Is this still America?
 

I don't even know what to say. This is so Orwellian I can't even describe it.

The last 2 minutes or so are so crazy. Is anyone for this type of police action?

I don't even care what they are saying, they are nonviolent and this is the outcome...

The police action was even-handed enough.

The problem I have with videos such as these is that you don't get the full picture. Were these people in an area that posed a security risk? Were they being disruptive?

They were protesting near the G20 summit, right?

I'm glad no violence broke out. This is where we need a bunch of monks, nuns, or children to go sit down in front of the police as they are advancing.

The worst part is that this is nothing new and has been going on since long before the US was founded.

I kind of have to agree with Baraka_Guru on this. Unless or until we have more information, it's impossible to say whether the police action was justified.

We don't see any of the events that preceded the arrival of the police force on the scene, for one. I don't know how they do things in Pittsburgh, but it's my assumption that if police are arriving in riot gear it's because they have concerns that the situation may escalate.

A quick Google search turns up an MSNBC article detailing the events of Thursday, Sept 24 in Pittsburgh -- according to them, over $50 000 in property damage was caused by rioters, and four unnamed individuals were charged with aggravated assault.

Boisterous protesters at G-20 summit - Life- msnbc.com

I think there's more to this story than is available in either the article or video. Given that, I really don't feel like I have enough information to comment on the propriety of the officers involved.

The sonic weapons being used on US soil make me nervous. I can defend against sonic weapons (which can cause permanent ear damage) to a point with noise canceling headphones and earplugs, but what's next? The "lightning gun"? The ADS? I don't know how to protect myself from a microwave weapon without having a large piece of grounded metal, and I think they might figure me out carrying around one of those.

I think in situations like this, with the large scale protesting, it is completely prudent to assume that 75% of the justifications the police give for their actions are complete fabrications meant to cover for the fact that they blatantly violated somebody's civil rights.

I think the Saint Paul police department is still dropping charges against folks whom they mistakenly arrested during last year's RNC.

I know nearly all here can't come to the conclusion that is necessary, but the ONLY way to prevent this sequence of events from becoming the norm is to use lethal force. Most of America are either too ignorant and stupid or too cowardly to come to this conclusion.

What other police action would be acceptable? Teargas, pepper spray, beatings with batons and/or water cannons? That's what you typically see in other countries...

IMO - this looks staged. Seriously? - Action News 69? A squad of troops against a small crowd?
As previously stated, it is only half of the story. Lawful assembly is allowed, w/a permit. Excessive force? Doubtful. Since I do not live in the area, I cannot say. I do know that any agency in SoFL would not use that many officers for such few people.

Maybe these protesters should take a tip from the recent republican demonstrations and have their attendees strapped with assault weapons. (legal weapons of course) Maybe then the police would be less willing to push them around. The makers of the constitution put the second amendment in for pretty much that very reason.

Seriously ? - the 2nd Amendment was for people to stand up against the police?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Sorry, don't see where that fits.

did you see a free state in that video? no, you saw a totalitarian state.

The 2nd Amendment was written to prevent the government from being more powerful than the citizenry.

This is what i meant, William. It was written to keep the power in the hands of the people. The police in this case are infringing upon the rights of the citizenry on behalf of the government. It may be the local government but last i checked Pittsburgh was still part of America. A government is less likely to act against it's citizens if those citizens are well armed.

So, yes.. this is pretty much the exact reason the 2nd amendment was written. It may not be against federal officers or the army... but in this day and age its kinda hard to tell the difference between the police and the army.

What are you talking about? They were free to leave. The videos were free to be distributed. They were free to say what they did without arrest.

This did not look like a totalitarian state. Most of us don't know what that looks like, and there's a reason for that.

This is not to say there weren't plays of governmentality and power at work, but we are familiar with these things, especially when groups of people toy with the boundaries.

This was not Orwellian. This was Althusserian...or maybe Foucaultian.

I can't help but think this will ONLY make things worse. I think it's ignorant and possibly stupid for one to come to this conclusion without demonstrating one has explored all other options. Again, we don't know the circumstances surround the video. Are you saying both lawful and unlawful people should use lethal force against the police as a deterrent to future police action?

But they weren't free to peacably assemble in that spot, were they?

totalitarian, authoritarian, or whatever. It wasn't a free state. I don't care how liberal or conservative you are, any time you have police lined up 3 deep with heavy riot gear, nightsticks, and shields marching towards you while you are being told that if you do not leave the area, you will be arrested is not a free state. It was a clear cut violation of the peoples right to peacably assemble.

dk... there was serious potential for violence and property damage based on past Seattle violence and the recent London riots. Violence and vandalism eventually occurred in Pittsburgh. There was more than enough evidence for the potential of violence from various groups (in their own words and materials). The city is responsible to the taxpayers... their safety and the protection of property. I'm sure they were hopeful that the protesters would act peacefully...but that didn't happen. The violence was minimal compared to other G20 events... perhaps this is because of Pittsburgh's preparation.

I heard there were episodes of violence in Pitt. There generally is going to be at almost any gathering of this significance throughout the world, some even started by undercover law enforcement. The video in the OP didn't appear to show any violence perpetrated by this group but it certainly didn't stop the riot police from their domination though.

so the protestors should have shot and killed the police?

Yes, but only if they were wearing Che' shirts... then all violence is justified.

did the police violate the right to peacably assemble?

..

But that's the thing. We don't know if they were peacefully assembled. We don't know if they were violating laws, disturbing the peace, etc.

If it were totalitarian/authoritarian state, we'd probably not be talking about it right now. Actually, we wouldn't even know about it.

so you rank their right to peaceably assemble higher than the police officers' lives? REALLY?

yes, I do. The founders of this nation put their rights and freedoms above their own lives. I'm willing to do the same. If an agent of the government (who is supposed to uphold the constitution) isn't going to do his job and protect my rights, why should I value their life?

I can't even wrap my mind around this mindset

why? is your right to protest or assemble not important to you? what if others feel that it is? does that make them less than you?

Dk worries me. Seems like every major debate lately, he either wants people to respond with arms, or warns that people might, or will be pushed to respond with arms. Stuff like "don't push us, we have guns, and it's not a threat, but seriously, there's been blood spilled before, and we don't like being pushed."

Do you really think it always boils down to that, dk? I mean, contrary to what the title suggests, this is still America. We can still resolve things through other ways than by pointing big guns at each other.

Can we though? I admit, it can happen. Look at the response after all the town halls. Those politicians eventually listened to their constituents, which is good, but it doesn't always happen like that. The different levels of governments (fed, state, locals) most of them hate your protesting because it interferes with their agenda. They'll let you so you think you're accomplishing something, but when it comes to a point that you're impeding on what they want to do, you see the results like the video in the OP. If you are happy being ignored while you still get to protest, good for you. But if your government is not only ignoring you, but denying you your intent and will, what are you going to do?

Name me one successful violent revolution in this country since the Constitution was enacted.

The Constitution has been violated on a daily basis more or less since the day it was ratified, so why hasn't the citizenry revolted at any point in the past 200+ years?

they did. it was called the civil war. maybe you've heard of it. There has also been several local revolts in this country after the civil war. These were not successful because it ended up being one small group of citizens against a superior armed military contingent. It was for these specific reasons that the 2nd was written. It is also the very same reason why the government has infringed upon it and the less concerned citizens allow it.

It's been over 100 years since the last serious revolt. history dictates that it's almost time for another one.

dk was first chair saber rattler in his high school band

I'm living in Pittsburgh. And the protesters most definitely did not have guns. Some may have been violent, but the police overreacted terribly. I'm always in the Oakland area, where the police basically gassed, arrested, and beat many students simply hanging around their dorms - they weren't protesting in any way.

And I say this as someone who thinks the protesters were a bunch of ineffectual hippies and anarchists that piss me off. But the police were even worse.

The Civil War was successful for the south?

far from it actually. I didn't develop this attitude and mindset until about 8 years ago.

---------- Post added at 02:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:10 PM ----------

I did not say that. I said it was the largest one since the constitution was ratified.

As I stated before, I do not know the whole story of the situation. Nor do you. How are the police infringing on anyone - by quieting a rebellion?
And no, this is not why we have the 2nd Amendment. Our Constitution and Amendments were written after the Revolutionary War - against another Country. One that our forefathers chose to cede from.

A government is less likely to act against it's citizens if those citizens are well armed.
Really? Then why isn't Cuba a State?

What is this thug like mentality from the cops? This is uncalled for. Where do they find these guys they don't even sound or look human. I have zero respect for these police due to the way they are behaving. It's savage.

Here's the big brother tank again shouting orders on a different street:

G20 2009: Police Attack Students at University of Pittsburgh

While I agree that the police force displayed at 4:00 seems excessive, I reserve judgment until I get a full story. It seems like the chief of police declared an "unlawful assembly" for a reason. (An unlawful assembly is usually described on the books as something likely to lead to riot....seems as if some vandalism/arson *may* have occurred prior to the video).

Friendly reminder...
Taser defense: taser-proof vest and pants aren't difficult to make at home. All you need to do is layer conductive and nonconductive materials. An outer layer of cotton to camouflage, middle layer or two of very thick aluminum, and inner layer of thick rubber would likely short out your average taser. If you're shot with this on, pretend to be shocked and drop to the floor unmoving so they don't figure to shoot you in the head.
Bullet/projectile defense: concealable ballistic armor can be purchased online and will stop certain guns, and will drastically reduce the damage done by non-lethal rounds such as rubber bullets, sand bags, and H2O rounds. If someone is opening fire in your area, protect your head at all costs as nonlethal munitions can and have caused fatalities when they hit an individual in the head. You may want to keep a helmet in a backpack.
Sonic weapon defense: aside from the obvious ear protection—ear plugs and noise canceling headphones—sound can also be deflected or absorbed. When I was a little kid I visited NASA's Ames research center at Moffett Field. Among the things I got to see was a sound room, in which cones of foam lined the entire surface and prevented nearly all sound from reflecting. While I don't think this can be exactly duplicated, there is a certain kind of mattress cover which may be able to replicate (to a lower degree of success) the same noise canceling effect. They look like this:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...500_AA270_.jpg
I've not had a chance to test this, but in theory it should decrease the dangerously high decibel levels.
Microwave weapons: I've been thinking about this one for the past few days, and I think the best defense would be a bit complex. Emergency foil blankets can be found at most hiking supply stores, so I'd pick up one of those. Sew onto one side a nonconductive material such as cotton with handles on the cotton side. Attach to the aluminum insulated test jumper leads, and on the other side crimp on a grounding clamp. If you're worried that the microwave weapon is about to be activated, clamp onto something grounded like a fire hydrant and wrap yourself in the blanket aluminum out and cotton in. I've obviously not had a chance to test this, but it could work in theory. Do not deploy the blanket until you're 100% sure it's properly grounded.
Dazzler (laser blinding weapon): Don't think I'm paranoid, this has already been used in Iraq for several years. It would seem the best way to deal with this would be to have welding goggles. If the weapon is activated, flip down the lenses.

Why go through the trouble? Because as soon as you run, you've failed at whatever you're attempting by protesting.

If I've missed anything, let me know.

the 2nd was written because the framers knew first hand how oppressive a government could be, especially against a disarmed populace. That is why they always wanted the citizens to be armed.

when it knows that those arms will be used against them, yes.
are cuban citizens allowed arms?

---------- Post added at 07:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:02 PM ----------

to protect and serve, right? pfffft. imagine the attitude shift they'd have if they faced armed citizens. much more polite than being told to 'get that camera out of my face'.

You don't think cops face armed citizens? Of course not, crooks don't carry guns, they carry carrots, and point them at the cops, stop shooting you fuckin pig or I'll whip my carrot at you. A little less gun crazy a little more common sense maybe is in order. But carry on, I enjoy this carry guns, kill a cop chatter, it's good top see how many crazy's there are out there.

3 cops, 3 armed citizens gets a call for more backup.
30 cops, 50 armed citizens gets an amazing attempt at de-escalating the issue before the shooting starts.

wait, you think 50 citizens showing the cops that they have guns will DE-ESCALATE the situation?

Shoot out at the OK Corral

you think 30 cops are going to take on 50 armed individuals?

http://media.southparkstudios.com/me...y_arrested.jpg
Oh, I'm sorry! I thought this was America! I thought I was in America! What, is this a communist country or something?

/necessary South Park reference

You can reverse the effects of tear gas with onions. Just slice into one and put it near your eyes. Instead of the onions making you cry like they normally would they would neutralize the effects of the tear gas. Of course, this can only help so much. :thumbsup:

dk - you take my "quote" out of context. It was from a quote byObieX. It was my point that Cubans do not have arms. I do not not see the "thug mentality" by the police; but again, I do not know the whole story. Nor does anyone else watching this short clip. I DO know that the Miami police would not respond w/this force for such a small number of people. True question - what is the whole story, or is it just a story?

That's a question for the courts to decide. Not some half baked, martyr wannabe, pseudo revolutionary with a gun. You do know, don't you, that it's rhetoric, such as yours, that fuels the anti second ammendment crowd? And, it's times like this that I sometimes have to wonder my own self.

I predict, dksuddeth, that one day we will be hearing of you in the news. Only, thing is, we'll never know that it was you.

Y'know, I'm curious. What is it with you? Did you get one to many traffic ticket? Did you get busted for an open container law? Were you caught carrying controlled substances? Were the police called to tell you to turn down your god-awful music? What? What is it, that fuels this hatred, of yours, toward the police?

It is not my problem that the anti second amendment people have issue with people like me who would stand up and fight for their rights. That is wholly and totally their issue. They have to deal with that.

belive me, if there's an incident in the news concerning me, you'll know. my last name is in my signon. I'll even tell you my whole name. It's Duane Suddeth. I'm not worried about being tracked, monitored, or investigated.

The few issues I've had with law enforcement have been completely my fault. The police i've dealt with have been nothing but professionals. I have no issue with those cops i've had personal dealings with. It's all of the episodes of violence and violation of rights of others that I have problems with. I've had speeding tickets where I was certainly speeding. I've been busted for DUI righteously. I've never had a single incident where I've been wrongly persecuted by law enforcement. I do not hate the police in general. What I do hate is the arrogance of some of law enforcement that abuses their badge. I also hate that 'thin blue line' that prompts good police officers to staunchly defend their fellow police officers even though they KNOW they are wrong.
It is that mentality of the inability to police their own brothers and sisters in blue that makes me part of what I am.

There are many posts of yours from other sites that refute your current claims
of not hating the police in 'general'.

One of your posts from another site.

"deadly force against police officers in self defense
Reply
These are the applicable sections:

§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or

(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:

(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or

(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not
apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time
of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the
habitation of the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, § 5, eff.
Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept.
1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.


§ 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in
using force or deadly force against another to protect a third
person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably
believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31
or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against
the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes
to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his
intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH. (a) A person is
justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another
when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide
or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.
(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly
force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes
the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the
other's life in an emergency.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

With the above sections of law, can deadly force be lawfully justified against a texas peace officer, provided the criteria in 9.32, 9.33, or 9.34 are met?"

It's almost like you have a weird suicide by cop deathwish to be this blatant,
or you're addicted to the adrenaline rush of all the catastrophic 'what if' scenarios.

Sorry to turn this personal, but many other people on TFP are expressing
deep concerns about your attitudes and possible acting out behavior.

then you are misreading my posts. I don't hate police in general. I hate police that don't follow the law themselves and think that their badge elevates them above the law.

'texas penal codes of self defense 9.31 thru 9.34'
I'm not sure why you feel these are indicative of hatred towards law enforcement. These are laws which legalize and justify self defense against the unlawful use of force by citizens and law enforcement. please explain further why you feel these are pertinent.

I have no suicide wish, nor am I addicted to that specific dose of adrenalin. I've very simply decided to not let myself be abused by those in authority who have no idea what the limits of their authority actually are. If you have concerns about those of us who will not acquiesce to the demands of abused authority, perhaps it isn't us you should be looking at.

Regarding the title... yeah, it's still 'Merica.


...

Sooooo... what exactly would lead you to believe that this is any more rampant than "Wolverines!"-screaming nutjobs violating the rights of lawful citizens?

...

Hmmm... you should totally read the book I just finished for my silly little capstone program:

POLICE: Streetcorner Politicians by William Ker Muir. ISBN 0-226-54633-0.

It deals with the paradoxes related to the use of coercive power in a the law enforcement institution at both the ground level and the top of the totem pole. Machiavelli'd. It was quite the illuminating read, especially to someone who doesn't really like cops all that much (odd given my future profession). Maybe it'd help you understand that they're not all out to get you because, well... really... they've got better things to do. And they have bosses who don't like to do paperwork anymore than you like getting a free ride in the backseat of a cruiser. I've also heard all of this from a guy who's been a badge-carrying Government Drone for 30+ years. If anybody should be a heartless stormtrooper... it's him. He doesn't have it and I can't figure out why... maybe it's because he's got other hobbies?

...

You gotta work with me, bro... I'm pro-gun and anti-The Man as much as the next guy who read 1984 but I just fail to see how a few bad apples mean the end of the orchard. It's easy to take isolated incidents of humans being human and turn it into a conspiracy of ignorance masquerading as common sense. There's a lot of people in the US. It's the most violent country on the planet (thanks, Baraka) and frankly I'm surprised our system is as good as it is given the exceptionally rough nature of the police/citizen contact patch.

So some cops fucked up. Sure, it sucks but until we replace them with Cyberdyne Systems Model 101s... we're stuck with the fallible human operating the fallible system. Lotsa loose tolerances in design (by design, as well) and discretion... and you know what that means: it breaks sometimes.

It's why we have laws. Police that break the law can be held accountable.

Jumping to the point where you are gunning them down because they broke the law, it a leap I cannot make.

could you imagine what would happen if 10 cops were killed by gun carrying protesters. Seriously? Seriously?

wow that's some fancy thinking or lack there of you got going on there:rolleyes:

---

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+- While TFP certainly does not try to censor anyone nor take away their fundamental rights of speech, TFP in no way condones or endorses acts of violence in any manner. Staff and board are not responsible for the actions of members in real life.

---------- Post added at 10:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 AM ----------

I also want to point out that I despise police who believe they *ARE* the law because they carry a gun and a badge; however, I'm also of the belief that it is much more poetic to sue the police in civil court as well as sending them to prison if they abuse the laws. I'm sure the prison population would enjoy having fun with corrupt cops.

Well, that was the most "demotivational" staff message I've ever seen.

The scenes I see from this G20 event get even more an more crazy. Police surround everyone and tell them to leave but won't let them leave. :shakehead:

They did that at the RNC too, samcol. Then, because nobody left (because they couldn't), they just arrested everybody, including many members of the press, and dismissed the charges later.

Their response to the obligatory wtf was essentially "Man, that shit was crazy, did you guys see how we handled that RNC thing? We were so organized and the situation was soooo complicated. We're awesome!!"

Did I mention that Minneapolis' police department has paid out over $9.5 million dollars in the last 4 years to settle misconduct charges? And that recently official MPD policy had to be changed to make it clear to certain overly enthusiastic members of the MPD (because apparently it was ambiguous) that it actually isn't okay to beat the ever living shit out of someone who is laying on their stomach in a passive state? This policy came about not because the chief suddenly realized "Hey, my officers are kicking the shit out of people for no good reason, and not only is that a violation of civil rights, but it is also costing my city upwards of $2 million a year." Nope. The big change came about because in two separate incidents in as many weeks, the police got themselves caught on camera beating the shit out of completely passive, defenseless people and this caused something of a stir amongst certain members of the general public.

..

sigh.

I agree that there was not enough information in the video. That said, police are there to enforce the law. If laws were broken, then people (demonstrators or police) need to be punished through fines/arrest/dismissal. Enforcing laws is not totalitarian. If the laws are totalitarian, then it is the right and the duty of all citizens to find a peaceful solution to change those laws, and as long as the Constitution exists, that avenue is always there.

Where is your anger at this?

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Cindy Sheehan arrested at White House anti-war protest - Blogs from CNN.com

Oh that's right...you don't care if it's liberals getting arrested for protests.

just to continue this and see if anyone is still of the opinion that our government should always be listened to.

Scenes From a Crackdown - Reason Magazine