• G20 protest videos
    275 replies, posted
I think you confused the Anarchist Cookbook with the Freedom Fighter's Manual. The latter of which WAS published by the CIA. [editline]08:20PM[/editline] And the dude who wrote the Anarchist Cookbook disowned it and tried to have it taken out of print.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17541838]I think you confused the Anarchist Cookbook with the Freedom Fighter's Manual. The latter of which WAS published by the CIA.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I was talking about that. But regardless, The Anarchists Cookbook does not actually portray the ideology.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17541687][url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/us/12pittsburgh.html?_r=1[/url] Days before Code Pink's case and the disregard to permits entirely.[/QUOTE] Where does it say all six of the groups won?
[QUOTE=Lankist;17541731]Source on your claims. Now. I am not going to acknowledge your claims of violence until you show me some numbers. They DID. The ACLU did and still is suing the entire city. [editline]08:14PM[/editline] Source. And do I need to bring up the CIA's Freedom Fighter's Manual?[/QUOTE] Look at the videos. It's obvious that the crowds were unruly and mixed by the night, and throughout the first day acts of violence and damage were being committed throughout the city. 45,000$ worth. That's as much numbers as I can supply, I'm afraid. Suing afterward doesn't help. But since they feel that they should have been able to freely assault police, cause damage, black traffic, cause business loss, disturb the peace, and protest in a residential area, it's good that they're suing. It's their right. Source for what? That the anarchist groups were violent? See the video, and it was primarily them who were damaging property- infact them doing so is what called the officers to Forbes Avenue near William Pitt. But I guess I'm out of the argument since I'm sourceless.
No. I'm not going to take internet videos as facts. Find me a factual source. [editline]08:21PM[/editline] Something with real evidence attached to it.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17541896]No. I'm not going to take internet videos as facts. Find me a factual source. [editline]08:21PM[/editline] Something with real evidence attached to it.[/QUOTE] Nothing more real than a first person video of an event.
You're pulling the 45,000 out of your ass with no source attributed. [editline]08:23PM[/editline] [QUOTE=DPennington;17541920]Nothing more real than a first person video of an event.[/QUOTE] Yes. There is. A single ten minute video is a single ten minute video. One camera, one group. It does NOT represent the whole. [editline]08:23PM[/editline] This video tells an entirely different story [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akwjAjcQnqM[/url] This is why you need a real fucking reputable source.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17541922]You're pulling the 45,000 out of your ass with no source attributed.[/QUOTE] I actually have a source for that. [url]http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/g20/21121306/detail.html[/url]. I guess it's closer to 50$k now.
[QUOTE=DPennington;17541947]I actually have a source for that. [url]http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/g20/21121306/detail.html[/url]. I guess it's closer to 50$k now.[/QUOTE] It also says that there are 40 people arrested. Out of 4.5 thousand. That is hardly a riot. [editline]08:25PM[/editline] And $50,000 dollars in damage is just a few storefront windows. It is actually very little.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17541922] This video tells an entirely different story [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akwjAjcQnqM[/url] This is why you need a real fucking reputable source.[/QUOTE] Disturbing the peace, blocking the roads, possibly in harm's way.
ONE dude committed $20,000 in damages. ONE. [editline]08:26PM[/editline] [QUOTE=DPennington;17541985]Disturbing the peace, blocking the roads, possibly in harm's way.[/QUOTE] Misdemeanors. Not riot.
-snip for wrong post-
Unlawful assembly (riot) is the assembly of individuals the the common goal of committing crime. Single individuals committing crime does not constitute unlawful assembly. [editline]08:27PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Archy;17542005]Still, that's property damage. They had to disperse them before it got worse.[/QUOTE] 40 people out of 4.5 thousand. No.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17541969]It also says that there are 40 people arrested. Out of 4.5 thousand. That is hardly a riot. [editline]08:25PM[/editline] And $50,000 dollars in damage is just a few storefront windows. It is actually very little.[/QUOTE] You wanna pay 50k? And only 40 people were arrested because the groups were so large. You expect that they'd be able to go and arrest every single wrongdoer- they don't have that power, which is why they needed to get the whole group in check and disperse non protesters.
They didn't have to disperse at all. You are raking property damage over the first amendment. That is fucking stupid.
[quote]They didn't have to disperse at all. You are raking property damage over the first amendment. That is fucking stupid.[/quote] They did have to disperse. It doesn't matter if it was "only 50k" in damage and supposedly done "only" 40 people (source on that BTW) felonies were commited. The groups needed to be split up before things got worse.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17542009]Unlawful assembly (riot) is the assembly of individuals the the common goal of committing crime. Single individuals committing crime does not constitute unlawful assembly. [editline]08:27PM[/editline] 40 people out of 4.5 thousand. No.[/QUOTE] Permitless assembly is a crime. And one individual did that much, how much would have been done if they were allowed to go unchecked?
[QUOTE=DPennington;17542021]You wanna pay 50k? And only 40 people were arrested because the groups were so large. You expect that they'd be able to go and arrest every single wrongdoer- they don't have that power, which is why they needed to get the whole group in check and disperse non protesters.[/QUOTE] ONE person committed $20,000 in damages. ONE. I DO expect them to arrest every single wrongdoer because that's their fucking JOB as cops. I do NOT expect them to punish 4.5 thousand people for the sake of avoiding having to do their fucking job. 40 people were arrested. Those are the violent ones that committed serious crimes. If you knew the first thing about riots, you'd realize violence does NOT get tolerated. Violent individuals are detained IMMEDIATELY. [editline]08:30PM[/editline] [QUOTE=DPennington;17542047]Permitless assembly is a crime. And one individual did that much, how much would have been done if they were allowed to go unchecked?[/QUOTE] "Permitless assembly" cannot be enforced if it abridges an individual's right to peacefully assemble. I've explained this time and time again. By the by please stop making up legal terms.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17542034]They didn't have to disperse at all. You are raking property damage over the first amendment. That is fucking stupid.[/QUOTE] Yes, I am, because I believe that the right to security or your property and your ability to pursue happiness through peaceful living and use of small business to gain a profit is more important than a bunch of violent protesters right to protest without a permit when it's not that hard to get one int he first place.
It's insulting to those of us who know what the fuck they're talking about. [editline]08:30PM[/editline] [QUOTE=DPennington;17542090]Yes, I am, because I believe that the right to security or your property and your ability to pursue happiness through peaceful living and use of small business to gain a profit is more important than a bunch of violent protesters right to protest without a permit when it's not that hard to get one int he first place.[/QUOTE] The Supreme Court begs to differ. See, they say otherwise, and unlike you, when THEY say something is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional. [editline]08:31PM[/editline] Yet again, permits are NOT federally recognized. They do NOT override the First Amendment. They are a Joke.
[quote]The Supreme Court begs to differ. See, they say otherwise, and unlike you, when THEY say something is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional.[/QUOTE] So you're saying I can bash up your house and claim it was part of peaceful protest? [b]SWEET![/b]
[QUOTE=Lankist;17542055]ONE person committed $20,000 in damages. ONE. I DO expect them to arrest every single wrongdoer because that's their fucking JOB as cops. I do NOT expect them to punish 4.5 thousand people for the sake of avoiding having to do their fucking job. 40 people were arrested. Those are the violent ones that committed serious crimes. If you knew the first thing about riots, you'd realize violence does NOT get tolerated. Violent individuals are detained IMMEDIATELY. [editline]08:30PM[/editline] "Permitless assembly" cannot be enforced if it abridges an individual's right to peacefully assemble. I've explained this time and time again. By the by please stop making up legal terms.[/QUOTE] Go ahead, take a crowd of 40,000 unruly people who are not organized because their protest was not planned. Now throw in 40+ violent people randomly int here. Now add a bunch of people screaming at police and fucking shit back at them. Now find me those 40 people. We don't have the means to do that. Dispersing an unruly crowd and getting people out of harm's way is more important than their right to assemble, especially since they were not permitted or properly organized and the groups were highly mixed, as well as the violent acts being committed.
[QUOTE=Archy;17542133]So you're saying I can bash up your house and claim it was part of peaceful protest? [b]SWEET![/b][/QUOTE] No. That's illegal. If 4.5 thousand people protest on a public street and ONE person bashes up your house, you cannot violate the rights of the 4,499 remaining peaceful individuals.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17542152]No. That's illegal. If 4.5 thousand people protest on a public street and ONE person bashes up your house, you cannot violate the rights of the 4,499 remaining peaceful individuals.[/QUOTE] I'll put it like this. Say you're in elementary school, playing in a group game. One kid starts turning violent, and eventually a few more do. The group has to be split up, before the violence grows.
[QUOTE=DPennington;17542149]Go ahead, take a crowd of 40,000 unruly people who are not organized because their protest was not planned. Now throw in 40+ violent people randomly int here. Now add a bunch of people screaming at police and fucking shit back at them. Now find me those 40 people. We don't have the means to do that. Dispersing an unruly crowd and getting people out of harm's way is more important than their right to assemble, especially since they were not permitted or properly organized and the groups were highly mixed, as well as the violent acts being committed.[/QUOTE] That sucks so bad cops having to do their job! BUT IT'S SO HARD TO FIND CRIMINALS WHY CAN'T WE JUST PUNISH EVERYONE! You are fucking illiterate.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17542055] By the by please stop making up legal terms.[/QUOTE] Not making up legal terms. I never claimed it was a legal term. One does not have a permit, therefore they are permit-less.
Lankist, this is failed cause. They can't seem to grasp this.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17542176]That sucks so bad cops having to do their job! BUT IT'S SO HARD TO FIND CRIMINALS WHY CAN'T WE JUST PUNISH EVERYONE! You are fucking illiterate.[/QUOTE] They weren't punishing everyone, they were trying to get crowds under control, organized, or dispersed.
[QUOTE=Archy;17542160]But you said it was 40 earlier...?[/QUOTE] You said in your hypothetical situation that one person bashed up your house. You punish that ONE person. You don't punish 4.5 thousand people for the actions of that one person.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17542195]You said in your hypothetical situation that one person bashed up your house. You punish that ONE person. You don't punish 4.5 thousand people for the actions of that one person.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but 40 people did that to other houses and such too.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.