NATO Chicago

[Jenksismyhero]

 

Drone headed toward the City. We're officially like Afghanistan!

 

 

Also, this s*** pisses me off:

 

 

 

If you're going to protest, have the balls/labia to show your face.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

I don't think you understand why they wear those scarfs.

 

But why does anonymity piss you off?

Edited May 16, 2012 by StrangeSox

[GoSox05]

I think the bandannas are to protect from pepper spray.

[StrangeSox]

That's exactly right.

[Jenksismyhero]

Part of it is to hide their identity too, so they can't come after them later (See, Vancouver riots). That they know they're about to do something to warrant getting pepper sprayed also pisses me off.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

Part of it is to hide their identity too, so they can't come after them later (See, Vancouver riots). That they know they're about to do something to warrant getting pepper sprayed also pisses me off.

If UC Davis has taught us anything, "being outdoors" warrants getting pepper sprayed these days. Let alone actually attending a protest.

[Soxbadger]

Ive been pepper sprayed and maced, protection is for the weak!

[StrangeSox]

Part of it is to hide their identity too, so they can't come after them later (See, Vancouver riots).

 

There are many reasons for anonymity. Avoiding retaliation is one of them; retaliation is not necessarily justified.

 

That they know they're about to do something to warrant getting pepper sprayed also pisses me off.

 

I suggest you revisit King's letter that I recently posted, the UC Davis pepper-spray incident I recently posted the findings on in the OWS thread, the acts of the NYPD lieutenant early on in OWS and the history of police response to leftist protests in general. That they anticipate it possibly being used does not mean they know they're about to do something that actually warrants its use. Merely being a large crowd is often enough to "warrant" the use of pepper spray at protests.

[Jenksismyhero]

Spare me. These assholes are making it a headache for the hundreds of thousands that work downtown, and their little get together accomplishes NOTHING. Yay to them for spending the time/energy to do this, but I don't feel sorry at all considering a good chunk of them have one goal and that's to f*** with people/destroy things, not to peaceably assemble in protest. These are organizations with histories of doing this stuff year after year. To paint them as hippies holding hands in a circle singing songs is dishonest.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

Making it a headache to get to work and being ineffective does not warrant being pepper-sprayed for exercising their first-amendment rights.

 

A majority of them do not have "one goal" to f*** with people/destroy things. At some protests sometimes, a very small minority get violent or destructive, and sometimes it's agent provocateurs (the police themselves). Since at least Seattle, all leftist protests are met with heavy police presence and crowd dispersal weapons (pepper spray and rubber bullets, typically) are usually deployed regardless of provocation. I am not painting them as hippies holding hands but as American citizens exercising their right to protest. If you wish to remain willfully ignorant of unwarranted use of pepper spray by police against protesters, that is your prerogative. I gave you two very recent, very clear-cut examples.

Edited May 16, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

Making it a headache to get to work and being ineffective does not warrant being pepper-sprayed for exercising their first-amendment rights.

 

A majority of them do not have "one goal" to f*** with people/destroy things. At some protests sometimes, a very small minority get violent or destructive, and sometimes it's agent provocateurs (the police themselves). Since at least Seattle, all leftist protests are met with heavy police presence and crowd dispersal weapons (pepper spray and rubber bullets, typically) are usually deployed regardless of provocation. I am not painting them as hippies holding hands but as American citizens exercising their right to protest. If you wish to remain willfully ignorant of unwarranted use of pepper spray by police against protesters, that is your prerogative. I gave you two very recent, very clear-cut examples.

 

Exercising their first amendment rights while violating various other laws in the process. Sorry, the UC case doesn't dissuade my opinion here. They were trespassing and wouldn't leave. It might have been excessive, but use of pepper spray in that situation was not wrong.

 

Look, i'm all about freedom of speech and revolution and all that. I think our system is currently f***ed and change is needed. But bringing a bunch of furniture into a Citi bank lobby "in protest" doesn't change a damn thing. Throwing bags of vomit/piss/s*** on people in suits doesn't do a damn thing. We've seen in the past what happens when the "peaceful protestors" are coddled - they riot and get out of control.

 

[IlliniKrush]

Spare me. These assholes are making it a headache for the hundreds of thousands that work downtown, and their little get together accomplishes NOTHING. Yay to them for spending the time/energy to do this, but I don't feel sorry at all considering a good chunk of them have one goal and that's to f*** with people/destroy things, not to peaceably assemble in protest. These are organizations with histories of doing this stuff year after year. To paint them as hippies holding hands in a circle singing songs is dishonest.

Right on. People who inconvenience others who have NOTHING to do with any of it to try to make some point should all be pepper sprayed. Can't stand people that block people from walking, block cars, break s***, etc.

 

Go get a f***ing life.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'll add too that i'm 100% behind the right to peaceably assemble in protest (obviously). I went to many a tea party gatherings in the City, and you know what? They were all peaceful. They were people talking on a microphone while others stood around and listened. I didn't see too many people feeling the need to cover their faces in fear of being pepper sprayed.

[StrangeSox]

Exercising their first amendment rights while violating various other laws in the process. Sorry, the UC case doesn't dissuade my opinion here. They were trespassing and wouldn't leave. It might have been excessive, but use of pepper spray in that situation was not wrong.

 

Please read the two independent commissions' reports on this issue. They are the most recent posts in the OWS thread. You are factually wrong and even the legality of the order to vacate is not clear.

 

Nothing done there justifies the use of pepper spray. Nor does anything done here:

 

 

You indicted those wearing bandanas as being cowards unwilling to reveal their identity and thugs who know they're about to do something to warrant being pepper sprayed. Your position is not supportable.

 

Look, i'm all about freedom of speech and revolution and all that. I think our system is currently f***ed and change is needed. But bringing a bunch of furniture into a Citi bank lobby "in protest" doesn't change a damn thing. Throwing bags of vomit/piss/s*** on people in suits doesn't do a damn thing. We've seen in the past what happens when the "peaceful protestors" are coddled - they riot and get out of control.

 

Nobody is bringing furniture in Citi in those shots that pissed you off so much, but you still seem sure that they're just about to do something illegal. I also am doubtful of claims of throwing bags of excrement at people, though those people should be arrested if this is a thing that actually happened. We've seen in the past when actually peaceful protesters are assaulted by police for no legitimate reason, yet you insist on ignoring that and slandering all the protesters as people just waiting to break s*** and hurt others. Recent history belies your claim as almost all of the OWS protests were handled without force and, with the exception of one in Portland, did not riot and did not get out of control.

 

[BigSqwert]

Didn't the initial tea party protest in history involve people breaking the law as part of their protest?

[StrangeSox]

I'll add too that i'm 100% behind the right to peaceably assemble in protest (obviously). I went to many a tea party gatherings in the City, and you know what? They were all peaceful. They were people talking on a microphone while others stood around and listened. I didn't see too many people feeling the need to cover their faces in fear of being pepper sprayed.

 

There isn't a history of police response to tea party protests regardless of how peaceful they are that would make it a good idea to prepare for being sprayed. You insist on ignoring very recent examples of people being sprayed by police for no justifiable reason.

 

In case you're actually curious and not just pissed off at lefties, here's a summary and some excerpts from the UC Davis report:

http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/459368.html

But before it even came to that point, the student protesters had, with the help of Legal Services, gone over all the relevant state laws, city ordinances, campus ordinances, and campus regulations and concluded that no matter what the Chancellor thought, it was entirely legal for them to set up that camp. When the university’s legal department found out that Chancellor Katehi was going to order the camp removed, they thought they made it clear to her that the students were right.

 

I kept having to stop and slap my forehead over that one repeated phrase in the report: (this person or that) was under the impression she had made it clear that (some order was given), but nobody else present had that impression. Anybody who is “under the impression that they made it clear” that some order was given who who didn’t put it in writing and who hasn’t had that order paraphrased back to them? Should be slapped. Or at the very least demoted. Unless you actually said it, you didn’t “make it clear.”

 

It turns out that it is illegal for anybody to lodge on the campus without permission, but the relevant law only applies to people trying to make it their permanent dwelling. The law prohibits non-students from camping on campus for any reason, but neither student affairs nor the one cop sent to look could find any non-students who were there overnight. A campus regulation says that students can’t set up tents without permission, but that regulation is not enforceable by police, only by academic discipline. Campus legal “thought they made it clear” that the law was on the students’ side, but according to multiple witnesses, what they actually said was “it is unclear that you have legal authority to order the police to do this” and Chancellor Katehi heard that as “well, they didn’t say I don’t have that authority, only that it’s not clear.”

 

Chancellor Katehi, on her part, “thought she made it clear” that when police ordered the students to leave, they were (a) not to wear riot gear into the camp, (b) not to carry weapons of any kind into the camp, © were not to use force of any kind against the students, and (d) were not to make any arrests. But all that anybody else on that conference call heard her say out loud was “I don’t want another situation like they just had at Berkeley,” and Chief Spicuzza interpreted that as “no swinging of clubs.”

 

Chief Spicuzza “thought she made it clear” more than once that no riot gear was to be worn and no clubs or pepper sprayers were to be carried. What Lieutenant Pike said back to her, each time, was, “Well, I hear you say that you don’t want us to, but we’re going to.” And they did, including that now-infamous Mk-9 military-grade riot-control pepper sprayer that he used. Oh, funny thing about that particular model of pepper-sprayer? It’s illegal for California cops to possess or use. It turns out that the relevant law only permits the use of up to Mk-4 pepper sprayers. The consultants were unable to find out who authorized the purchase and carrying, but every cop they asked said, “So what? It’s just like the Mk-4 except that it has a higher capacity.” Uh, no. It’s also much, much higher pressure, and specifically designed not to be sprayed directly at any one person, only at crowds, and only from at least six feet away. The manufacturer says so. The person in charge of training California police in pepper spray says that as far as he knows, no California cop has ever received training, from his office or from the manufacturer, in how to safely use a Mk-9 sprayer, presumably because it’s illegal. But Officer Nameless, when he wrote the action plan for these arrests, included all pepper-spray equipment in the equipment list, both the paint-ball rifle pepper balls and the Mk-9 riot-control sprayers.

 

http://reynosoreport.ucdavis.edu/reynoso-report.pdf

The legality of the decision to remove tents and arrest resisters has questionable legal basis:

1. The decision to mount a police operation to remove the tents. At the time the

operation was mounted (and continuing until the present) it was not clear what

legal authority existed for the campus police to remove the tents and arrest those

who opposed them. Members of the Leadership Team referred to a UC Davis

policy against overnight camping on University property in emails, but no legal

basis for campus police removing tents was stated.

 

Questions regarding the legal authority for campus police to remove tents from

the Quad were raised by UCDPD leadership in calls to Campus Counsel just

hours before the operation was commenced as well as by the activists

themselves, who repeatedly challenged the legal basis of the police operation

before and during the event.

 

The protesters in this case naively believed that remaining peaceful and non-violent would prevent the use of chemical weapons:

“The police will not use violence – once they march – if you are not violent – they

consider linking arms – as passive resistance – they will only – use chemical

weapons – if you use force – against them – I would encourage – a position of

non-violence.”404

Edited May 16, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Soxbadger]

That really is the bottom line. You know when you are going to something that is going to be a riot as opposed to a peaceful protest.

 

Ignorance is bliss, but these people know what they are signing up for. I can only speak personally, but back in the days of my youth at Madison, I was around plenty of riots, etc, and every time I knew I was going to bad situation. But that was the point.

 

If you are going with masks, etc, you arent going just to have a fun time.

[StrangeSox]

That really is the bottom line. You know when you are going to something that is going to be a riot as opposed to a peaceful protest.

 

Ignorance is bliss, but these people know what they are signing up for. I can only speak personally, but back in the days of my youth at Madison, I was around plenty of riots, etc, and every time I knew I was going to bad situation. But that was the point.

 

If you are going with masks, etc, you arent going just to have a fun time.

But you can be sprayed at peaceful protests!

[southsider2k5]

That really is the bottom line. You know when you are going to something that is going to be a riot as opposed to a peaceful protest.

 

Ignorance is bliss, but these people know what they are signing up for. I can only speak personally, but back in the days of my youth at Madison, I was around plenty of riots, etc, and every time I knew I was going to bad situation. But that was the point.

 

If you are going with masks, etc, you arent going just to have a fun time.

 

The whole goal is to attract attention by becoming the "victim".

[Texsox]

Every time a huge military chopper flies through the city, I have this slight worry for a millisecond that we're under attack or something.

 

There are so many strange military stuff flying around by me that you eventually get accustomed to it. What still freaks some people, and me, is when a Mexico helicopter strays across the river looking for something.

[StrangeSox]

The whole goal is to attract attention by becoming the "victim".

I'm pretty sure non-violent protesters would prefer not being sprayed, but explicit victim blaming is cool.

 

Did you read the uc Davis report?

 

[southsider2k5]

I'm pretty sure non-violent protesters would prefer not being sprayed, but explicit victim blaming is cool.

 

Did you read the uc Davis report?

 

When protestors have to be told not be arrested by the organizers, like they did on May Day, that pretty well explains what the point has become. Then again, part of the challenge is seeding just enough violent protesters to provide the opportunity to get the "gotcha" moment.

[Texsox]

When protestors have to be told not be arrested by the organizers, like they did on May Day, that pretty well explains what the point has become. Then again, part of the challenge is seeding just enough violent protesters to provide the opportunity to get the "gotcha" moment.

You planning another tea party?

[StrangeSox]

When protestors have to be told not be arrested by the organizers, like they did on May Day, that pretty well explains what the point has become. Then again, part of the challenge is seeding just enough violent protesters to provide the opportunity to get the "gotcha" moment.

I guess you never did read it. It could have been subtitled "why everything ss2k5 used to try to excuse unwarranted, excessive force is wrong."

[southsider2k5]

I guess you never did read it. It could have been subtitled "why everything ss2k5 used to try to excuse unwarranted, excessive force is wrong."

 

I don't need more of your propaganda.