Police rip 'clothes' (tent) off female ‘Occupy Melbourne’ protester
357 replies, posted
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;33606347]Did you even [i]read[/i] what my post was in response to? I addressed literally that very point. Go back and read what I said very carefully before[B] accusing me of being a "mindless sheep."[/B][/QUOTE]
Where'd I do that. And fact is this argument comes down to morality which differs from person to person. Case in point you think the cops did the morally right thing and I don't (you seem to draw the line at rape and violation of the fourth amendment). Some people think that just being a homosexual makes you extremely immoral. I don't.
[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;33606316]Thats what it was a costume, they can't forcibly rip it off her for protesting. This is like the girl who wore the vietnam bracelets in the 60's, the police and school tried to get her to stop wearing and distributing them.[/QUOTE]
it wasn't a costume, when will you people understand that? it was a real tent, albeit with a few holes in it for her appendages to stick out, but it was still a real tent in an area explicitly prohibiting tents. she chose not to wear anything more than underwear under it, refused to leave, and refused a change of clothes, and the police confiscated the tent.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;33606372]Where'd I do that. And fact is this argument comes down to morality which differs from person to person. Case in point you think the cops did the morally right thing and I don't. Some people think that just being a homosexual makes you extremely immoral. I don't.[/QUOTE]
By saying I would mindlessly get out of my car and "bend over" for a cop just because. When in fact I said quite the opposite just a few posts earlier. Here's the post I made earlier (the one I was referring to in the post you quoted):
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;33605777]I asked if it's okay to ignore direct orders from law enforcement officials just because you're protesting, knowing you are violating a law. I never said that everyone must comply with an officer's orders 100% of the time. It's called sound judgement.
If someone is walking down the street whistling doing absolutely nothing wrong and a cop ordered them to take off their clothes because there was a report of a "man with a tatoo on his back robbing people" in the area, and the cop wanted to see if you were the guy, I can understand why someone would refuse the officer's request (here in the States, [b]you would refuse on the grounds that it would constitute an unwarranted search in violation of the Fourth Amendment). [/b]
In the case of the tents, the woman knew she was breaking a law, knew there were consequences to breaking said law, and refused an officer's orders to cease breaking the law.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;33606372]Where'd I do that. And fact is this argument comes down to morality which differs from person to person. Case in point you think the cops did the morally right thing and I don't (you seem to draw the line at rape and violation of the fourth amendment). Some people think that just being a homosexual makes you extremely immoral. I don't.[/QUOTE]
you're using really bad straw man arguments here
Its called a damn protest. That's the fucking point. She knows what she is doing, and she's doing it in protest of the fucking law. Civil disobedience, a corner stone of protesting.
The people defending her are right and you know it as well as everyone else does. The police had no right nor justification to strip ANYTHING off of her and they should damn well be charged with assault for doing so. Stop being an apologist for their shit and own up to the fact that what they did to her was reprehensible and unjustifiable?
The people trying to say the police were somehow right in what they did need to figure out what a protest is first, what is and is not acceptable of a police officer, what is and is not justified. (I made a mistake on the location, ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne,_Florida[/url]), so I am removing this part and revising others as a result. At least I can admit when I do or say something wrong.) If a person wants to paint their body and stand on a street corner to try and convey a message, that is symbolic speech. And if someone wants to put a tent on as clothing as a means to protest what they see as an unjust law, then that is symbolic speech just the same. So no, it doesn't make a goddamn bit of difference what local ordinance may be or if she refused or what the fuckity fuck ever.
She was protesting the law and using the tent as a part of her symbolism. They had no right to lay a hand on her for it, end of story.
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;33606402]By saying I would mindlessly get out of my car and "bend over" for a cop just because. When in fact I said quite the opposite just a few posts earlier. Here's the post I made earlier (the one I was referring to in the post you quoted):[/QUOTE]
It was a satirical / sarcastic post. I never said you did it anyways, and the "you" was more of a generic you, not "SPESSMEHREN" (as in one, a person), as I was addressing everyone here, not just you specifically.
And if we agree why do you insist on arguing.
[quote]you're using really bad straw man arguments here [/quote]
Turns out we aren't even arguing.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;33606328]So any police order at all you should mindlessly obey. Even if it's from the most corrupt police officer ever, if one exists? For example: you are driving in your car, by yourself. A police officer pulls you over in his car, tells you to get out of the vehicle, and then to "bend over." Guess where it goes from there.[/QUOTE]
Um, there is a big difference between asking someone to change clothing and asking someone to bend over. These cops' orders weren't ridiculous. THEY WANT HER TO CHANGE CLOTHES, THIS IS AN OUTRAGE.
The "tentmonsters" wore the tents simply to taunt the police, they weren't using them as "clothing" to keep warm or comfortable, they were using them as gestures towards the police.
[QUOTE=areyoublack;33606479]Um, there is a big difference between asking someone to change clothing and asking someone to bend over. These cops' orders weren't ridiculous. THEY WANT HER TO CHANGE CLOTHES, THIS IS AN OUTRAGE.
The "tentmonsters" wore the tents simply to taunt the police, they weren't using them as "clothing" to keep warm or comfortable, they were using them as gestures towards the police.[/QUOTE]
It's that not SHE WAS ASKED TO CHANGE CLOTHES. I think if she was asked and was arrested after refusing there wouldn't be such a big fuss.
The issue is how it was handled by the police when they forcefully ripped it off her in public.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;33606449]Its called a damn protest. That's the fucking point. She knows what she is doing, and she's doing it in protest of the fucking law. Civil disobedience, a corner stone of protesting.
The people defending her are right and you know it as well as everyone else does. The police had no right nor justification to strip ANYTHING off of her and they should damn well be charged with assault for doing so. Stop being an apologist for their shit and own up to the fact that what they did to her was reprehensible and unjustifiable?
The people trying to say the police were somehow right in what they did need to figure out what a protest is first, what is and is not acceptable of a police officer, what is and is not justified, and what the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is. Freedom of expression is protected under the first amendment, which, believe it or not, extends to clothing and other forms of expression. Its considered symbolic speech. Understand? If a person wants to paint their body and stand on a street corner to try and convey a message, that is protected. And if someone wants to put a tent on as clothing as a means to protest what they see as an unjust law, then they are entirely protected. So no, it doesn't make a goddamn bit of difference what local ordinance may be or if she refused or what the fuckity fuck ever.
She is constitutionally protected and they had no right to lay a hand on her for it, end of story.[/QUOTE]
well the first amendment of the U.S. constitution would be great and all, but it doesn't exactly apply here, as this is in australia
and you are just spouting "it's a protest" as if calling something a protest makes it acceptable no matter what it is. protestors can break the law, but the law will still get enforced, and they can choose whether to continue to break it or not, but being a protestor doesn't protect them from it.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;33606149]Nope. Because I have sense and my wits about me to know better than to do something stupid like this in the first place.[/quote]
I never mentioned that you had to be wearing a tent.
[quote]Oh, and could you possibly tone down the dramatics, please?[/quote]
[quote]Someone's a bit presumptuous. Presumptuous and angry.:v:[/QUOTE]
You're damn fucking right I'm angry.
[quote]She willingly went out and did this, refused to leave the park once she got there, refused to remove her tent (not her clothes, FYI), had it unzipped and removed (as best as one can remove a tent someone's trying to wear), and was NOT left naked (she had what looked like a bikini on).[/quote]
That 'thing that looks like a bikini'? That's called [I]underwear.[/I] Yes, girls wear underwear too. [I]Shocking.[/I]
[quote]Yep. Did you not see that the female officers were the ones actually removing the tent from her and touching her during the entire process?[/quote]
Because women can't sexually assault people. Yep. Something isn't as traumatic if it's a chick doing it. Totally.
Also, I'm pretty sure that it's a guy that does the first big rip.
Yeah, the guys are ripping it off too.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;33606190]since you've been the most vehement defender of this stupid chick, please respond to the above video where she fucking refuses an offer from police to change her clothes
all your arguments on morality and everything, gone, in one video.[/quote]
After watching that part...
My mind isn't really changed much.
She refused to take it off, because she wanted to see the law that said that she was required to. She was defending her rights. Was she totally in the right? No. Was it smart? No. Does that justify it? [B]No[/B].
[quote]"i take it you've been surrounded by people, kept from leaving, had your clothes painfully torn off, and left naked in a public place?"
what, were the cops not supposed to approach her? she refused to leave, she wasn't kept from leaving. sure, they might have barely hurt her when they took the costume off because she refused to do it herself. just like cops will hurt you when you refuse to cooperate with them during any other altercation. and she wasn't naked, she was almost naked. she refused fucking clothing.[/QUOTE]
I admit now after watching the video more carefully (aka, louder so that I can actually hear what they're saying without the background noise) that she refused to leave. However,
They're supposed to move her anyway, or keep offering her a change of clothes. Least they could do was [I]start[/I] to open the tent, but barely, to show that they were going to force her, so that she could reconsider her options. If she continuously refused, even as she was given multiple chances throughout the process (not [I]only[/I] before) then yeah, she would be much less sympathetic and the cops would probably be in the right. However, that's not how it happened.
I also see that she [I]was[/I] given some towel like thing afterwards, possibly by the police, possibly not. So it's not [I]as[/I] bad. They still went too far.
Again, to summarize:
She is not completely in the right. HOWEVER, that doesn't give them an excuse to just rip it off. They should have forcibly moved her.
The [I]moment[/I] that she started to freak out, they should have stopped. They did not.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;33606552]well the first amendment of the U.S. constitution would be great and all, but it doesn't exactly apply here, as this is in australia
and you are just spouting "it's a protest" as if calling something a protest makes it acceptable no matter what it is. protestors can break the law, but the law will still get enforced, and they can choose whether to continue to break it or not, but being a protestor doesn't protect them from it.[/QUOTE]
actually S. 16 (subs) 1 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 [VIC] applies, which guarantees freedom of peaceful assembly
furthermore under S. 38 subs 1
[I]Subject to this section, it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with a human right or, in making a decision, to fail to give proper consideration to a relevant human right.[/I]
Freedom of expression is under section 15
why do they have to keep asking her throughout the process? do you think a cop is just going to bullshit you? they told her she needed to take it off, she refused a change of clothes and refused to leave, and they took it. they obviously decided that underwear that covered all her important parts wasn't little enough clothing to warrant taking her away first, so they took it off of her and left her there. they weren't being outrageous, and you need to admit that.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;33606552]well the first amendment of the U.S. constitution would be great and all, but it doesn't exactly apply here, as this is in australia
and you are just spouting "it's a protest" as if calling something a protest makes it acceptable no matter what it is. protestors can break the law, but the law will still get enforced, and they can choose whether to continue to break it or not, but being a protestor doesn't protect them from it.[/QUOTE]Fair enough on the location, I was under the impression it was a different Melbourne here in the U.S. ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne,_Florida[/url]) so that was a misjudge on my part. But that does not change the fact that what they did to her was still wrong and entirely unjustified.
and she was given [I]something[/I] to cover up afterward with? I don't see why you would continue defending her at this point really, the police did just about everything right.
told her which law she was breaking, warned her they would take it off if she refused to leave, did so, and then she was given something to cover herself up more with. they weren't brutal about it.
[editline]6th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;33606642]Fair enough on the location, I was under the impression it was a different Melbourne here in the U.S. ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne,_Florida[/url]) so that was a misjudge on my part. But that does not change the fact that what they did to her was still wrong and entirely unjustified.[/QUOTE]
read the rest of this thread (namely this page) and discover that what they did to her was not wrong, and almost entirely justified
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;33606616]why do they have to keep asking her throughout the process? do you think a cop is just going to bullshit you? they told her she needed to take it off, she refused a change of clothes and refused to leave, and they took it. they obviously decided that underwear that covered all her important parts wasn't little enough clothing to warrant taking her away first, so they took it off of her and left her there. they weren't being outrageous, and you need to admit that.[/QUOTE]
1. You can't just assume that someone won't change their mind throughout the process.
Even if you do ignore the "bullshitting" part (as in, actually expecting the cops not to rip her clothes off), there's still the fact that just using words doesn't get as much of a point across. People exaggerate things unless if they're given an actual value / physical thing.
2. And she obviously decided that underwear was [I]not[/I] enough clothing.
3. Yes, they were being outrageous. They should have taken her somewhere private, given her more chances to actually change, or in the best case scenario, [B]ignore her, because all she's doing is wearing a fucking tent, she's not a threat in any way[/B].
I honestly don't know why state police were involved in a matter involving a council bylaw
it's like getting the FBI involved in a shoplifting incident
I'm sure at any point during the process (it took a while for them to actually get the tent off) she could have said "okay, okay, stop and I'll change my clothes" and they would have stopped. She didn't. And she obviously didn't care that it wasn't enough clothing, or she wouldn't have been so dumb and changed her clothes. and she was a threat, because actual, functional tents, worn or not, [B]were not allowed in public parks.[/B]
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;33606743]I'm sure at any point during the process (it took a while for them to actually get the tent off) she could have said "okay, okay, stop and I'll change my clothes" and they would have stopped. She didn't. And she obviously didn't care that it wasn't enough clothing, or she wouldn't have been so dumb and changed her clothes. and she was a threat, because actual, functional tents, worn or not, [B]were not allowed in public parks.[/B][/QUOTE]In what way is a tent a threat? Are people using tents to mug other people now? Have people been going around trying to use tents as clubs?
they banned tents presumably because at other public parks in the occupy movement, tent cities have caused damage to the park and cost the city money. that's why.
How does that make them a threat though?
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;33606743]I'm sure at any point during the process (it took a while for them to actually get the tent off) she could have said "okay, okay, stop and I'll change my clothes" and they would have stopped. She didn't. And she obviously didn't care that it wasn't enough clothing, or she wouldn't have been so dumb and changed her clothes. and she was a threat, because actual, functional tents, worn or not, [B]were not allowed in public parks.[/B][/QUOTE]
And you whined at [I]me[/I] for not paying attention to the video? Did you not hear her screaming "Don't take my clothes off"? Don't you think that would be a fucking clue?
Being dumb isn't a justification for being abused.
[I]OOOHHHH NOOOOO
A TENT
OH NO IT'S A TENT
SHE'S GOT A TENT
WATCH OUT AUSTRALIA
SHE HAS A TENT
POOR POOR AUSTRALIA
IT HAS TENTS[/I]
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;33606825]How does that make them a threat though?[/QUOTE]
not sure why the council doesn't just fine them, considering most local government here sees law as a source of revenue
nobody said it was a threat, if by 'threat' you mean it could physically harm other people. but it is a threat in that it can physically harm the park and cost the city money to repair it.
What stopped her from wearing more clothing before she put on the tent? I know it would probably be hot(as in warm), but she should've worn some clothes under the tent. Where did she put it on in the first place. Also if she was actually "traumatized" from this "incident" she wouldn't have the courage to walk up to the cops and speak her mind.
[QUOTE=Last or First;33606833]And you whined at [I]me[/I] for not paying attention to the video? Did you not hear her screaming "Don't take my clothes off"? Don't you think that would be a fucking clue?
Being dumb isn't a justification for being abused.
[I]OOOHHHH NOOOOO
A TENT
OH NO IT'S A TENT
SHE'S GOT A TENT
WATCH OUT AUSTRALIA
SHE HAS A TENT
POOR POOR AUSTRALIA
IT HAS TENTS[/I][/QUOTE]
nowhere in the video did she say "Don't take my clothes off, I've changed my mind and I'm going to change into clothing now!" All she said was "don't take my clothes off" because she thinks she has the right to wear a tent, which she doesn't.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;33606743]I'm sure at any point during the process (it took a while for them to actually get the tent off) she could have said "okay, okay, stop and I'll change my clothes" and they would have stopped. She didn't. And she obviously didn't care that it wasn't enough clothing, or she wouldn't have been so dumb and changed her clothes. and she was a threat, because actual, functional tents, worn or not, [B]were not allowed in public parks.[/B][/QUOTE][QUOTE=lil_n00blett;33606850]nobody said it was a threat, if by 'threat' you mean it could physically harm other people. but it is a threat in that it can physically harm the park and cost the city money to repair it.[/QUOTE]
[I][B]YOU JUST FUCKING SAID THAT IT WAS A THREAT[/B][/I]
Jesus fucking christ, I probably need to lie down or something.
I've never seen such tightly-packed self-contradiction.
Also: [I]oh no, the grass will get square marks on it instead of foot-shaped marks, and there might be a few holes in it every here and there
this will cost millions to replace[/I]
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;33606870]nowhere in the video did she say "Don't take my clothes off, I've changed my mind and I'm going to change into clothing now!" All she said was "don't take my clothes off" because she thinks she has the right to wear a tent, which she doesn't.[/QUOTE]
Yes, because you can speak and think that clearly when your clothes are being ripped off.
They didn't give her a chance.
So, you think the screaming was just "It's working, guys! Keep going!" ? Really? Not "stop this"?
[QUOTE=Pascall;33606902]You should like
calm down sir[/QUOTE]
Good idea.
I'mma go play some Skyrim.
You should like
calm down sir
[QUOTE=Last or First;33606880][I][B]YOU JUST FUCKING SAID THAT IT WAS A THREAT[/B][/I]
Jesus fucking christ, I probably need to lie down or something.
I've never seen such tightly-packed self-contradiction.
Also: [I]oh no, the grass will get square marks on it instead of foot-shaped marks, and there might be a few holes in it every here and there
this will cost millions to replace[/I][/QUOTE]
did you actually read what I said in that second quote?
[quote]nobody said it was a threat,[B] if by 'threat' you mean it could physically harm other people. but it is a threat in that it can physically harm the park and cost the city money to repair it.[/B][/quote]
it is a threat to the city because if people were to set up a tent city, the grass could be quite damaged, and the congregation of people there could create vandalism and other acts, just as it has in many other parks that have been used by the occupy movement. you're just blindly ignoring things now.
[QUOTE=Last or First;33606833]And you whined at [I]me[/I] for not paying attention to the video? Did you not hear her screaming "Don't take my clothes off"? Don't you think that would be a fucking clue?
[/QUOTE]
Sounded like she just wanted to attract more attention, along with screaming assault, that was all those hippies wanted. The police probably stopped listening to them after they kept accusing them of breaking laws and "hurting" them.
[QUOTE=Last or First;33606880]Yes, because you can speak and think that clearly when your clothes are being ripped off.
They didn't give her a chance.
So, you think the screaming was just "It's working, guys! Keep going!" ? Really? Not "stop this"?.[/QUOTE]
I think you can think clearly enough. People at gunpoint can think clearly enough to say something like "please, i'll give you my wallet, anything," I think she could think clearly enough to ask for a change of clothes during the half a minute or so it took for them to get a tent off of her.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.