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.
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.
While I'm not sure I'm for school vouchers, "fixing the schools" is easier said than done. The teachers' unions are firmly entrenched. The schools' administration's hands are tied in numerous ways. i.e., the inability to expel certain kids, the inability to meaningfully punish them, requirements to have so and so many "advisors" and "administrators", etc. There exists a general apathy and a lack of appreciation for "decent education." If school vouchers could shake things up a bit, it just might be worth it.
As for taxes, I don't believe that funding is really the issue here per se. Public school teachers make substantially more money than private school teachers on average. Public schools demand things like "teaching" degrees, which are essentially meaningless pieces of paper (i'd far rather see a college graduate as a teacher with a meaningfull degree). What's more, the funding differential between your average private school (minus sports programs and the like) and public school is quite small (and even LESS if you include parochial schools) despite drastic outperformance on the part of private schools. Furthermore, did you know that we spend more money on public education than most of the developed world, yet see some of the worst results.
In my opinion, the public schools just need to be shook up--starting with the unions--then with overregulation--then with testing standards....
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.
Are you an American? If so, you are profiting from the WAY lower standards in the US during the 1800s and first part of this century. 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 indiginous 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 familar with US history.
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."
This is yet another reason why the rest of the world hates Americans.
What political process? America is no longer a Democracy, the state is ruled by corporate interests. The system is fixed. Simple.
Please point out the time, date, and place where the average person had more of a say in how their government worked.
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.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
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.