Police rip 'clothes' (tent) off female ‘Occupy Melbourne’ protester
357 replies, posted
Two minds about this one. Firstly, I don't think it was particularly violent as most of the struggle came from the protestor. Although, they should have checked on her afterwards.
However, you could argue that this was baiting. She only wore underwear under the tent because she thought that would make them think twice about removing the tent. She was wrong.
How many of you entered this to see pictures
Be honest
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;33609620]here's your valid response:
she was a threat to the community that the police are there to protect from harm. they set the rule in place that you can't pitch tents in the public parks because they didn't want a tent city being set up like the parks used by other occupy movements, which were usually quite damaged and vandalized. they forcibly took her tent because it was prohibited and she refused both to leave and to change her clothing. besides being covered up, she needed no other help. it's not like she was dangling from a high wire, she was just sitting on the ground in her underwear for a few seconds before someone got her a banner to wrap around her body.
the police weren't deciding what she could or couldn't wear here, they were enforcing the rule that you can't pitch a tent in public parks, which she did. what she was wearing was a completely functional, real, pitched tent, with holes cut for her to limbs to fit through.[/QUOTE]
I know there have been concerns about hygiene in America, but not so in Australia. These protests are a hell of a lot smaller, and a fuckload cleaner. Nothing has been damaged or vandalized beyond usual wear and tear; you should see some of these places after public celebrations (try Fed Square - which was one place protesters were kicked out - after a public holiday. That would beat any mess these people make in a heartbeat, and anyone who has seen thousands of people crammed into that place when an event is on would agree). The police are using the no camping rule to justify violating these people's rights - people camp in parks all the time, and aren't forcibly removed (unlike the US, we don't fine people for being homeless, for the most part).
Also, your defence that someone draped a banner around her is not valid - those were the actions of bystanders, not the police. For all intents and purposes, the police left her lying in a public place in her bra and underwear. What the protesters did to help her afterwards is not relevant. For a similar (somewhat exaggerated) example, you couldn't excuse police brutality because a by-stander supplied medical assistance afterwards.
If you seriously think a teenage girl walking around in a public park wearing a tent is a valid threat to Australian society, I cannot converse with you because you're too fucking idiotic.
Also, you keep saying it was a 'completely functional' tent with holes cut out for her head and limbs. Um... that would make it non-functional, mate; anyone who has ever been camping or used their brain would realize camping with a tent with massive holes in it is a ridiculously stupid idea.
If its something your wearing, its legally considered a garment and cant be considered a "tent".
Surprise, the police broke the law and violated more rights. No you idiots, it wasnt "her fault", and this wasnt "legal".
[QUOTE=Pascall;33603335]They were going to make her remove it one way or another.[/QUOTE]
Too bad thats not how the law works. Police simply are not allowed to rip clothes off people. If its being worn its legally considered a garment and stripping someone in public is sexual abuse, end of the line. Clothes shaped like a tent is not automatically a tent
Where did I say that's how the law works.
Regardless of the law, the police were going to remove it from her and she knew that they were going to do that.
She didn't know HOW they were going to do that, but no person in their right mind would go into a park that does not allow tents and expect them to not attempt to remove it from her person, regardless of how she was using it.
[QUOTE=Pascall;33613329] no person in their right mind would go into a park that does not allow tents and expect them to not attempt to remove it from her person, regardless of how she was using it.[/QUOTE]
Maybe so, it is no excuse for the police though. So many people in this thread are attacking her and using "she knew the police might sexually abuse her so she is at fault for being sexually abused" and its sickening frankly.
I'm not saying this makes either party right or wrong. I'm just saying that the police were out to remove it from her person and she knew that and wore the tent with the knowledge that they were going to attempt to do that.
What she did not expect was assault upon removal of the tent, which she has full right to complain about.
But like I said earlier, both parties are at fault here.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;33613275]If its something your wearing, its legally considered a garment and cant be considered a "tent".
Surprise, the police broke the law and violated more rights. No you idiots, it wasnt "her fault", and this wasnt "legal".
Too bad thats not how the law works. Police simply are not allowed to rip clothes off people. If its being worn its legally considered a garment and stripping someone in public is sexual abuse, end of the line. Clothes shaped like a tent is not automatically a tent[/QUOTE]
Except she wasn't wearing the tent. Go back a few pages and find the video of the "tent monsters" dancing around police officers that I Updated '(Im on my tablet). You can clearly see that the tent is stationaery. She is inside the tent, with no clothes on. When police come, she pops her hands and legs out. Once they're gone, tent goes back onto the ground.
A shelter is not clothing. And while I do admit that the police handled the matter very poorly, they were fully within their rights to confiscate a prohibited tent. The woman was told multiple times that it as going to be removed, and was advised to put clothes on, but she refused to follow orders. The tent had to go, but she should have at least been moved to a private area.
A Dumb rating, how surprising.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;33613385]Maybe so, it is no excuse for the police though. So many people in this thread are attacking her and using "she new the police might sexually abuse her so she is at fault for being sexually abused" and its sickening frankly.[/QUOTE]
She probably didn't think of being abused on a sexual level, but she did expect some sort of police retaliation. You can't pull a stunt like that without thinking for a second that "Hey, the cops might attempt to do something about this." And yet she took the risk anyway.
She didn't ASK for it and she certainly didn't deserve it. But she wasn't exactly taking the measures to prevent and avoid it.
She was wearing a fully functional tent, now even if you might call that a "costume", she was still wearing a fully functional tent that they have been told specifically is not allowed in the park. According to some people, the police even warned them to put on clothes and gave them some time to do so before they went in and stripped them of their tents.
She fought the law, and the law won.
She was just trying to be a smartass. Didn't work out for her, as expected. Then she chose not to receive the goods by the police so she didn't end up naked, not even going to a more private place to avoid shameful display. Needless to say, she asked for it.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;33613275]If its something your wearing, its legally considered a garment and cant be considered a "tent".
Surprise, the police broke the law and violated more rights. No you idiots, it wasnt "her fault", and this wasnt "legal".[/QUOTE]
So, following your logic, anything made into clothing is safe from seizure by the police?
I think I've found a new way to smuggle cocaine into the States.
She needed money, cause she had none. She fought the law, and the law won.
But seriously, I'm on the police's side on this. She was told if she had a tent, it would be taken. It was.
Though she's pretty damn hot.
[QUOTE=Paramud;33615208]So, following your logic, anything made into clothing is safe from seizure by the police?
I think I've found a new way to smuggle cocaine into the States.[/QUOTE]
Cocaine is dangerous.
Tents aren't.
Cocaine is a threat, tents are not a threat.
Unless if you count 'kinda smushed grass in one place' as a threat.
It's not like there were tons of tents there, either, where each tent contributes to fucking up the park. There were like 3. The 'damage' would be minimal. If any at all.
The thing is, the park forbade tents, no matter how much of a threat they were or were not.
Whether or not that rule or law is stupid and pointless is irrelevant. You can argue that the park should have allowed tents all day. The simple fact is, it did not allow them.
The police enforced a law that they had to enforce. You can't say that they shouldn't have taken it. It doesn't matter if she was a threat or not. The simple fact that she had a tent in a place that didn't allow tents was breaking a rule and/or law of the area and the police acted upon it.
How they handled it was wrong and abusive, but you can't say that they were in the wrong for enforcing a rule of the park.
It was a council bylaw, I wouldn't mistake that for an actual law that's been put through state parliament.
The state police shouldn't even be enforcing local government laws, any more than the federal police should be involved in state crimes.
If you think wearing a tent-suit would make it legal "clothes", try wearing a gun-suit to an airport.
[QUOTE=Last or First;33615369]Cocaine is dangerous.
Tents aren't.
Cocaine is a threat, tents are not a threat.
Unless if you count 'kinda smushed grass in one place' as a threat.
It's not like there were tons of tents there, either, where each tent contributes to fucking up the park. There were like 3. The 'damage' would be minimal. If any at all.[/QUOTE]
That's a bit of a straw man argument you're trying to pull. We are not discussing how threatening a tent is, we are talking about whether wearing anything will count it as clothing. Taking the position that it does not, the tent was not allowed there and had to be removed.
[QUOTE=Pascall;33615398]The thing is, the park forbade tents, no matter how much of a threat they were or were not.
Whether or not that rule or law is stupid and pointless is irrelevant. You can argue that the park should have allowed tents all day. The simple fact is, it did not allow them.
The police enforced a law that they had to enforce. You can't say that they shouldn't have taken it. It doesn't matter if she was a threat or not. The simple fact that she had a tent in a place that didn't allow tents was breaking a rule and/or law of the area and the police acted upon it.
How they handled it was wrong and abusive, but you can't say that they were in the wrong for enforcing a rule of the park.[/QUOTE]
You're right, they were in the right to find a way to remove the tent from the park. I'm not saying they're wrong for that.
But saying that she deserved to be stripped in public because tents are somehow a threat is absolutely wrong. Even though she was "being a smartass" by questioning the logic of the law, and persisted by requesting to see the law where you can't wear tents, and originally refused to move or change, and was being 'dumb' and doing something slightly illegal, none of that justifies getting stripped in public.
And for her illegal act: it doesn't even fully apply in her case. They had a law against pitching tents. She and several other people bought tents, cut holes in them, then moved into the park and sat still, pretending to be pitched tents. Once the police arrived, they popped up. It was a prank.
I could see the logic that they were actually planning to camp out if they were fully clothed, saw the police coming, and cut holes in the tent in a panic to try and pass it off as a prank, but that's not how it happened. They prepared for it.
And, again, sleeping in a tent with a bunch of holes in it is basically like sleeping on a sheet outside.
[QUOTE=Last or First;33615369]Cocaine is dangerous.
Tents aren't.
Cocaine is a threat, tents are not a threat.
Unless if you count 'kinda smushed grass in one place' as a threat.
It's not like there were tons of tents there, either, where each tent contributes to fucking up the park. There were like 3. The 'damage' would be minimal. If any at all.[/QUOTE]
it doesn't matter how many tents there were. they banned them because they didn't want lots of them congregating and doing a lot more damage than "kinda smushing grass in one place." tent cities in other parks have cost cities a lot of money to repair the grass, vegetation, clean up trash, vandalism, and more. they got rid of the few tents that were there to discourage others from coming and setting up more.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;33615581]it doesn't matter how many tents there were. they banned them because they didn't want lots of them congregating and doing a lot more damage than "kinda smushing grass in one place." tent cities in other parks have cost cities a lot of money to repair the grass, vegetation, clean up trash, vandalism, and more. they got rid of the few tents that were there to discourage others from coming and setting up more.[/QUOTE]
so the council should fine them
[QUOTE=Last or First;33615564]But saying that she deserved to be stripped in public because tents are somehow a threat is absolutely wrong.[/QUOTE]
Which is why no one here said that.
She was even offered clothing by the police, and she refused.
whether or not it was a fucking prank doesnt change the fact that they had actual, real, pitched tents where pitched tents were [B]banned.[/B] it does not matter. if anything, the fact that they weren't just wearing them, but actually had them on the ground and set up is even more reason to take the tents away.
and the police were quite reasonable. they asked her to leave, asked her to change her clothes, and even had a female police officer check to see if she was covered underneath before they confiscated the tent. you also cant say that they had no intention to bring her anything to cover with after they took it, because you cant see all the officers on camera, and she was given a banner within a few seconds by a friend.
[editline]7th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Contag;33615596]so the council should fine them[/QUOTE]
when you have contraband, you aren't just fined. you are fined and have the contraband taken from you.
[editline]7th December 2011[/editline]
drugs, if you cant think of an example
No, she wasn't dumb for protesting or doing what she did, and like I said, she didn't deserve the treatment she got.
It's just silly that the cops are getting so much hate just because they did as they were told to do from the managers and/or owners of the park (or whoever instructed them to). They should be disciplined for the lack of tact when removing the tent from her body and for neglecting to make sure she was even alright, but for them to be seen as complete villains just because they did their job? Hardly.
It's a similar case with the police here in America. Yes, there are a few cops who committed truly unconscionable acts like pepper spraying innocent protesters, but then there are the cops who are just trying to do their job in an efficient manner in order to retain their position on the force. You can't just scream "SHAME" at them because they were doing as they were told.
They should be disciplined for how they handled the situation and perhaps given some instruction on how to handle it in the future, but to condemn them as horrible horrible people is ridiculous.
The woman knew what she was getting into. She knew that the police would take action and she took the risk. Her case would not hold up in court no matter how hard she argued. But does she have the right to complain about how she was treated? Absolutely! I would too!
But no single party is at fault when both knew full well what they did and what the consequences for those actions would be.
[QUOTE=Hidole555;33615548]If you think wearing a tent-suit would make it legal "clothes", try wearing a gun-suit to an airport.[/quote]
Guns are dangerous. Guns are a threat. Guns can kill people.
You can't kill or rob someone with a tent. The most you can do is poke them menacingly with it.
[quote]That's a bit of a straw man argument you're trying to pull. We are not discussing how threatening a tent is, we are talking about whether wearing anything will count it as clothing. Taking the position that it does not, the tent was not allowed there and had to be removed.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure we're talking about both.
Except that how much of a threat something in absolutely ties into legal issues with it. You wouldn't give someone the same punishment for having a temporarily banned tent as you would for having a bag of cocaine or a gun at a park.
If you cut holes in a cardboard box and wear it, are you still naked and just wearing a cardboard box? Or does it become a costume, and thus clothing?
If you wear a shirt made of Legos, are you just naked, or do the Legos form a type of costume?
[b] SHAME [/b]
[QUOTE=Last or First;33615672]If you cut holes in a cardboard box and wear it, are you still naked and just wearing a cardboard box? Or does it become a costume, and thus clothing?
If you wear a shirt made of Legos, are you just naked, or do the Legos form a type of costume?[/QUOTE]
If the box or the Lego are illegal to have, it doesn't matter how threatening they are.
[QUOTE=Last or First;33615672]Guns are dangerous. Guns are a threat. Guns can kill people.
You can't kill or rob someone with a tent. The most you can do is poke them menacingly with it.
I'm pretty sure we're talking about both.
Except that how much of a threat something in absolutely ties into legal issues with it. You wouldn't give someone the same punishment for having a temporarily banned tent as you would for having a bag of cocaine or a gun at a park.
If you cut holes in a cardboard box and wear it, are you still naked and just wearing a cardboard box? Or does it become a costume, and thus clothing?
If you wear a shirt made of Legos, are you just naked, or do the Legos form a type of costume?[/QUOTE]
But if you went into a place where cardboard boxes were not allowed in any form, whether it be a "costume" or not, you would expect them to either ask you to leave or to have the box removed from you, would you not?
Which is what the cops in this case did. They offered her a chance to leave and change her clothes. She refused, so they removed it. I don't see why that is so wrong of them to do.
[QUOTE=Last or First;33615672]Guns are dangerous. Guns are a threat. Guns can kill people.
You can't kill or rob someone with a tent. The most you can do is poke them menacingly with it.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;33615581]it doesn't matter how many tents there were. they banned them because they didn't want lots of them congregating and doing a lot more damage than "kinda smushing grass in one place." tent cities in other parks have cost cities a lot of money to repair the grass, vegetation, clean up trash, vandalism, and more. they got rid of the few tents that were there to discourage others from coming and setting up more.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Last or First;33615672]Except that how much of a threat something in absolutely ties into legal issues with it. You wouldn't give someone the same punishment for having a temporarily banned tent as you would for having a bag of cocaine or a gun at a park.[/QUOTE]
Because taking the tent from her was the exact same punishment you would get if you had a gun or coke?
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;33615633]
when you have contraband, you aren't just fined. you are fined and have the contraband taken from you.
drugs, if you cant think of an example[/QUOTE]
except drugs are a state (and somewhat federal) law
not a council law
I can't think of any council laws where that happens
[QUOTE=Contag;33615737]except drugs are a state (and somewhat federal) law
not a council law
I can't think of any council laws where that happens[/QUOTE]
I don't see how that makes any difference.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.