Video showing the brutality of the Egyptian police force, killing and stripping protesters with bato
66 replies, posted
[QUOTE=thispieiscold;33849835]of course the protests are going to take some time, you can't expect progress instantly
and what exactly is so threatening about staring at a police officer, or walking near them, attacking someone based on those reasons should show that they're too paranoid or mad with power to have weaponry and the power to arrest civilians[/QUOTE]
So if someone you didn't know just walked right up to you in the streets and stared at you and didn't go away you'd be fine and not freaked out at all?
[QUOTE=CrispexOps;33853549]Are you guys not understanding what I'm saying? As a cop, if someone is moving toward you, especially during protests, and they're provoking you into a response, that's threatening.[/QUOTE]
Police are trained to deal with aggressive people. You shouldn't respond with violence until there is an actual indication that they intend to be violent against you. Walking close and looking at you does not fall under an act of violence.
[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;33853734]So if someone you didn't know just walked right up to you in the streets and stared at you and didn't go away you'd be fine and not freaked out at all?[/QUOTE]
well i'm pretty sure no one has or ever will walk up to a police officer and stare at them for a good deal of time even when asked to leave
[QUOTE=squids_eye;33853984]Police are trained to deal with aggressive people. You shouldn't respond with violence until there is an actual indication that they intend to be violent against you. Walking close and looking at you does not fall under an act of violence.[/QUOTE]
Technically pepper spray and tear gas isn't considered a violent act. It's considered riot control. Get to know some police officers, they'll tell you straight up how it is. Fortunately I've got a few family members including a close uncle who serve in the police, and we've had these discussions multiple times.
During times of civil unrest, which even "peaceful" protests fall under, guard is constantly kept up. Every single movement is analyzed and acted upon accordingly. The protesters who were pepper sprayed at UC were considered to be blocking the path of police officials. In most states, preventing an officer from gaining access to a public area (meaning no warrant is needed) is considered means for aggressive removal. If a cop grabs you by your arm, and you go dead weight and don't move, you are resisting. Nothing else to it. Just because you're not using incredible force to keep yourself in place, does NOT mean it's not resistance. If a cop grabs you and attempts to pull you up, by law you are required to stand, again, otherwise it's resistance. Whether or not you are convicted of it, is entirely up to the court, but you CAN be restrained for doing such things.
Police officers are there to protect the general public. They are not there to protect your personal freedoms much like many would like to assume. They are there to keep order, prevent violence, and control damage done to public and private property.
There is a difference between protesting and occupying. Protesting is standing outside with picket signs, getting petitions signed, etc. When you occupy a place, meaning you setup camp without any intention of leaving within a reasonable time frame, you are being a public disruption. When the protesters overtook the Brooklyn bridge, and blocked access to traffic, they were committing a crime by disputing the flow of traffic. The same thing applies if I parked my car in the middle of the street.
Public property does not give people the right to do whatever they want, contrary to belief. "Public property" is technically owned by the city. And as someone who lives in a city, I personally find the occupy movements to be more deterring against local businesses than it does good. These protesters are going off on how big business is ruining America and financial inequality is causing this country to break apart, etc. etc. Yet these small family bakeries, grocery stores, etc. are all seeing negative effects INCLUDING vandalism as a result of the occupy movement.
Already there have been multiple reports of sexual assault at the camps, theft, fights, etc. Anywhere large groups of people are, there is bound to be trouble at one point.
I could see if something was actually coming of this, but it's not. That's the sad reality that many people here simply don't understand. I go to work each day and do my job. The government takes out about 15% of my paycheck, the gas company takes another 5%, utilities, etc. All owned by huge corporations. In a given paycheck, I only really get about 35% of it, and after food, gas, car maintenance, etc. I've only really got about 3% of it left. Is it fair that I only get that much of my paycheck? No. I put in the time, I get up each morning and fight through the morning commute, why? Because that's the way life is. These protesters seem to think they've got it the worst. No they don't. You've got people who worked their entire lives, who are 80 years old and unable to retire. You get up, go to work, come home, and do the same shit over again. Those 1%, they have the money they have because they decided to do something. Whether or not it's good business practice, whether or not they got it a decent way, it doesn't matter. If a single person can rise up and control a corporation, so can these protesters. Instead of going out and trying to find their own path in life, they're sitting in a public park, bitching about how bad they've got it. Instead of being lucky they even got to go to college, they're bitching about how they're poor and corporation owners are rich. I had to wait 3 years after high school to go to college. I wasn't able to get the loans I needed, I wasn't able to turn to my parents for a co-signer. No. I had to save up, build my credit, etc. I'm still paying back student loans, but I'm not bitching about it.
[QUOTE=CrispexOps;33856658]Technically pepper spray and tear gas isn't considered a violent act. It's considered riot control. Get to know some police officers, they'll tell you straight up how it is. Fortunately I've got a few family members including a close uncle who serve in the police, and we've had these discussions multiple times.
During times of civil unrest, which even "peaceful" protests fall under, guard is constantly kept up. Every single movement is analyzed and acted upon accordingly. The protesters who were pepper sprayed at UC were considered to be blocking the path of police officials. In most states, preventing an officer from gaining access to a public area (meaning no warrant is needed) is considered means for aggressive removal. If a cop grabs you by your arm, and you go dead weight and don't move, you are resisting. Nothing else to it. Just because you're not using incredible force to keep yourself in place, does NOT mean it's not resistance. If a cop grabs you and attempts to pull you up, by law you are required to stand, again, otherwise it's resistance. Whether or not you are convicted of it, is entirely up to the court, but you CAN be restrained for doing such things.[/quote]
going back to a news report about a month ago, standing and stoically spraying sitting protesters with military grade pepper spray is not "aggressive removal", seeing as he wasn't even telling them to move. i don't see how spraying protesters would aid the situation at all
[quote]Police officers are there to protect the general public. They are not there to protect your personal freedoms much like many would like to assume. They are there to keep order, prevent violence, and control damage done to public and private property.[/quote]
if they were to protect the protesters like the authority does at the TEA party protests, there would probably be a lot less violence, and damage done to public and private property
[quote]There is a difference between protesting and occupying. Protesting is standing outside with picket signs, getting petitions signed, etc. When you occupy a place, meaning you setup camp without any intention of leaving within a reasonable time frame, you are being a public disruption. When the protesters overtook the Brooklyn bridge, and blocked access to traffic, they were committing a crime by disputing the flow of traffic. The same thing applies if I parked my car in the middle of the street.[/quote]
isn't one of your amendment rights the ability to protest whenever and wherever you like? there's no point of that right if you must leave within a certain time frame
[quote]Public property does not give people the right to do whatever they want, contrary to belief. "Public property" is technically owned by the city. And as someone who lives in a city, I personally find the occupy movements to be more deterring against local businesses than it does good. These protesters are going off on how big business is ruining America and financial inequality is causing this country to break apart, etc. etc. Yet these small family bakeries, grocery stores, etc. are all seeing negative effects INCLUDING vandalism as a result of the occupy movement.[/quote]
most of the people there don't vandalize private or public property, that's not the point of the protests.
a few do because they're under anonymity, and they do what would normally be deemed social unacceptable because that's just the way human nature is
[quote]Already there have been multiple reports of sexual assault at the camps, theft, fights, etc. Anywhere large groups of people are, there is bound to be trouble at one point.[/quote]
find me three reports of each and i'll believe you
[quote]I could see if something was actually coming of this, but it's not. That's the sad reality that many people here simply don't understand. I go to work each day and do my job. The government takes out about 15% of my paycheck, the gas company takes another 5%, utilities, etc. All owned by huge corporations. In a given paycheck, I only really get about 35% of it, and after food, gas, car maintenance, etc. I've only really got about 3% of it left. Is it fair that I only get that much of my paycheck? No. I put in the time, I get up each morning and fight through the morning commute, why? Because that's the way life is. These protesters seem to think they've got it the worst. No they don't. You've got people who worked their entire lives, who are 80 years old and unable to retire. You get up, go to work, come home, and do the same shit over again. Those 1%, they have the money they have because they decided to do something. Whether or not it's good business practice, whether or not they got it a decent way, it doesn't matter. If a single person can rise up and control a corporation, so can these protesters. Instead of going out and trying to find their own path in life, they're sitting in a public park, bitching about how bad they've got it. Instead of being lucky they even got to go to college, they're bitching about how they're poor and corporation owners are rich. I had to wait 3 years after high school to go to college. I wasn't able to get the loans I needed, I wasn't able to turn to my parents for a co-signer. No. I had to save up, build my credit, etc. I'm still paying back student loans, but I'm not bitching about it.[/QUOTE]
so you'll just let giant corporations fuck you over, and let yourself and others be overtaxed because thats just the way it is? the occupy protests are for the people, and if you actually knew what they were protesting you would know that they're for increasing taxes for the rich, and to try and put a stop to lobbying and government corruption, and the reason a lot of elderly folk don't want to protest is because they know they're too unable to face the police and SWAT teams.
a lot of the 1% got there through inheritance and having rich parents anyway, we all didn't start out in middle-class suburbia
and stop making these massive generalizations, i highly doubt you've got it worse than every single protester there
A while back I thought Egypt wasn't fucked up anymore.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.