• Police rip 'clothes' (tent) off female ‘Occupy Melbourne’ protester
    357 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Pascall;33615664] 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).[/QUOTE] It's a public park here, so that would be the local government City of Melbourne [editline]8th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Paramud;33615752]I don't see how that makes any difference.[/QUOTE] [I]You don't understand the differences between local and state law???[/I] [editline]8th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Paramud;33615752]I don't see how that makes any difference.[/QUOTE] holy fucking shit this statement are you being serious?
[QUOTE=Contag;33615754][I]You don't understand the differences between local and state law???[/I] [editline]8th December 2011[/editline] holy fucking shit this statement are you being serious?[/QUOTE] In terms of what that has to do with police enforcement? Apparently not. You could tell me instead of just insulting me.
[QUOTE=Contag;33615754]It's a public park here, so that would be the local government City of Melbourne [editline]8th December 2011[/editline] [I]You don't understand the differences between local and state law???[/I] [editline]8th December 2011[/editline] holy fucking shit this statement are you being serious?[/QUOTE] well it was state police there confiscating the tent, so apparently somewhere down the line, it was decided that the enforcement there had the power to do that.
[QUOTE=Pascall;33615664]No, she wasn't dumb for protesting or doing what she did, and like I said, she didn't deserve the treatment she got. 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. 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. 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] These parts are, for the most part, correct. I would argue that the woman didn't know 'full well' what she was getting into, as almost no one would expect to just be stripped on the spot. They're both partially at fault, yes. But the police officers are much more in the fault. Are they absolutely horrible people for it? No. Are they no worse than the woman? No. [QUOTE=Paramud;33615627]Which is why no one here said that.[/quote] [QUOTE=Nacho Cheese;33605761]This is stupid. She completely deserved it.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Jookia;33604783]Ahahahaha, she deserved that.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=MedicmanV500;33609212]She deserved it, she was trying to be a smartass and find a way around the rule of "no tents".[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Zero Ziat;33609701]yep. i believe she sort of deserved it.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah sure totally [quote]She was even offered clothing by the police, and she refused.[/QUOTE] So the next logical step is "strip her, even when her mood obviously drastically changes and is yelling at you to stop"? [QUOTE=lil_n00blett;33615735]Because taking the tent from her was the exact same punishment you would get if you had a gun or coke?[/QUOTE] You guys are the ones making the comparisons to "stripping someone of their gun coat or coke suit". I'm not the one who compared them, you guys are. If you admit that it's not the same to strip someone of a tent as to strip someone of guns or coke, then admit that your previous juxtapositions are wrong. Which it isn't, and which they are, respectively. [QUOTE=Pascall;33615727]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] I would expect them to move you from the area, move you to a private place and let you change, or in the best case, ignore you. Not to just strip you on the spot after you refuse. [QUOTE=Paramud;33615706]If the box or the Lego are illegal to have, it doesn't matter how threatening they are.[/QUOTE] So it's okay to just strip them on the spot, even though cardboard boxes and Legos are harmless? [QUOTE=lil_n00blett;33615633]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.when you have contraband, you aren't just fined. you are fined and have the contraband taken from you.[/quote] "We can't see what the cops off-camera did, and we see that her friends brought her something to cover herself, so let's assume that they had some intention of giving her something". The only thing she gets, she gets from a friend. The police give her nothing. Therefore, one can reasonably assume that they had no intention of giving her cover. Unless if you have proof that the cops were going to give her something, it's reasonable to assume that they weren't going to. They didn't give her anything. Therefore, they didn't give her anything.
Once again, I must side with the police. Their duty is to serve and protect the public. They are here for us, and we don't like it when people wear tents. She was clearly a danger.
[QUOTE=Last or First;33615951] I would expect them to move you from the area, move you to a private place and let you change, or in the best case, ignore you. Not to just strip you on the spot after you refuse. [/QUOTE] Naturally, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. Point is, she had something that wasn't allowed and the cops took action. That's the jist of it. And there is nothing wrong with the course of action they decided to take but there WAS something wrong with how they carried out their order. They can't just ignore her just because she's not presenting an immediate threat or any threat at all. They had their orders and had to do what was asked of them. Can you agree with this?
[QUOTE=Pascall;33615978]Naturally, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. Point is, she had something that wasn't allowed and the cops took action. That's the jist of it. And there is nothing wrong with the course of action they decided to take but there WAS something wrong with how they carried out their order. Can you agree with this?[/QUOTE] Yes, I agree. They were right to find a way to remove the tent from the area. I'm arguing about how wrong they were in how they carried it out. If they had done it the right way, I wouldn't be arguing. So, I guess I'm not really arguing with you, then. Unless if you want to go into the details of just [I]how[/I] wrong their course of action was, even though we both agree that it was unjustified. But that would be boring.
[QUOTE=Paramud;33615812]In terms of what that has to do with police enforcement? Apparently not. You could tell me instead of just insulting me.[/QUOTE] Okay, the levels of police enforcement are generally pretty separate. For example, in the US, the FBI deals with federal crimes, and the state police with state, and local with local. We have the same thing. Federal crimes are generally more serious than state crimes, which are more serious than council bylaw infringement. Council bylaws are generally restricted to "I got a fine because I didn't clean up my dog's shit on the sidewalk" and "I got a fine because I parked an hour over the limit" Now if council enforcement officers had already come by, and they refused to move the tent, and they were ticketed, then calling the police would have been normal. The other issue is that I'm not sure you even can detain someone for infringing on a council bylaw, so they couldn't have taken her away to a private location to get her changed.
No, yeah, I agree that how they did it was messed up, no doubt. But you can't put FULL blame on them. They had to do what they had to do. But they should get some instruction on how to handle situations like that for the future. I don't doubt that now a lot of people will try and pull the same stunt.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;33615847]well it was state police there confiscating the tent, so apparently somewhere down the line, it was decided that the enforcement there had the power to do that.[/QUOTE] well to be fair local government shouldn't even be that prevalent in Australia it isn't in our constitution and a request to put a reference in our constitution was strongly rejected in a national referendum
Now if someone [I]ELSE[/I] who saw this go down and knew full well what would happen, but tries and does something like this, it's safe to say that they were asking for it.
She was clearly baiting the cops, there's no doubt about that; they banned tents in the park, so she wore a tent as a sort of "middle finger" to the cops. I don't think they should have reacted the way they did, though. That was far too rough.
[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] Can you seriously stop it with the idea that tents are a huge threat to our society. The police aren't banning tents for those reasons; we have plenty of public celebrations in public places like this park that cause much more damage to them, as I said before. They're banning them because they don't want them protesting. [editline]8th December 2011[/editline] Also, you really like cherry-picking parts of people's arguments to argue against, huh? And then, what, you just ignore them when you realize you have no valid reply? [url=http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1145862?p=33612655&viewfull=1#post33612655]Here, I'll even direct you to my post where I responded to your bullshit arguments. [/url] Do you have anything to say, or are you just going to repeat everything over and over without actually responding to people? [editline]8th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Pascall;33616080]Now if someone [I]ELSE[/I] who saw this go down and knew full well what would happen, but tries and does something like this, it's safe to say that they were asking for it.[/QUOTE] I disagree - by that logic, people who protested against segregation in the civil rights movement (which was illegal) and saw the police brutalize other people for protesting and were consequently also brutalized were 'asking for it'.
This is like going to a movie theater wearing a costume made out of cameras, and when they say to get the hell out, you say "oh but these are my clothes!"
[QUOTE=devotchkade;33618054]Can you seriously stop it with the idea that tents are a huge threat to our society. The police aren't banning tents for those reasons; we have plenty of public celebrations in public places like this park that cause much more damage to them, as I said before. They're banning them because they don't want them protesting.[/QUOTE] No, they're banning them because people camping makes it a shittonne harder to look after the park. They don't want campers, so they banned tents. This allows the authorities (local council or whatever) to properly maintain the park and prevent it turning into a wreck. [editline]7th December 2011[/editline] It just has the (good) side effect of driving away less committed protesters. [editline].[/editline] Do you seriously think they give a shit about the protest - and whether or not it's happening? I don't, and I don't expect they do either. The police are just enforcing the rules, and the rules are being created in the best interest of public land and public interest.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;33618928]The police are just enforcing the rules, and the rules are being created in the best interest of public land and public interest.[/QUOTE] lol. All laws are totally created for the GOOD OF SOCIETY AND YOU SHOULD ALWAYS OBEY THEM. [editline]8th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Man Without Hat;33618928]No, they're banning them because people camping makes it a shittonne harder to look after the park. [/QUOTE] Can people who aren't in Australia stop commenting on this? You haven't been to these parks, and seen them when they're being occupied, especially in comparison to these places on a normal day. Trust me - the police and the local governments do not have a vested interest in keeping these parks or public areas super clean in normal circumstances; this isn't Singapore. Yet, suddenly, when people legally protest in them, even when they're cleaning up after themselves - oh, wait, it's unclean!!1111!!!!
To both of your points: [quote="Me"]Do you seriously think they give a shit about the protest - and whether or not it's happening? I don't, and I don't expect they do either. The police are just enforcing the rules, and the rules are being created in the best interest of public land and public interest.[/quote] Just because people work in the government doesn't mean they're looking to oppress you. Are you really that paranoid?
I think both parties in this are pretty stupid. Police could have asked her to move along (aka leave), and if not then deal with that issue. As far as I know, wearing a tent in public isn't illegal, but seriously, is it that hard to bring spare clothing/wear more underneath? She sort of lured the police into doing something the public finds bad.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;33604341]and its being used by people, being slept in, its stationary, etc? because if its not being used as a tent, i couldn't give fuck all what it is why do you think tents are banned? because the city just hates the way tents look? i'm pretty sure tents are banned so that people aren't camping out inside the park, putting up tents and just living there for a while in protest. trying to strip a tent off of a woman because she's using it as clothing is moronic, not only because the tent isn't being utilized as a fucking tent, but because you're [b]publicly stripping someone's clothes off[/b]. handling someone like that and ripping their clothing off just to fit a moronic city ordinance is stupid in more ways than one.[/QUOTE] Why is this man getting dumbs
I wanna know who this Shane guy that one man was screaming for.
who the fuck wears their tent with no clothes on underneath?
[QUOTE=TheJoey;33619639]who the fuck wears their tent with no clothes on underneath?[/QUOTE] Someone looking to stir trouble and make the police look like brutal arseholes. That's all these Occupy protests are. People trying to make figures of authority look bad for doing their job. Nobody is trying to oppress anyone, anyone thinks otherwise, they should take a step back and look at the 9/11 conspiritists and how ridiculous their claims are.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;33619668]Someone looking to stir trouble and make the police look like brutal arseholes. That's all these Occupy protests are. People trying to make figures of authority look bad for doing their job. Nobody is trying to oppress anyone, anyone thinks otherwise, they should take a step back and look at the 9/11 conspiritists and how ridiculous their claims are.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure there's a difference between thinking that the US government flew planes into its own buildings, and thinking that the US government favors rich people. Just a small hunch. And I'm pretty sure that the idea of wearing a tent wasn't "I'm going to get stripped on camera and make police look like assholes", but "This law is stupid, ha ha, you thought it was an actual tent". [editline]7th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Perfumly;33619578]Why is this man getting dumbs[/QUOTE] Because tents are srs bsns she could have flattened a small patch of grass therefore, she should have been stripped immediately after she set foot on the park and she should be sent to jail because fuck protesters, I want to see more stories about Kim Kardashian's nipples
[QUOTE=Last or First;33619717]I'm pretty sure there's a difference between thinking that the US government flew planes into its own buildings, and thinking that the US government favors rich people. Just a small hunch.[/quote] Would you favour someone who you gain $20,000 a year from more than someone you give $10,000 a year to? [quote]And I'm pretty sure that the idea of wearing a tent wasn't "I'm going to get stripped on camera and make police look like assholes", but "This law is stupid, ha ha, you thought it was an actual tent".[/QUOTE] Whatever her intentions were, she should have assumed that they would take it off her and prepared for that instead of claiming abuse when they did.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;33619806]Would you favour someone who you gain $20,000 a year from more than someone you give $10,000 a year to?[/quote] So you're okay with the government catering to 1% of the population over the bottom 99%? Or even top 10% over the bottom 90%? And letting the rich get richer while the poor get poorer? [quote]Whatever her intentions were, she should have assumed that they would take it off her and prepared for that instead of claiming abuse when they did.[/QUOTE] Despite what pornos you may watch, stripping people on the spot isn't standard police procedure Shocking, I know
[QUOTE=Last or First;33619842]So you're okay with the government catering to 1% of the population over the bottom 99%? Or even top 10% over the bottom 90%? And letting the rich get richer while the poor get poorer?[/quote] Yes. The "99%" are actually the richest 1% in the world. I aspire to become part of what you call the "10%". Which is more like the 0.1%. Instead of sitting moaning that you don't have enough money you could get off your arse, study, work hard and [b]actually move yourself into the position where you aren't the "1%"[/b]. [quote]Despite what pornos you may watch, stripping people on the spot isn't standard police procedure Shocking, I know[/QUOTE] Tents aren't clothes. If she had the slightest bit of sense she would have worn a shirt underneath it. Hell, she even rejected the offer to give her some temporary clothes while she goes home to change. She could have gone straight back to the protest after getting into something she is more comfortable in.
if the tent thing is not supposed to be clothes, i think instead of the cops just leaving her there after ripping off her tent dress, they should have just taken her in and detained her for public indecency. probably would have looked better, instead of rushing off and leaving behind a girl in her underwear.
[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;33602768]It's a little over the top to call a tent "clothes"[/QUOTE] What if they tore apart the tent material and sewed it to made a proper looking shirt, would it then be not considered 'clothes'?
[QUOTE=brianosaur;33620433]What if they tore apart the tent material and sewed it to made a proper looking shirt, would it then be not considered 'clothes'?[/QUOTE] What if they did this? What if they did that? Oh oh oh what if they.........................................
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;33619668]Someone looking to stir trouble and make the police look like brutal arseholes. That's all these Occupy protests are. People trying to make figures of authority look bad for doing their job. Nobody is trying to oppress anyone, anyone thinks otherwise, they should take a step back and look at the 9/11 conspiritists and how ridiculous their claims are.[/QUOTE] Obviously you've never heard of civil disobedience as a protest technique.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.