>> ^EMPIRE:

here's what I seriously don't understand about these riots... there's rampant pillaging and vandalism, and only today is the police pondering the possibility of using rubber bullets?? wtf? That should've been used 2 days ago.

How would baton rounds stop what you see in this video? It doesn't matter what the police use, its an issue of manpower. These scum know the Police is stretched, so they take advantage like the opportunistic vultures they are.


Why hasn't a heavy hand been used? Well, its partly political (Tories government is basically afraid of stepping on the lower classes and don't want to compromise the "image" of London before the Olympics - A little late for that imo) but also purely practical. The police can't risk seriously injuring or even killing a civi, criminal or not, it would likely incite more violence. Further more, things like Water Cannons just aren't useful against this type of Riot. This is almost "Guerilla" looting and arson.

Personally I feel that if this goes on they need to really consider a curfew, although I'm not sure how practical it would be to actually implement.

[redacted]

Dude, I was being silly. Totally out of context, some things your imagination can come up with are humorous. Turns out this man was a disabled tenant of the cottage on the same property as the house that burned, and as of the date of the following news report they didn't know what caused the fire, but neighbors heard an explosion. From what I could find out on the internet, there was a string of fires in that district within a two week period, some of which were found to be acts of arson.

>> ^RhesusMonk:

Despicable post. Meth lab? Retard gesture? I demand evidence. And so should you.

>> ^Bruti79:

There were three people pulled from the crowd on Sunday, due to warrants they had from Saturday. The girl in particular was wanted on Arson and endangering the public. Also plain clothes cops have special rules in TO, they have to wear an armband that says they're a cop, unless they have a special court order saying they can go undercover. You can see the arm bands galore from the queens park protests.


There methods are flawed. If you can see by the backlash against them in comments. They should not resort to these sorts of snatch and grabs. Warrants or not. Some of you will say, "Well how else would they have gotten them?"

That's easy. Everyone has to sleep.

"...A all powerful being police are calling "Zeus" was arrested on Mt Olympus in connection with the crime, officials are saying the signs point to arson and believe the motive to be religious difference between "Zeus" and the church. More at 9..."

>> ^Shepppard:

>> ^Bruti79:
There were three people pulled from the crowd on Sunday, due to warrants they had from Saturday. The girl in particular was wanted on Arson and endangering the public. Also plain clothes cops have special rules in TO, they have to wear an armband that says they're a cop, unless they have a special court order saying they can go undercover. You can see the arm bands galore from the queens park protests.

Bwaat?
you.. you mean.. the police were actually doing something like getting a woman who had a warrent for her arrest but was trying to hide in a place with peaceful protesters so she wouldn't get caught?
And they weren't just kidnapping for the sake of fearmongering? they had a reason? and the people of the sift are yet again going to take this out of context and we'll soon see another batch of "Fuck the police" comments even though this has been explained?
Well, i'll be damned then.


Well said, Shep. Watching people get shoved into vans that then sped off tugged at my ragestrings. Any links would be appreciated.

>> ^Bruti79:

There were three people pulled from the crowd on Sunday, due to warrants they had from Saturday. The girl in particular was wanted on Arson and endangering the public. Also plain clothes cops have special rules in TO, they have to wear an armband that says they're a cop, unless they have a special court order saying they can go undercover. You can see the arm bands galore from the queens park protests.


Bwaat?

you.. you mean.. the police were actually doing something like getting a woman who had a warrent for her arrest but was trying to hide in a place with peaceful protesters so she wouldn't get caught?

And they weren't just kidnapping for the sake of fearmongering? they had a reason? and the people of the sift are yet again going to take this out of context and we'll soon see another batch of "Fuck the police" comments even though this has been explained?

Well, i'll be damned then.

There were three people pulled from the crowd on Sunday, due to warrants they had from Saturday. The girl in particular was wanted on Arson and endangering the public. Also plain clothes cops have special rules in TO, they have to wear an armband that says they're a cop, unless they have a special court order saying they can go undercover. You can see the arm bands galore from the queens park protests.

You know, I can respect this reply very much. The analogy is just that, similiar but different. It is hyperbole, but along with the flag burning, as we both agree, it puts things in perpective.

The tree is a slippery slope. I find permits completely appropriate because of certain situations that may arise. Say, for example, two groups book one event. One is the skin heads, and they booked their protest to meet with the black panthers... Chances are, there will be blood...

Next is an anti-gay protest/march, right into a gay activist parade (Coupled with floats and driving drag queens in little punch buggies.) This protest by the anti-gays would be completely lawful if there were no permits yet would be disasterous.

Besides, these three proved you can hold a "protest" without a permit. Just deny it is a protest.

I respect your opinion and wish we had valid freedoms in all walks of life just like you do. However, freedom is sometimes our worst enemy. People will always f-things up to where laws have to be made...

See, freedom allows you to walk past a 15 year old girl being raped and do nothing about it (Has happened in America.) It allows you to take a picture with your cell phone of a man who has been shot while trying to protect his family (Has happened.) It allows motorists to yell at someone just run over and dying to, "Get this fucking trash off the god damn road!" Freedom is the antithesis to community, sadly... But would I live anywhere else but a "free" nation? No... I just wish we had more responsibilty towards one another.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I would also not call burning a flag speech. Burning a flag has nothing to do with speech and everything to do with private property. Using speech laws to either prevent or protect it is silly. While this is a better relationship to the context of the conversation, I still find that burning a flag is super dissimilar to passing out information on the street. While burning a flag "sends a message", that is the secondary point to the real issue of burning something (FIRE!). Burning your own house down should come under the same kind of freedom of being able to destroy your own stuff. In the city, that can get a bit more complicated, and most community agreements forbid such actions (in Texas, lean laws are vvveeeeeeerrrry strong, like jail time strong).
"I fail to see how you cannot wrap your head around my argument. Rape is a force. However, rape as a protest is both protesting and using force. This is simple. Just like arson is buring the flag and free speach... There is nothing hard to understand here."
This analogies fails yet again. You can't just say "I rape you as a protest instead of rape". That isn't how things work. Rape is rape first, and whatever strange thing you want to make it second. As such, you don't NEED speech laws against rape to prevent it, it is already against the law because of force. Simply put, you can't use rape as a protest, because control over someone's body that isn't yours is not a freedom you have. In other words, you can't have rape that is a protest that isn't still criminal.
You could put the shoe on the other foot and say that all murderers are just expressing free speech...but that doesn't matter, because their other actions where illegal...case closed. I think your flag analogy is a better one, though. Even so, these couple of dudes are even more understated than even the most mild flag burning.
I think a major complication is that we have blurred the lines of what protest and speech are in all legal matters regarding them. I think your flag burring is a perfect example of that. And in post analysis I think I see the tree you are trying to climb. That since it is illegal to burn stuff like your house down, that the freedom of speech laws override that burning stuff law and make burning your flag legal. However, I think it is the opposite that is true. You can burn anything down that you want that is yours, and there are special case instances where you can't (like you are on someone elses property ect ect.)
The litmus test for most freedoms is easy. People are free to pass by, to refuse their offers. They are less obtrusive than your average commercial, billboard, or advertisement. And look to be as threatening as a basset hound with a bad hip. If you want to live in a world were people like that are criminals, fine, but I don't.

I would also not call burning a flag speech. Burning a flag has nothing to do with speech and everything to do with private property. Using speech laws to either prevent or protect it is silly. While this is a better relationship to the context of the conversation, I still find that burning a flag is super dissimilar to passing out information on the street. While burning a flag "sends a message", that is the secondary point to the real issue of burning something (FIRE!). Burning your own house down should come under the same kind of freedom of being able to destroy your own stuff. In the city, that can get a bit more complicated, and most community agreements forbid such actions (in Texas, lean laws are vvveeeeeeerrrry strong, like jail time strong).

"I fail to see how you cannot wrap your head around my argument. Rape is a force. However, rape as a protest is both protesting and using force. This is simple. Just like arson is buring the flag and free speach... There is nothing hard to understand here."

This analogies fails yet again. You can't just say "I rape you as a protest instead of rape". That isn't how things work. Rape is rape first, and whatever strange thing you want to make it second. As such, you don't NEED speech laws against rape to prevent it, it is already against the law because of force. Simply put, you can't use rape as a protest, because control over someone's body that isn't yours is not a freedom you have. In other words, you can't have rape that is a protest that isn't still criminal.

You could put the shoe on the other foot and say that all murderers are just expressing free speech...but that doesn't matter, because their other actions where illegal...case closed. I think your flag analogy is a better one, though. Even so, these couple of dudes are even more understated than even the most mild flag burning.

I think a major complication is that we have blurred the lines of what protest and speech are in all legal matters regarding them. I think your flag burring is a perfect example of that. And in post analysis I think I see the tree you are trying to climb. That since it is illegal to burn stuff like your house down, that the freedom of speech laws override that burning stuff law and make burning your flag legal. However, I think it is the opposite that is true. You can burn anything down that you want that is yours, and there are special case instances where you can't (like you are on someone elses property ect ect.)

The litmus test for most freedoms is easy. People are free to pass by, to refuse their offers. They are less obtrusive than your average commercial, billboard, or advertisement. And look to be as threatening as a basset hound with a bad hip. If you want to live in a world were people like that are criminals, fine, but I don't.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
This objection is laughable. Rape isn't against he law because of speech, its against the law because of force. Freedom for all makes the idea that freedom at the cost of one non-permissible. Your example is so nonsensical that I can't even get my head around it and hope that you use another example, because I lost you completely. (when you use an example, no matter extreme or not, it at least has to address the same issue)
And, if you are just going to be given a permit anyway, why the hoops? I will tell you why, so cops like this can harass you. This is why the first amendment exists in the absolute form it does. Because when you start giving the state arbitrary standards to regulate speak, stuff like this is inevitable. Like the FCC regulating TV shows, radio, and soon the internet (I have no doubt they will try, look at Australia). Freedom is fragile. It isn't the natural condition. It is the natural condition of man to dominate others. It is why I get so reactionary to any violation of freedoms, no matter how small.


Simple elementarty deer watsony...

There used to be a law against setting fire to an American flag. Now that law has been deemed void. However, arson can and is illegal if it is against property. You set your own house on fire as a statement and guess what? Arrested. You set a flag on fire? Nope, cannot touch you.

I fail to see how you cannot wrap your head around my argument. Rape is a force. However, rape as a protest is both protesting and using force. This is simple. Just like arson is buring the flag and free speach... There is nothing hard to understand here.

You are the one being far too broad in your assumption that CONGRESS SHALL NEVER, EVER, EVER MAKE A LAW that infringes upon any form of protest whatsoever. I am pointing out that as incorrect.

That was excellent!

I'd like to dedicate this post to my extreme luck at having miraculously been able to survive to my current age without ever falling victim to:

AIDs, nuclear war, terrorism, salmonella, rabies, penis removal by a jealous lover, carpal tunnel syndrome, H1N1, hostage crisis, arson, skin cancer from global warming / ozone layer depletion, nanotechnology attack, killer bee stings, school gun violence, erectile dysfunction, guerrilla insurgents, sex-crazed porn addict serial killers, wrath of God / Muhammed / Shiva / Buddha / Flying Spaghetti Monster, testicular cancer, flesh eating bacteria, sticky pedals or exploding gas tanks in my car, stingrays piercing my heart, earthquakes / tsunamis / hurricanes / tornadoes, cellphone brain tumors, prostate cancer, anal probes (except to prevent prostate cancer), fundamental loss of reality due to playing video games, spontaneous human combustion,
...
..
.

Rape, murder, arson, and rape!

>> ^choggie:
Degausser...Would it work? Maybe. Degaussing renders the magnetic media completely unusable and damages the storage system...ok? A better plan for "illegal" down loaders is to act as joe2 suggested, tell the FBI to return with a warrant..BUT-What if (chances are good they do) they already have one secured....yer screwed.
A simpler, foolproof plan is to employ a system of RHI (Remote Hardware Incineration) near the front door or in a pocket. Feds arrive, push button, and an electronic fuse ignites detcord easily attached to the internal harddrive of yer PC. Bobs yer uncle, harddrive annihilated.(Remember how Mel Gibson got rid of his evidence in Conspiracy Theory?)


Ahhh, but you might recall in Conspiracy Theory, his RHI also incinerated his building. Now, if you are willing to submit yourself to an arson charge (and probably attempted murder, since you would be starting a fire with the police in your house, they would certainly enter when they saw the fire start) rather than have your data looked at, then that's a good choice, but I disagree that it's simpler. Setting up a degaussing loop is plug and play, way easier than setting up a det-chord fireing button (but not nearly as fun). Personally, I think a "tampering with evidence" charge is preferable.
Also note, if the feds come to your door looking for evidence without a warrant, then return with a warrant for that evidence, and you have destroyed it in the mean time, you are (probably) guilty of tampering with evidence, even though it wasn't in the feds custody as evidence yet.
(this is not legal advice, it is opinion, and I am not a lawyer)

>> ^therealblankman:
Job Applicant "Rape, arson, murder, rape".
Hedley Lamarr "You said 'Rape' Twice".
Job Applicant "I like rape".


Damnit you beat me!

BTW, I've also heard, besides the raping, that some of these guys also murdered a young girl in the 90's or 80's??? Anybody else hear about this?

Also, some of them got together on a project that seems fishy...