Female accused of sexual violence after world hails iconic photo of her kissing Italian riot officer - Polidicks

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43277445]"The gear frequently worn by riot control officers protects the entire body with no vulnerable spots to exploit. For example, the helmets worn by riot control officers have an additional outward-extending part that protects the back of the neck from assault. To provide even greater protection, the protective equipment often provides ballistic protection. If tear gas or other riot control agents are to be used, gas masks may also be worn." [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_control#Equipment[/URL] don't cut the pigs short, they know how to defend themselves. [editline]23rd December 2013[/editline] at least put some effort in that quote is blatantly contradictory.[/QUOTE] so the "pigs" who have serious fucking burns don't exist? are they a conspiracy to engage proletariet sympathy? oh those crafty bourgeois.

As much as good arguments are being made, you do realise that you are arguing with someone who is so delusionally entrenched in his own beliefs that he is literally going to backpedal in concentric circles with no acceptance or acknowlegement of the posts that oppose him.

[QUOTE=Riller;43277088]Uhm, yeah? It's non-lethal; no one is killed or hurt, and it's an effort to disperse the riots. Fits both criteria there. Shootin' your own foot, sweetcheeks. It's not even that effective in those videos.[/QUOTE] People have been known to die from tear gas, not just from canister impact but from inhaling it too. Non-lethal isn't really the right term for it.

[QUOTE=Valnar;43277493]People have been known to die from tear gas, not just from canister impact but from inhaling it too. Non-lethal isn't really the right term for it.[/QUOTE] Pretty much requires you to be asthmatic for that to happen, though. And if you got respiratory problems, what the living hell are you doing in a place you're likely to get exposed to gas and smoke?

[QUOTE=Riller;43277465]They don't get firebombs thrown at them because they wear riot gear, they wear riot gear because they get firebombs thrown at them. Also, you unironically call police 'pigs'. I find this adorable.[/QUOTE] yea the term pig is a bit harsh. pigs are friendly, cute, and smart. cops are aggressive brutes.

[QUOTE=Valnar;43277493]People have been known to die from tear gas, not just from canister impact but from inhaling it too. Non-lethal isn't really the right term for it.[/QUOTE] Which is why the authorities are more and more referring to it with the most exact term of reduced lethality rather than non-lethal. I know the French police says reduced lethality weapons instead of non-lethal now.

[QUOTE=Riller;43277502]Pretty much requires you to be asthmatic for that to happen, though. And if you got respiratory problems, what the living hell are you doing in a place you're likely to get exposed to gas and smoke?[/QUOTE] you will literally do backflips to defend police action won't you?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43277468]also "hurr hurr this guy likes freedom he's obviously a fascist!1"[/QUOTE] but if everyone has total freedom how will I not be harmed for nothing? what protections do I have? Why shouldn't someone do whatever they want to me with no fear of reprisal? anybody that takes those people who do things to others to "justice" is an authority and cannot exist in an anarchist system so please tell me how is anarchy anything but a totalitarian reign of the people with the physical means to maintain control?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43277525]you will literally do backflips to defend police action won't you?[/QUOTE] you will literally lie to yourself that fire doesn't hurt people, won't you?

[QUOTE=Valnar;43277493]People have been known to die from tear gas, not just from canister impact but from inhaling it too. Non-lethal isn't really the right term for it.[/QUOTE] less-lethal ; it's meant to have a lesser chance of seriously injuring or killing someone (an obvious comparison is a much more lethal molotov)

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;43277510]Which is why the authorities are more and more referring to it with the most exact term of reduced lethality rather than non-lethal. I know the French police says reduced lethality weapons instead of non-lethal now.[/QUOTE] omfg i was saying that earlier and everyone else was like "oh ya it's TOTALLY NON LETHAL DUDE!"

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43277509]yea the term pig is a bit harsh. pigs are friendly, cute, and smart. cops are aggressive brutes.[/QUOTE] No, I mean like, 'pig' is what the imaginary strawman anarchist in my brain calls the police whenever I'm having imaginary strawman arguments with myself. It's not a word real people in the real world use. It's just hilarious, is all.

[QUOTE=Valnar;43277493]People have been known to die from tear gas, not just from canister impact but from inhaling it too. Non-lethal isn't really the right term for it.[/QUOTE] Which is why the official term has been less-lethal for a fuckton of years now. Unsurprisingly, firebombs are not considered less-lethal.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43277534]omfg i was saying that earlier and everyone else was like "oh ya it's TOTALLY NON LETHAL DUDE!"[/QUOTE] unlike a molotov cocktail, it isn't designed to kill and harm and maim so yeah, it's a little less than lethal where as you're literally defending lethal weaponry

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43277527]but if everyone has total freedom how will I not be harmed for nothing? what protections do I have? Why shouldn't someone do whatever they want to me with no fear of reprisal? anybody that takes those people who do things to others to "justice" is an authority and cannot exist in an anarchist system so please tell me how is anarchy anything but a totalitarian reign of the people with the physical means to maintain control?[/QUOTE] pm me if you want. i would love to have that conversation with you if you are actually curious about my position beyond a "this dude is a loon" standpoint. [editline]23rd December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Riller;43277538]No, I mean like, 'pig' is what the imaginary strawman anarchist in my brain calls the police whenever I'm having imaginary strawman arguments with myself. It's not a word real people in the real world use. It's just hilarious, is all.[/QUOTE] yea people in the real world use the term lol.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43277548]pm me if you want. i would love to have that conversation with you if you are actually curious about my position beyond a "this dude is a loon" standpoint.[/QUOTE] i am but I don't see anyway you can make sense of that without serious logical contradictions. that's part of the problem everyone is having here. they may be seriously interested in your logic here, but most people are looking at you and going "You know you're contradicting yourself right?"

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43277525]you will literally do backflips to defend police action won't you?[/QUOTE] By-the-books, lawful police action I will defend a long way, yes. If we were discussing actual police brutality instead of perceived 'help mom im being repressed' here, I'd most certainly change my tune.

calling them pigs means you can't divorce yourself from an emotional point of view and should frankly be ignored in a rational logical discussion

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43277509]cops are aggressive brutes.[/QUOTE] rioters are aggressive brutes cops protect the people against aggressive brutes

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43277527]but if everyone has total freedom how will I not be harmed for nothing? what protections do I have? Why shouldn't someone do whatever they want to me with no fear of reprisal? anybody that takes those people who do things to others to "justice" is an authority and cannot exist in an anarchist system so please tell me how is anarchy anything but a totalitarian reign of the people with the physical means to maintain control?[/QUOTE] (according to recent recaps of internet arguments) anarchism not about a lack of authority as much as it is a [i]change[/i] in the placement of authority from the government to 'the people'. it's just as stable (or unstable) as the traditional model, except instead of the specialized few making / enforcing rules, it's entirely up to the community to put into terms - imagine if everyone on facepunch had the power to ban

Even if you DO consider molotov cocktails a reduced lethality weapon, then you have to consider it's an improvised device that as such is MUCH more likely to cause death due to its unpredictable nature than a carefully calibrated and normed device that's mass produced so all devices do the exact same thing.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43277560]i am but I don't see anyway you can make sense of that without serious logical contradictions. that's part of the problem everyone is having here. they may be seriously interested in your logic here, but most people are looking at you and going "You know you're contradicting yourself right?"[/QUOTE] pm me if you want. also i'm gonna use a lot of sources from other people since i'm a bad writer. [editline]23rd December 2013[/editline] also i like my new title with my new avatar. [editline]23rd December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;43277598]Even if you DO consider molotov cocktails a reduced lethality weapon, then you have to consider it's an improvised device that as such is MUCH more likely to cause death due to its unpredictable nature than a carefully calibrated and normed device that's mass produced so all devices do the exact same thing.[/QUOTE] maybe, idk. the reason we use it is because it is easy to make. it's one of the only tools available.

[QUOTE=Juniez;43277596](according to recent recaps of internet arguments) anarchism not about a lack of authority as much as it is a [i]change[/i] in the placement of authority from the government to everyone else. it's just as stable (or unstable) as the traditional model, except instead of the specialized few making / enforcing rules, it's entirely up to the community[/QUOTE] when you need a community of people to decide if someone is guilty of a crime or not, it comes down to how well those people end up knowing each other, no? I think it's entirely reasonable to assume committee decisions in smaller communities would result in bad decisions due to the inability to divorce emotion from justice.

[QUOTE=Riller;43277502]Pretty much requires you to be asthmatic for that to happen, though. And if you got respiratory problems, what the living hell are you doing in a place you're likely to get exposed to gas and smoke?[/QUOTE] Are you saying asthmatics don't protest?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43277548]pm me if you want. i would love to have that conversation with you if you are actually curious about my position beyond a "this dude is a loon" standpoint. [editline]23rd December 2013[/editline] yea people in the real world use the term lol.[/QUOTE] If you're promoting anarchy due to beliefs of brutality then you must have a really fucking high hope for humanity if you're willing to believe that anarchy will not spawn other forms of brutality. And that's being very generous with your idea that police brutality is the status quo.

i think what the lady done was pretty gross and i'd be pissed off if someone done it to me, but i wouldn't call it sexual violence really, although i can see how it could be construed as that. personally though, i'm a bit torn because lots of what protestors do during a protest are not things i would normally condone but in the context of a protest it becomes a bit different, and i mean, i'm completely against double standards concerning cops, yeah it was wrong and gross what she done, but it's wrong and gross that cops beat the shit out of protestors with batons and all that too

[QUOTE=Valnar;43277619]Are you saying asthmatics don't protest?[/QUOTE] I'm saying that if you have a potentially lethal physical deficiency, you might want to take extra considerations before you willingly enter situations where those are likely to be triggered and kill your dumb, asthmatic, anarchistic ass.

[QUOTE=Valnar;43277619]Are you saying asthmatics don't protest?[/QUOTE] well just like I assume asthmatics don't become fire fighters or avid bonfire makers, I'd probably assume people with dangerous limitations wouldn't go to places where they are more than likely to have to engage in said activities they totally can, but the world can't always function around the limitations of everyone all the time "hey, there's an asmathic in this riot, you fucking pigs can't gas anyone now!" is not really a logical standpoint, is it?

[QUOTE=RetaDepa;43277622]If you're promoting anarchy due to beliefs of brutality then you must have a really fucking high hope for humanity if you're willing to believe that anarchy will not spawn other forms of brutality. And that's being very generous with your idea that police brutality is the status quo.[/QUOTE] i promote anarchism because i accept the premise that "freedom is preferable to authority" and "all forms of authority must be justified".

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43277627]i think what the lady done was pretty gross and i'd be pissed off if someone done it to me, but i wouldn't call it sexual violence really, although i can see how it could be construed as that. personally though, i'm a bit torn because lots of what protestors do during a protest are not things i would normally condone but in the context of a protest it becomes a bit different, and i mean, i'm completely against double standards concerning cops, yeah it was wrong and gross what she done, but it's wrong and gross that cops beat the shit out of protestors with batons and all that too[/QUOTE] Oh hey, the topic! Haven't seen that for six pages!