Police Disperse Bush Protesters with Pepper Paintballs

help_cecil_help writes "The AP has this story on how Bush protesters in Jacksonville Oregon were dispersed by local police using 'pepperballs.' The Jacksonville City Administrator described the projectiles as 'like a paintball filled with cayenne pepper'."

Comments

Re:to all Americans out there

[tid242]

Jacksonville City Administrator Paul Wyntergreen said the protest was peaceful until a few people started pushing police.

99% of the time this is utter bullshit, reminds me of when a cop calls someone a "stupid fucking nigger" and when someone points out that the cop's a racist asshole, he/she's arrested for "harassing an officer" or some such other nonesense.

-tid242

Sounds bad

[Psmylie]

But it's difficult to say what really happened. When you have that many people together, in an emotionally charged environment, small things can trigger large incidents.

I've personally seen this happen before, during Critical Mass (an event where a large number of bicyclists essentially take over the streets). The police were keeping an eye on the situation, and 99% of the participants were well-behaved. Then a few people broke the law (ran a red light) and suddenly the police began chasing people down, yanking them off their bikes (which were tossed onto a flatbed truck) and arresting a few who protested the unfair treatment.

At this particular protest, there may have been a few hotheads in the front (there usually are) who decided to push the police. Then the police (who were probably just waiting for an excuse anyway) treated the whole crowd as potentially hostile, instead of just the agitators. Did the police over-react? I'd say yes. But I wasn't at that protest, so I can't say for sure. My advice is, if you are holding a protest, always have someone who is some distance away film the entire event. Heck, have several, from different vantage points. That way, if the police aren't justified in their actions, you have the proof right there, and proper steps can be taken.

In Southern Oregon

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The protestors were lucky the police weren't firing grenade launchers.

I protested the first Gulf War in Klamath Falls, and while the police weren't out in force, pro-Bush (I) protesters were there with shotguns- and the next night I skipped the protest to do homework only to hear my roommate's watercolor peace sign pulled off the door. When I opened the door, I got a ring in my eye and 7 stiches.

Re:In Southern Oregon

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Oddly enough I wasn't thinking about that- I was just trying to comment on my own meandering experience in the area.

But it's a darn good example of the process, isn't it? And just like I posted in that other thread you don't have to make stuff up to get the point across- Everything I said was true. I even ended up getting $400 for my $800 medical bill paid- as a fine for the guy that hit me. I still have the scar over my left eye- though it's usually hidden by an eyebrow- and I plan on showing it to my grandchildren as a warning about the careless use of freedom of speech.

Bloody Sunday.

[tid242]

You find it hard to believe that anyone of the hundreds of protestors was being violent or aggressive with the police? Hell when you get that many angry people together I would find it hard to believe.

Have you ever BEEN in a protest? There are always people who just want to fuck things up and make a scene.

Yes, like Bloody Sunday, where the word of the paratroopers *totally* justified the 27 people they shot, 13 of which were killed... Police PR tactics typically play the "blame the victm" game, which i'm just saying is fallacious, and generally untrustworthy.

-tid242

Re:Teachers' T-shirts bring Bush speech ouster

[BrynM]

Thanks for the response. I missed the "back" part of your statement. Sorry about that. An account by NPR of other Bush events stated that the tickets didn't have disclaimers, but there was an agreement with the RNC of loyalty given at purchase (can't find the link to the broadcast). So, you are correct: They did have to agree to gladhand.

I do stand by the idea that the "Hitler" remark was somewhat inflamatory on your part and others seem to agree. This is a subjective argument about an example though, so let's just pretend your shirts just said something the organizers of the conceptual party disagreed with. Sure, they have a right to kick someone out of their private party, but the rules change somewhat when a public official enters the equation. Not many private parties can get the Secret Service to shake you down and kick you out. This blurs the line further since the Secret Service is a taxpayer paid institution. Even if it's okay for all of this, it's also okay for the rest of us to think that the party organizers are narrow minded assholes.

This has nothing to do with Rights or the Constitution. Any private establishment has the right to toss you out, so long as they don't base it on race, religion, etc. You do not have any "right" to be there.

Um, the ideas about rights started with your original post. To refresh memory:

Third, what about the rights of other 99.9% to gather peacefully and have a feel-good, rah-rah session without having to deal with Captain Bringdown and the Buzzkills?

I agree that private parties have rules, but this is a pseudo-private party. I wouldn't invite you to my party, but I also wouldn't invite the press while I made a speech providing them with sound bites. (My friends wouldn't care what you wore or did by the way - they would only be entertained. We're a really tolerant bunch.)

Re:I think you missed my point

[Penis_Envy]

And as far as protesting in the streets is concerned, I consider it to be the lowest form of protesting. Holding signs and yelling at the president is quite possibly the least effective means of getting your point made. Yes, I still support it as legal, but such situations are often dangerous, and rarely lead to any good...

I would be curious to hear how you think people would better protest. How else should they be heard?

I'm curious, exactly what anti-speech actions are you talking about?

He's probably referring to the premature and/or mass arrests of protesters taking advantage of "the lowest form of protesting" (your words.) I think he may be talking about protesters (again, practicing "the lowest form") being cordoned off into a "free speech zone" blocks away from events.

Just google for "Bush" and "freedom of speech". Please make note of the quotes. You will get ironically different results without them.

Theres no way not to condemn the story as written

[Crashmarik]

The right to peacefull protest is enshrined in everything we are about.

I would like something a little better than just the written word of the mainstream press that something happened. The AP has been doing alot of silent retractions on stories lately. The most infamous when they falsely reported that a republican rally had booed President Clintons good health.

This election has raised the question of the honesty of the press to a new level, while I am loathe to recomend curtailing freespeach the current libel/slander laws are clearly insufficient to curtail abuse. Perhaps Something like an honesty bond or bounty is neccesesary to keep the process honest.

Re:Teachers' T-shirts bring Bush speech ouster

[jerde]

I think it would be an interesting thought experiment to consider a different alternative "private event" besides a rock concert. Maybe a similar speaking engagement. Say, for example, it were the CEO of a large business speaking at a private gathering.

Say the CEO of Coca Cola were speaking, and I bought a ticket to attend and showed up wearing a Pepsi shirt. The Coke goons could conceivably (and quite legally) evict me from the event.

In my mind, at least, I'm much less upset by that scenario than by the very similar situation of a political candidate. Why? Because a candidate for public office, and especially an incumbent office holder, works in the public sector. To me that changes the rules just a little bit -- not legally, but ethically.

The whole concept of a sitting president making a campaign speech a "private" event is what bothers us, I think. Yes, on purely legal grounds they're within their rights to evict anyone they want. But there are troubling ethical issues with that, because the lines begin to blur a bit between "public" and "private" with a public official using some amount of public funds for security and transportation etc. to be at the event in the first place.

I would argue that the t-shirt evictions were legal, but ethically not right.

- Peter

Re:Not 1, but 2.

[TheLink]

That's what worries some of us in the rest of the world.

The US people don't want to know or seem to care. Look at the response to Diebold, Iraq + "WMD".

When we say we don't support Bush, they say stupid stuff like: "That's because we don't want a strong America". Or we are lying/just-as-evil "Democrats". Doh! Just look at many of the postings here.

There was a strong America for gulf war I and AFAIK much of the world was fairly supportive up till the US gov did some dubious stuff post sep 11.

Dunno why so many US ppl don't seem to get it when/why the very same allies/neutrals that said "Go ahead, attack Iraq" when Iraq attacked Kuwait, said a very different thing when the US wanted to start Gulf War II.

AFAIK many of us don't mind a strong America. A "stupid/evil and strong America" is what worries us.

The US playing "World Police" is OK. It's when the US starts heading down the path towards "World Dictator" that scares us.

Face it US folk. We were right to say there was no justification for the 2nd Iraq war based on the official reasons given - we could see your leaders were not being _honest_ about the war. Whether they lied is another matter - but the lack of honesty was obvious to us, we don't understand fully why it wasn't obvious to you. EVEN NOW, the US Gov gets away with: "aw shucks, oops looks like the info wasn't good, oh well aren't you glad Saddam is out of power now?".

Doh. When the World Most Powerful Nation goes against the most of world opinion, unilaterally attacks an already hamstrung nation ruled by a evil dictator and most importantly doesn't give honest reasons for doing so, it's missing the point completely to swallow the "aren't you glad Saddam is gone" line.

Remember: being honest is not the same as not telling lies. When very many people say "you're wrong", if you really care about the truth, you should at least recheck the "facts", rather than keep massaging them till they look good to you.

I don't see how people can conclude Bush and the US Gov were honest.

You don't get out much, do you?

[Engineer-Poet]

A quick search turns up an article on the arrest of people whose "crime" was to desire to hold signs critical of Bush's policies where they would be visible from his motorcade. This policy of arresting and jailing people who criticize Bush in public appears to be official policy of the "Justice" Department under Bush.

A government which is abiding by the law would be firing and prosecuting the Secret Service agents and police officials responsible for these outrages, rather than institutionalizing the violation of civil rights under color of law. A government which abuses the power of arrest to "protect" the President from seeing people who disagree with his policies is not a government which is abiding by the Constitution, and to allow it to remain in office one day longer is to place all rights in jeopardy. The bastard has violated his oath of office (so much for his claim of "keeping his word"), and voting him out is the duty of everyone who holds the Constitution to heart.

Which, unfortunately, isn't all that many people these days.

Dunno

[Erwos]

I'm always reminded of the paper I wrote on the World Bank and IMF riots in Seattle and DC - specifically on the topic of riot control.

"The Battle of Seattle" happened because there were inadequately trained cops confronted by a huge number of unruly protesters. They _didn't_ take steps to crack down on the situation, and things spiralled rapidly out of control.

A good account from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/54 7581.s tm

The part to take away from there is that, indeed, some people come to these events for violent reasons.

Compare this to DC. In DC, the situation was almost as intense, but the cops raided a bunch of organizations the day before, and made quite a few arrests on the first day. While this was of dubious legality, DC didn't experience massive rioting, either.

In case you didn't follow my logic, "excessive force" can often prevent an unruly protest from turning into a full-blown riot. No, this is not a blanket statement intended to justify everything the police do - but /.'ers hundreds or thousands of miles away are not really in the position to say whether or not the situation calls for it.

Now, the measures taken here don't compare to Seattle or DC. I've seen the cops shooting pepperballs at people who were rioting after the Maryland-Duke game, and while they hurt, they're hardly going to permenantly injure people. Bullhorns don't work for this sort of thing, and pepper balls are a damned sight better than nightsticks and fire hoses.

Most likely, the cops got shoved around a bit and over-reacted. I am sympathetic to the protesters, but the cops are always put in a bad situation by these sorts of events, too.

Crying "FASCISM!" because some county cops were scared and probably somewhat badly trained is laughable. No one even got hurt, for crying out loud!

This is no Kent State, in other words. Not even close.

-Erwos