Buwahahahaha! Code Pinko gets slammedFollow

Actually yes. My only beef with this situation is that the cop used excessive force, not that he used force in the first place. There was a tiny woman in his face and he slammed her in the chest with his baton or whatever. He could have subdued her with less force than that. If he applied the same force to a man the same size as him, it would have been a more reasonable action.

Edited, Sep 1st 2008 1:32pm by DaimenKain

You don't really believe this, right?

Hmm, for such a peace loving group of people, why'd they riot in Minnesota this weekend? Kind of negates their message, doesn't it?

Totem

I'm wondering what quality of soldier is under threat of being murdered by some female peace protesters while out in public.



Superman actually has no upper limit to his strength, which can vary greatly depending on the whims of the current writer from one hundred million tons per square inch to several thousand. You're thinking of Hercules, who was described in the Legendary Journeys as having the strength of ten men, despite this being mythologically inaccurate.

Yes, I am that much of a nerd to point this out.

You shouldn't go nuts with numbers. Assuming that woman can lift a 20kg weight with both her hands, you just said that that police officer can bench 200kg, which is really about three times his own weight. And I'm willing to bet that girl could bench more than 20kg if she really had to.

You really need to think about your metaphors before you make them or else you just look silly.

This is the part that annoyed me.



He's a cop so he's allowed to beat up women at protest rallies who aren't directly committing any sort of crime at all??

You really need to rethink your concept of "police". Police are given extraordinary legal powers with the understanding that this carries extraordinary legal responsibility. Y'know, like Spiderman. They're allowed to carry guns. Equally, the penalty for them shooting someone accidentally should be much greater, because they're specifically trained not to do that.

You remember that guy in the 90s? Amadou Diallo? The one who was shot in New York by four police officers after they mistakenly identified him as a wanted rapist and then mistakenly identified him as going for a gun? They shot him nineteen times. This is a guy who migrated from West Africa, sold watches in the day and studied biochemistry in the evening, and he was shot nineteen times while walking home one night by police officers. Is that what cops should be doing?

You probably know this, but the cops were acquitted. There walk four people who murdered someone, and they were acquitted because they're cops. They should have been convicted because they're cops.

The right to peaceful protest is so fundamental to democracy that no nation can claim to be democratic if it has curtailed that right.

Voting is a fundamental and essential right, but it's only exercisable once every 2 to 5 years (depending on the country and the level of Government)

Protests can be held at any time, and are the most effective way for people who can't afford massive campaign donations to get their voice heard about a single political issue. There are a massive amount of positive political changes that occurred all around the world that probably would not have happened, or would not have happened as fast as they did, without public protest marches.

Unless a government is very oppressive, I don't think it should be allowable to cover your face in a mask while in public demonstrations. In Australia protests hardly ever turn into riots, and there's no damage to or looting of other people's property. But sadly sometimes violence does break out in spot places, and it's usually provoked by young men in masks, who are obviously there for the physical fight, not because they believe in the cause.

Edited, Sep 3rd 2008 12:02pm by Aripyanfar

Ok, so next time you're out walking the streets, you're gonna be perfectly fine with a cop just coming out of nowhere and beating your *** for no reason? That's cool.

Unless you're saying that protesting is enough of a reason for a beating. I mean, yea, it's not like the right to protest is a fundamental part of the Constitution. I mean, if it was in the FIRST amendment, that would be nice...oh wait...it is.

Yes.

You said "yes" to the statement that a cop should be allowed to beat a woman up at a protest when they aren't committing any sort of crime.

Since being at a protest rally should be no different than walking the streets of America; at least in terms of how you can and can't act, then there's no difference between a cop assaulting you at a protest when you're not committing a crime of any sort, or when you're just walking the streets and they assault you for not committing a crime of any sort . I don't see what you're saying, here.

Are you saying that a protest rally isn't America any more? It wasn't a full blown riot, it was a protest rally.

It's really funny that there are people who are defending the force this guy used; seriously. Is the woman 150% the victim? No, but she did nothing to provoke the force that was applied.

Mind showing me where the word 'should' exists in the question that I answered? Might seem like a trivial thing but it kinda alters the entire f'ucking meaning of the sentence. Reading = good, understanding = better. I suggest you work on both.

This is so stupid on so many levels. Thank you for confirming without a doubt that you and I are not speaking of the same matter.

I've bolded a word in your sentence. Can you guess why?

Free speech does not include breaking windows, lighting buildings on fire, and throwing objects at police. Nor does it include lesser crimes like blocking traffic, people's businesses, etc. If you get a permit you may conduct a rally/whatever. If you don't have one, you can still do such on public land as long as you're not considered to be obstructing other's use of said land (so, you can't block entrances to businesses, homes, etc).

Free speech does not mean that everyone else must suspend their own rights in order for you to ensure that no one misses what you say. It's your job to legally use that right. Unfortunately, most protesters tend to forget this part of the whole freedom and liberty thing, and think that only their rights matter.




About 99% of protests haven't worked this way since the early 70s. You are aware that tens of thousands of people don't just magically appear of their own accord, wearing matching T-shirts, with pre-printed signs and chanting the same slogans without massive amounts of funding and coordination, right? It's just another form of campaign funding. Perhaps some of those involved are naive enough to think this is in anyway unconnected to traditional soft-money donations, but that's their own misunderstanding of just how much they're being used by a well funded political machine.



Yup. And the funders of politicians realized this and latched on to it some 30 years ago. Now, almost all protests are funded by groups with a specific special interest and usually a lot of wealthy backers who want things to go a particular way. Do you think those backers really care about the slogans the protesters chant? They just know that by them being there, they can increase the odds of the guy they've bought and paid for getting elected.