I just don't get how some people can be "blah blah blah big government is causing blah blah blah" and then support things like law enforcement assaulting citizens for calling them names.

If you want to argue that the use of force is justified in cases where people throw things or push officers then that's a different argument entirely. Which we will probably still disagree as to the level of force required or justified but at least it wouldn't be ridiculous.

Saying police are or should be allowed to assail citizens because they taunt/make fun of/call names/etc is absolutely insane. 100% you have to be sick in the head to believe such a thing.

I Wear Pants;957156 wrote:I just don't get how some people can be "blah blah blah big government is causing blah blah blah" and then support things like law enforcement assaulting citizens for calling them names.

When they are deploying tear gas and stun grenades to control a crowd that is different. If they show up with military like capabilty with armour and assault weapons we can talk.

majorspark;957264 wrote:When they are deploying tear gas and stun grenades to control a crowd that is different. If they show up with military like capabilty with armour and assault weapons we can talk.

What? So stun grenades and tear gas don't count as assault now? That's awesome I'm going to go throw them at the losers on the quad next time I'm at school since it isn't illegal. Oh wait it is.

What you're implying is that unless police kill people they cannot be guilty of assault. I disagree greatly with that implication.

Police have a right and duty to act and subdue persons when acted upon. They have no such duty and more importantly no such right to do so when merely taunted. That's really all there is to it.

The police are tasked with maintaining the safety and civility of an event or particular area. They are not permitted to assault you if you insult them. The are, however, permitted to use force to gain control of an area that you are choosing to not accommodate them in doing so.

There's just a little bit of a difference between that and assaulting you for insulting them. How about assisting them in gaining control of an increasingly dangerous crowd by shutting your mouth.

I Wear Pants;956907 wrote:Taunting is not illegal. Beating/tazing/otherwise assaulting citizens for nothing (taunting counts as nothing as it is not illegal) is illegal. That's why you can complain.

They're taunting the cops in the middle of a "protest" with the specific intent to escalate the situation. It's perfectly legal...find me a judge who would side with these cretins.

I Wear Pants;956907 wrote:Taunting is not illegal. Beating/tazing/otherwise assaulting citizens for nothing (taunting counts as nothing as it is not illegal) is illegal. That's why you can complain.

Verbally provoking a person past a certain point is a valid legal defense. I would think the line is higher for someone in law enforcement, but there is still a line.

Con_Alma;957294 wrote:The police are tasked with maintaining the safety and civility of an event or particular area. They are not permitted to assault you if you insult them. The are, however, permitted to use force to gain control of an area that you are choosing to not accommodate them in doing so.

There's just a little bit of a difference between that and assaulting you for insulting them. How about assisting them in gaining control of an increasingly dangerous crowd by shutting your mouth.

fish82;957300 wrote:They're taunting the cops in the middle of a "protest" with the specific intent to escalate the situation. It's perfectly legal...find me a judge who would side with these cretins.

reps for both. couldnt say it any better myself.

The report even states that more than half of the 1,400 college students — age 18 to 23 — that they surveyed in addition to the young professional group would consider not taking a job if the company had a policy banning Facebook. That, or they would find a way around the policy.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/45-of-young-workers-would-rather-have-facebook-than-salary/

I Wear Pants;956907 wrote:Taunting is not illegal. Beating/tazing/otherwise assaulting citizens for nothing (taunting counts as nothing as it is not illegal) is illegal. That's why you can complain.

You are young and need to learn more about the world if you believe that it is illegal for a cop to control a mob. The police do not have to wait until it gets "out of hand" before controlling a mob, because if they wait for that point then there is absolutely no controlling it. There is actual psychological science behind mob mentality.

Also, if you think this mob had done nothing illegal up to that point (aka nothing wrong) then you need to brush up on your laws.

I Wear Pants;957083 wrote:No, the law allows them to do those things. The law does not permit police to assault civilians because they insulted or taunted them though.

Actually you are 100% wrong, the law does allow police the use of force to control a mob scene, get your facts straight, you are inserting your own opinion of the situation and calling it fact/law.

I know many of you do not watch the TV show South Park, but there episode this week was mocking the OWS movement. Check it out at southparkstudios.com(you can watch it for free).

I thought it was pretty funny and it made a good point that because all these OWS protestors most likely voted for Obama, but they still don't like the status quo(surprise surprise) they are blaming the rich instead of Obama. #truth

I Wear Pants;957268 wrote:Police have a right and duty to act and subdue persons when acted upon. They have no such duty and more importantly no such right to do so when merely taunted. That's really all there is to it.

I am talking in the context of crowd control. Imagine standing in front of hundreds of angry people yelling insaults and taunting you. Taunt by defenition is provoking a response from someone. Imagine the crap that could be said by some in a crowd of hundreds. "You are going to die you fucking pig."

Riot gear or not when angry people mass in front of police they are humans and they do get scared and nervous. A large enough crowd of people can overrun police and beat the shit out of them. One nut in the masses can toss a molotov cocktail into the police line and set several officers on fire. Shit can get out of hand quickly. Tear gas and stun grenades are meant to dispears a mass of people. And lower the danger without lethal force.

This is a far cry from one or two people telling a couple of cops, piss of pigs and the cops go over and beat the shit out of them. Two totally different contexts.

Crowd control is a whole different ballgame.

OWS participants could find work in Greece as they are recruiting more Rent-a-Mob personnel. Only one downside: you don't get paid, fed, or housed because they don't have any money in Greece.

I am finding the reports of the former ACORN fingerprints all over the OWS in New York very interesting. So it could be very likely that Obama and the Dems have begun astroturfing through these groups to find ways of helping his re-election campaign, or at the very least trying to change the focus from the economy to include class warfare rhetoric.

Now, I would think it doesn't stand a chance in hell of succeeding, except the media isn't doing it's job (again) and is very selectively reporting on the activities and statements coming from the group.

majorspark;957436 wrote:I am talking in the context of crowd control. Imagine standing in front of hundreds of angry people yelling insaults and taunting you. Taunt by defenition is provoking a response from someone. Imagine the crap that could be said by some in a crowd of hundreds. "You are going to die you fucking pig."

Riot gear or not when angry people mass in front of police they are humans and they do get scared and nervous. A large enough crowd of people can overrun police and beat the shit out of them. One nut in the masses can toss a molotov cocktail into the police line and set several officers on fire. Shit can get out of hand quickly. Tear gas and stun grenades are meant to dispears a mass of people. And lower the danger without lethal force.

This is a far cry from one or two people telling a couple of cops, piss of pigs and the cops go over and beat the shit out of them. Two totally different contexts.

perfect example is Kent State.

Glory Days;957656 wrote:perfect example is Kent State.

Students in those days were throwing stones, bricks, feces and piss at the police and National Guard, and most of the time they just took it. Had they gone in and dispersed those crowds before it got out of hand, Kent would probably not have happened.

I still have memories of my dad (who was an officer in the Guard) coming home from working the OSU riots and telling us about getting hit by stones, crap and piss. I also remember how exhausted he was, and being young, how much it scared me to see my father looking ill (from exhaustion).

Con_Alma;957294 wrote:The police are tasked with maintaining the safety and civility of an event or particular area. They are not permitted to assault you if you insult them. The are, however, permitted to use force to gain control of an area that you are choosing to not accommodate them in doing so.

There's just a little bit of a difference between that and assaulting you for insulting them. How about assisting them in gaining control of an increasingly dangerous crowd by shutting your mouth.

Several posters on here said it's okay for police to assualt citizens for insulting them. We weren't talking about people attacking cops or refusing to move out of an area but people insulting cops. If all you are doing is taunting an officer (in an area you're allowed to be in and doing nothing wrong) and he assaults you that officer should be arrested. It's that simple.

I was only talking about taunting. Nothing else. Taunting is not and should not illegal

fish82;957300 wrote:They're taunting the cops in the middle of a "protest" with the specific intent to escalate the situation. It's perfectly legal...find me a judge who would side with these cretins.

Who fucking cares? "Oh no, the mean protesters are calling me names. I need to assault them now"

Again, if the person is doing something else illegal then that's a different discussion. But what I was talking about and made clear was that taunting is not illegal and there is no grounds for the use of force by our government (police in this case) against people for calling them names. None at all.

Con_Alma;957294 wrote:The police are tasked with maintaining the safety and civility of an event or particular area. They are not permitted to assault you if you insult them. The are, however, permitted to use force to gain control of an area that you are choosing to not accommodate them in doing so.

There's just a little bit of a difference between that and assaulting you for insulting them. How about assisting them in gaining control of an increasingly dangerous crowd by shutting your mouth.

Glory Days;957656 wrote:perfect example is Kent State.

majorspark;957436 wrote:I am talking in the context of crowd control. Imagine standing in front of hundreds of angry people yelling insaults and taunting you. Taunt by defenition is provoking a response from someone. Imagine the crap that could be said by some in a crowd of hundreds. "You are going to die you fucking pig."

Riot gear or not when angry people mass in front of police they are humans and they do get scared and nervous. A large enough crowd of people can overrun police and beat the shit out of them. One nut in the masses can toss a molotov cocktail into the police line and set several officers on fire. Shit can get out of hand quickly. Tear gas and stun grenades are meant to dispears a mass of people. And lower the danger without lethal force.

This is a far cry from one or two people telling a couple of cops, piss of pigs and the cops go over and beat the shit out of them. Two totally different contexts.

Until something illegal is done (item being thrown, god forbid a molotov, etc) the police have zero justification for the use of force on citizens (barring them being in an area they are not allowed, etc). I was simply speaking towards the people like sleeper who said that people deserve whatever they get if they mock a cop. That's not true. Nothing is illegal about taunting someone and adding in all these extraneous circumstances is only trying to cloud the point.


Glory Days: At Kent State things were being thrown, etc. So the officers were being assaulted. Thus arrests and the use of force can be justified (don't think shooting people is justified but that's a discussion on the appropriate level of force not the justification of force). I'm really not saying anything radical.

I Wear Pants;957849 wrote:Nothing is illegal about taunting someone and adding in all these extraneous circumstances is only trying to cloud the point.

Except nearly every riot undoubtedly began with verbal taunts. Once multiple people are agitating the crowd (in a violent or unruly manner) and getting things wound-up, probably safest for all to disburse the crowd.

I find it somewhat comical and puzzling that these "protestors" are clashing with police to begin with. Do they even have a beef with police, or just venting frustration at them? Evidence, IMO, of a passion for protesting/stirring the pot more than an actual passion for change. A hard-on for mayhem, if you will.
"Down with corporate greed! And, oh by the way, FU pig" ???

The very name "occupy" these people give themselves referrs to an illegal activity. It is illegal for any person or group of them to occupy a property they do not own or have a legal document (lease). They have stolen the park from the people of NYC and are destroying jobs and businesses surrounding the park.

gut;957858 wrote:Except nearly every riot undoubtedly began with verbal taunts. Once multiple people are agitating the crowd (in a violent or unruly manner) and getting things wound-up, probably safest for all to disburse the crowd.

Disburse if possible, but not by assaulting the crowds. Every riot begins with verbal taunts, but that doesn't mean verbal taunts are illegal. Every riot begins with large gatherings of people as well. Should assault be justified PRIOR to verbal taunts?

The saying goes that my right to swing my fist stops at your nose. They can yell and cry and bitch all they want, and they should not have to fear being brutalized or assaulted. The minute someone throws something at an armed police officer, however, they forfeit the right to not be physically subdued, restrained, and arrested with plenty of force.

gut;957858 wrote:Except nearly every riot undoubtedly began with verbal taunts. Once multiple people are agitating the crowd (in a violent or unruly manner) and getting things wound-up, probably safest for all to disburse the crowd.

I find it somewhat comical and puzzling that these "protestors" are clashing with police to begin with. Do they even have a beef with police, or just venting frustration at them? Evidence, IMO, of a passion for protesting/stirring the pot more than an actual passion for change. A hard-on for mayhem, if you will.
"Down with corporate greed! And, oh by the way, FU pig" ???

Every riot has large groups of people. We should outlaw all crowds!

Wake up.

I Wear Pants;957910 wrote:Every riot has large groups of people. We should outlaw all crowds!

Wake up.

Straw man argument. Different rules apply, as it should, to maintaining order with a much smaller number of officers. When the mob becomes physical you've already failed at your job in large part allowing things to progress to that point.

An order is given to disburse, and when the mob refuses that order then other means are certainly justified - "small" and "insignificant" point being glossed over in this debate. Follow a simple order to disburse and there's no need for officers to "assault" anyone.

O-Trap;957907 wrote:Disburse if possible, but not by assaulting the crowds.

If the crowd refuses to disburse, how else do you propose it be done - taking into account BOTH the safety of the people AND the much smaller number of officers? If people don't peacefully obey an order to disburse, how exactly do you accomplish it then without some sort of physical "incentive"?

I mean, if you're ordered to disburse and refuse to do so, you now can be arrested, correct? So you're answer is for a few dozen cops to go into the crowd and attempt to arrest hundreds of people?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out if you ignore an order from a cop once, twice, three times...sooner or later you're getting clubbed in the head.