StrangeSox Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 17, 2012 -> 01:17 PM) Name me a single violent/disruptive protest that has led to some new progressive change. Civil Rights Era protests often became violent and/or disruptive. Most large-scale, sustained protest movements do because fighting to change the power structure always meets heavy resistance. Have you had a chance to read King's letter yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 When I'm thinking about "is initiation of violence ever justified," I'm thinking back to Gilded Age-era union crackdowns by private 'investigator' firms and sanctioned by the government. Or the 60's civil rights movement, of which there was a violent element in addition to King's non-violent movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted May 17, 2012 Author Share Posted May 17, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 17, 2012 -> 01:23 PM) It was part of the OWS protests. Police were clearing tents off the quad and a group of students formed a line on the sidewalk by interlocking arms and sitting down. You can read that report that I linked to several times that discusses the entirety of the known facts surrounding the incident, including the days leading up to it. The report found that the order to leave is not even well-established as a legal order, let alone the excessive use of force by deploying chemical weapons officers were not trained to use and didn't use correctly on non-violent protesters who posed no threat to person or property. "Not obeying a police command unquestioningly" does not justify any police response that follows. Regardless of the legal authority, your average American who reads that story thinks "so kids were sitting down on a sidewalk, arms locked, and they were told to leave repeatedly but didn't? And they got pepper sprayed to leave? Yeah, they probably deserved it." So again, the issue is completely lost and it becomes about whether that response was justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted May 17, 2012 Author Share Posted May 17, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 17, 2012 -> 01:26 PM) When I'm thinking about "is initiation of violence ever justified," I'm thinking back to Gilded Age-era union crackdowns by private 'investigator' firms and sanctioned by the government. Or the 60's civil rights movement, of which there was a violent element in addition to King's non-violent movement. Right, and IMO people today remember King more than they remember Malcolm X. They remember the message of a dream over the acts of the black panthers. If anything, all of that violent stuff fed racism even more ("look, we give them a little and they become unruly and violent!"). And I'm not talking about the Rosa Parks sitting on a bus and getting arrested for it type thing. That's not violent. That's an act of defiance that doesn't involve anyone but you and the officers that arrest you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 17, 2012 -> 01:26 PM) Regardless of the legal authority, your average American who reads that story thinks "so kids were sitting down on a sidewalk, arms locked, and they were told to leave repeatedly but didn't? And they got pepper sprayed to leave? Yeah, they probably deserved it." So again, the issue is completely lost and it becomes about whether that response was justified. That's a deep problem with the American psyche*, but you are correct in that when the unjust use of force isn't directly tied to the primary cause of the protest, the cause can take a back seat to discussions over police violence. Would you imagine the response was similar in the 60's to this? But what's the correct response to a quasi-legal order to stop your free speech, completely 100% non-violent protest? "Oh, sorry officer, I'll just be moving along!" The whole point is that you're fighting to change the current structure, so of course you're going to face resistance. *I found this poll that shows 53% disapproved of the actions, 34% approved and 13% had no opinion. I think it's safe to assume that political ideology plays a role in legitimizing actions against ideological opponents, accounting for at least some of the 35%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 17, 2012 -> 01:30 PM) Right, and IMO people today remember King more than they remember Malcolm X. They remember the message of a dream over the acts of the black panthers. If anything, all of that violent stuff fed racism even more ("look, we give them a little and they become unruly and violent!"). Many of the non-violent protests were met with violent resistance, which is the exact sort of thing you're saying "ho hum" about in the UC Davis case. And I'm not talking about the Rosa Parks sitting on a bus and getting arrested for it type thing. That's not violent. That's an act of defiance that doesn't involve anyone but you and the officers that arrest you. Using police powers to arrest non-violent protesters is still a use of state-backed force to enforce injustice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 I'll say unequivocally that this sounds really dumb! http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/05/16/clo...ng-nato-summit/ (from SexiAlexi) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 17, 2012 -> 02:30 PM) Right, and IMO people today remember King more than they remember Malcolm X. They remember the message of a dream over the acts of the black panthers. If anything, all of that violent stuff fed racism even more ("look, we give them a little and they become unruly and violent!"). And I'm not talking about the Rosa Parks sitting on a bus and getting arrested for it type thing. That's not violent. That's an act of defiance that doesn't involve anyone but you and the officers that arrest you. Marching down a street where you're not allowed to be is also non-violent until the police decide you're not going down that street. Sitting at a counter or sitting at the wrong place on a bus is non-violent only until someone decides to use force to remove you. Under this standard, the only thing that makes a protest non-violent is that the police arrest rather than beat up first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 17, 2012 -> 01:17 PM) Name me a single violent/disruptive protest that has led to some new progressive change. Boston Tea Party? Civil Rights? Watts? Rodney King? Various Whaling Protests? Suicide bombers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 QUOTE (GoSox05 @ May 16, 2012 -> 04:47 PM) I think the bandannas are to protect from pepper spray. Don't they know pepper spray is not the Chicago way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted May 17, 2012 Author Share Posted May 17, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 17, 2012 -> 01:35 PM) Many of the non-violent protests were met with violent resistance, which is the exact sort of thing you're saying "ho hum" about in the UC Davis case. Using police powers to arrest non-violent protesters is still a use of state-backed force to enforce injustice. Just because the response to some non-violent protests is illegal doesn't make the violent protest (the initial questions) itself justified. And we have this wonderful judicial system that when police/the gov't abuse their authority, people get paid for the injustice. I'm curious if the UC students sued and if so what they ended up getting out of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 17, 2012 -> 04:04 PM) Just because the response to some non-violent protests is illegal doesn't make the violent protest (the initial questions) itself justified. And we have this wonderful judicial system that when police/the gov't abuse their authority, people get paid for the injustice. I'm curious if the UC students sued and if so what they ended up getting out of that. Of course they sued, and of course it hasn't been settled yet, but obviously it will be, since UCD has zero urge to have the case go to court. We also have this wonderful judicial system that if the protestors actually turn violent and are arrested doing so, face charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 17, 2012 -> 03:04 PM) Just because the response to some non-violent protests is illegal doesn't make the violent protest (the initial questions) itself justified. And we have this wonderful judicial system that when police/the gov't abuse their authority, people get paid for the injustice. I'm curious if the UC students sued and if so what they ended up getting out of that. You made the jump to sweep all "left" protests under the violent or almost-always-violent category while praising the never-absolutely-ever violent "right" protests. You've also continued to justify or minimize what happened at UC Davis and other protests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 17, 2012 -> 11:44 AM) Totally! Why can't they be more peaceful looking like these folks? Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Those people know they're about to do something that requires responding with deadly force. Why else would they have them?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 U.S. Navy Recruit Training Command · 28,819 like this Yesterday at 11:34am · By order of the Commanding Officer, Naval Station Great Lakes, areas of downtown Chicago is off-limits to MILITARY PERSONNEL IN UNIFORM, between May 18-22, 2012 during the The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit. Newly graduated Sailors must remain in complete uniform at all times, civilian attire is strictly prohibited. A map outlining the off-limits area will be printed in the May 18, 2012 Pass-In-Review/Graduation program. The off-limits areas include: • Northern Boundary: West Division St. • Eastern Boundary: Lake Michigan • Southern Boundary: East 47th St. • Western Boundary: Interstate 94 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted May 17, 2012 Author Share Posted May 17, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 17, 2012 -> 01:52 PM) Marching down a street where you're not allowed to be is also non-violent until the police decide you're not going down that street. Sitting at a counter or sitting at the wrong place on a bus is non-violent only until someone decides to use force to remove you. Under this standard, the only thing that makes a protest non-violent is that the police arrest rather than beat up first. Police don't just decide "oh hey, a peaceful, legal march, let's go f*** em up!" Protestors go beyond the bounds where they're supposed to be and the cops respond accordingly. Yes, sometimes in excess. Again though, that does nothing to add to the protest of X issue other than framing cops and the gov't as free speech oppressors, which is generally a bunch of nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 17, 2012 -> 03:21 PM) Police don't just decide "oh hey, a peaceful, legal march, let's go f*** em up!" Protestors go beyond the bounds where they're supposed to be and the cops respond accordingly. How can you keep saying this when it is plainly untrue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted May 17, 2012 Author Share Posted May 17, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 17, 2012 -> 03:07 PM) Of course they sued, and of course it hasn't been settled yet, but obviously it will be, since UCD has zero urge to have the case go to court. We also have this wonderful judicial system that if the protestors actually turn violent and are arrested doing so, face charges. Is that wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 17, 2012 -> 03:21 PM) U.S. Navy Recruit Training Command · 28,819 like this Yesterday at 11:34am · By order of the Commanding Officer, Naval Station Great Lakes, areas of downtown Chicago is off-limits to MILITARY PERSONNEL IN UNIFORM, between May 18-22, 2012 during the The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit. Newly graduated Sailors must remain in complete uniform at all times, civilian attire is strictly prohibited. A map outlining the off-limits area will be printed in the May 18, 2012 Pass-In-Review/Graduation program. The off-limits areas include: • Northern Boundary: West Division St. • Eastern Boundary: Lake Michigan • Southern Boundary: East 47th St. • Western Boundary: Interstate 94 I would imagine that this is two-fold, both to make sure soldiers stay away as potential victims and to make sure active duty, uniformed soldiers are not participating in protests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted May 17, 2012 Author Share Posted May 17, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 17, 2012 -> 03:22 PM) How can you keep saying this when it is plainly untrue? You've provided one example where the authority of the cops is at issue. In Chicago there will be no such discrepancy. These groups had to apply for, and receive, permits with specific times/locations/limitations on how/when/where they can protest. If they go beyond those limitations, the authority of the cops is 100% clear. When the Chicago PD starts beating the s*** out of protesters walking down a planned route, i'll change my position on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 17, 2012 -> 04:23 PM) Is that wrong? Is it wrong that people inappropriately/illegally assaulted by police have a right to seek redress through the courts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 17, 2012 -> 04:24 PM) You've provided one example where the authority of the cops is at issue. In Chicago there will be no such discrepancy. These groups had to apply for, and receive, permits with specific times/locations/limitations on how/when/where they can protest. If they go beyond those limitations, the authority of the cops is 100% clear. When the Chicago PD starts beating the s*** out of protesters walking down a planned route, i'll change my position on this. Wouldn't be the first time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted May 17, 2012 Author Share Posted May 17, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 17, 2012 -> 03:25 PM) Is it wrong that people inappropriately/illegally assaulted by police have a right to seek redress through the courts? Absolutely not, that's my point. There's a redress if cops do something WRONG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted May 17, 2012 Author Share Posted May 17, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 17, 2012 -> 03:26 PM) Wouldn't be the first time Well before a lot of the modern laws designed to allow protests but within reason for the safety/order of the rest of the city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts