID is not a crime... but it does give the police certain rights to make your life tough in order to determine your identity.