>> ^Sagemind:

Not entirely sure how I feel about this.
True, people are peacefully protesting, so no need for the police to skulk around filming people.
On the flip side, was it necessary to harass the police over their right to film in public - or do they have that right?
They were unmarked, plain clothed, refused to give their names or identification while filming. If they weren't up to no good, what reason would they have to be doing this? And why would they leave when confronted?


The officer made an honest point about wanting to relax, as a human being someone getting in front of your face for what you do is a bit stressful.

That was until the guy mentioned the camera in the car, then the point suddenly felt weaker.

Not entirely sure how I feel about this.

True, people are peacefully protesting, so no need for the police to skulk around filming people.

On the flip side, was it necessary to harass the police over their right to film in public - or do they have that right?

They were unmarked, plain clothed, refused to give their names or identification while filming. If they weren't up to no good, what reason would they have to be doing this? And why would they leave when confronted?

>> ^lantern53:

Why do I always have to be the adult here?
In a large city like Anaheim you undoubtedly need a permit to march, which these people probably did not have, so therefore the demonstration is unlawful, and highly irritating to the people who work for a living and have to drive back and forth to work, the store, the childcare, the doctor, etc.
And the cops have to deal with people who are anarchists or just drones, and it's hard to tell them apart, especially when they hide behind anonymous avatars and say things like "KILL PIGS".


The revolution will not have a permit.

There is nothing more offensive or frightening to me than the idea that peaceful protesters should be required to get a permit. If a government is corrupt or unpopular enough to spawn widespread civil unrest and disobedience, why would that same government aid protesters in its own removal? It wouldn't. What it would do in a nominally 'free' democracy or republic is clamp down slowly yet inexorably on basic rights of the citizens. In America, our government has a big roadblock to that goal, however the Justice Dept. is proving to be nimble minded enough to figure out some very clever ways to conquer that problem.

So far, imho, their most creative solution to: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" is to assert that although the government might not have the right to "prohibit the freedom of speech" per se, they do have the right to tell the people when and where they can do it.

Almost always the acceptable time and place to protest is in a "Protest Zone" that the government sets up out of sight and sound of the media and reason for the protest in the first place, thus neutering the protest in toto.

"Protest Zones" are a disgrace to our constitution.

Oh youre so right, I really fancy arguing that there is no battery here, perhaps common assault but who gives a fuck... Seriously dude, you need to get off that high horse and realise your opinions are as inconsequential as the very short period of time this vid will be visible and about as important. Meanwhile why don't you spend your energies somewhere more meaningful, like lying down in the road to peacefully protest whatever it is that Peace Will Find a Way Weekly tells you is flavour of the month - perhaps articulated lorries. This is all rather boring now and lets face it, yesterdays news. You go ahead and butthurt rage a little more, i'm moving on. Peace out Mannnn.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^thumpa28:
{edit} gah im breaking my golden rule of not arguing with retards on vs, ah well. You think everyone should research the vagaries of common assault vs battery before commenting on a video about someone trying to grab the olympic torch... hokay. How about I stick to commenting on the video at hand and leave the shouty shouty nerd rage to the people like yourself, who try to turn every post into an emotional battle, presumably because thats how you get your emotional needs met rather than learning how to interact in the real world. Im sorry you feel that way, hope you get fixed soon. Im going to leave you alone now.
So, in other words, you were completely wrong, got schooled, and now you're playing the "waaah, I'm not talking to you" card. About what I'd expect...
>> ^gorillaman:
The ideal of peaceful protest is one of the great propaganda victories of repressive government.
'You can have your little protest as long as you don't actually try to accomplish anything. We can steal billions of public money to fund a PR stunt for our nationalist authority, effectively equivalent to several days of forced labour for everyone in the UK, but if you try to grab a torch we bought with your money then you're a violent criminal.'

Er, yeah, if you assault someone then you are a violent criminal. Quelle fucking surprise.
And I never said you couldn't be disruptive. He could have gotten a group of people to lie down on the road in front of the torch bearer, he could have streaked along side her, he could have done something vaguely clever or even funny. A funny story will bring attention to your cause (see the Yes Men and the Arctic Ready campaign).
Unfortunately, those things require wit and imagination, two attributes he clearly lacks.
Meanwhile, most of the rest of us simply don't give a fuck. Why? Because, frankly, the Olympics ranks pretty low on the list of things to be concerned about.

>> ^thumpa28:

{edit} gah im breaking my golden rule of not arguing with retards on vs, ah well. You think everyone should research the vagaries of common assault vs battery before commenting on a video about someone trying to grab the olympic torch... hokay. How about I stick to commenting on the video at hand and leave the shouty shouty nerd rage to the people like yourself, who try to turn every post into an emotional battle, presumably because thats how you get your emotional needs met rather than learning how to interact in the real world. Im sorry you feel that way, hope you get fixed soon. Im going to leave you alone now.

So, in other words, you were completely wrong, got schooled, and now you're playing the "waaah, I'm not talking to you" card. About what I'd expect...

>> ^gorillaman:

The ideal of peaceful protest is one of the great propaganda victories of repressive government.
'You can have your little protest as long as you don't actually try to accomplish anything. We can steal billions of public money to fund a PR stunt for our nationalist authority, effectively equivalent to several days of forced labour for everyone in the UK, but if you try to grab a torch we bought with your money then you're a violent criminal.'


Er, yeah, if you assault someone then you are a violent criminal. Quelle fucking surprise.

And I never said you couldn't be disruptive. He could have gotten a group of people to lie down on the road in front of the torch bearer, he could have streaked along side her, he could have done something vaguely clever or even funny. A funny story will bring attention to your cause (see the Yes Men and the Arctic Ready campaign).

Unfortunately, those things require wit and imagination, two attributes he clearly lacks.

Meanwhile, most of the rest of us simply don't give a fuck. Why? Because, frankly, the Olympics ranks pretty low on the list of things to be concerned about.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Let's be clear, this wasn't some legitimate, peaceful protest. There are any number of ways he could have done that.
Instead he runs out from the crowd and tries to grab the torch. How is that anything but assault? Also, I note that he didn't try this when there was a larger male athlete carrying it. He waited for a woman. He's a coward.
Forget the olympics. Forget the crowd. If I saw this happen on the street, I'd smack the shit outta that guy. The only thing that would have been better would have been if the woman had beaten his ass herself.


The ideal of peaceful protest is one of the great propaganda victories of repressive government.

'You can have your little protest as long as you don't actually try to accomplish anything. We can steal billions of public money to fund a PR stunt for our nationalist authority, effectively equivalent to several days of forced labour for everyone in the UK, but if you try to grab a torch we bought with your money then you're a violent criminal.'

>> ^thumpa28:

That was assault was it? The bit where she had to hang onto the torch? Actually the torch was assaulted. Maybe you should shout about olympic torch rights in block! Angry Angry huff huff.


Let's be clear, this wasn't some legitimate, peaceful protest. There are any number of ways he could have done that.

Instead he runs out from the crowd and tries to grab the torch. How is that anything but assault? Also, I note that he didn't try this when there was a larger male athlete carrying it. He waited for a woman. He's a coward.
Forget the olympics. Forget the crowd. If I saw this happen on the street, I'd smack the shit outta that guy. The only thing that would have been better would have been if the woman had beaten his ass herself.

I'm sure you have your own point of view that sees things a bit differently. From my personal experience as an immigrant minority, I feel that cops treat everyone fairly and only use force when they are called upon to stop people from violating the law.

I also do not live my life assuming that cops attack a group of 'peaceful' protesters for no apparent reason. You may have personally experienced or second-handedly heard of cops mistreating civilians for no apparent reason. I have never been unfairly treated by the police during my lifetime and I believe that the second-hand reports of mistreatment often depend on the context of the situation. Sometimes we are right to claim injustice, sometimes we are not. We are right to punish those who practice injustice, but those rare cases of injustice should not overshadow all of the police force that consists of good officers who have done their job well.

Personally I do not worry about police officers cracking my head open when I go outside to watch the Olympic torch runners pass by, because I feel safe to be with a crowd of people who are cheery and supportive. But I will definitely be afraid of being near a group of rioters engaging a riot squad.

I believe that everything has a reason and just cause. You may hold a different belief about our society and authority figures, and that's your way of seeing the world. I would not argue that your way of living is the wrong way to live just because it is different from mine. We each have different life experiences to example our view about the police and authority figures, and it is unfortunate that we do not see every matter the same way.

It's just so much easier to lie, isn't it? Or at the very least to allow yourself to be taken in and believe a lie because it challenges your fast-held, dogmatic belief system, no?

FYI: The so-called "black bloc" of anarchists who perpetrate these acts of vandalism during peaceful protests are in no way, shape or from part of OWS. There is plenty of collected first-hand and anecdotal evidence now that the "black bloc" which sought to infiltrate and create an agenda within OWS was actually funded and promoted from without by the very same type of people who posted this video here on VS (ie, those who promote a rich, tax-enabled, elite class to rule over all other Americans).

The "black bloc" has since been ejected and disavowed by OWS to eliminate the presence of police/political agent provocateurs from causing further harm to the avowed peaceful intent of the OWS movement.

Don't be fooled and please keep your eyes open. Peace.

Watch OWS Infiltration by Unscrupulous Liars

Any law that restricts peaceful protests is unconstitutional. The police that enforce those laws are not doing their jobs as officers of the law. They should be reprimanded or fired.

>> ^BoneRemake:

@mxxcon
I think its a notion called "restraint".
so what justifies restraint against these firefighters that are actively assaulting offices as opposed to regular citizens that peacefully protest?

the only way and i mean the ONLY way a peaceful protest by way of civil disobedience will EVER get any traction is by clogging the machine ie:blocking business,traffic and everyday functioning of not only government but everyday business.
this is not my opinion but historical fact.
see:
martin luther king.
vietnam protests of UC.
civil rights protests.
the triangle shirtwaist factory and the consequent protests for labor and the fight for unionized labor.
and these are just a few examples off the top of my head.the list is massive and does not only pertain to america but in america we have the RIGHT to assemble and the RIGHT of redress.
these protestors want to be arrested.
they want the state (in the form of police) to overstep,brutalize and abuse their authority in order to get the message out by way of conflict made violent by the people sworn to protect and serve.
every time the police (be they individual or enmasse) perpetrate violence on peaceful protestors that protest swells in numbers in a matter of days.
this was evident in the 1920's and it is evident today.

the problems of understanding arise when people give their power over to the powerful.they acquiesce to the very powers seeking to disempower them.
so we get things like "free speech zones" which are far away from the very thing being protested and most certainly no where near any business or government functions.

this is not a lib/repub issue but an american issue.for decades the government has slowly chipped away at our civil liberties and given more power to itself.this is what governments do,this is what ANY powerful institution does=keep itself relevant and IN power and the ONLY thing power fears is?
the people.
again,not my opinion but historically accurate.

this is about challenging authority.
you say that when a policemen gives a "lawful" order to disperse that should be the end of it.
i say:i question your "lawful order" as it hinders my right to assemble and give my government a redress of my grievances.
that policemen is ordering me to give up my right of redress and that is a right i will not give up.the authority of that policemen has been bestowed "by the people".the very government in which hands down orders to that policemen has been elected "by the people",and they were elected to create laws and govern "for the people" and when that machine no longer "serves the people" it must be resisted in the only way that has been known to work:
shut down the machine,
because "the people" are not multinational corporations with deep pockets who can influence legislators by way of lobbyists.we cant purchase the kind of time that a corporation can to make our case to a senator or congressmen.we cannot influence public opinion by way of tv commercials or entire networks.
but we CAN sit and stop traffic,or slow the flow of business and THAT is when they take notice.
and the response is always the same:
ignore.
and if that doesnt work?
ridicule.
if that fails?
co-opt in any way possible (see:tea party)
cant co-opt?
oppress,bully and intimidate by authoritarian means.
(guess which stage we are in now?)
and if that fails?
success.

Pepper spray doesn't work? Lay on hands. Hands don't work? Water cannon. Water cannon doesn't work? Rubber bullets. Rubber bullets don't work? Kent State!
I have no political agenda. My concern is that if peaceful protests are not allowed, the situation escalates. If protestors are orderly and peaceful, not blocking access, and are no threat, then leave them alone it's their right.

The shift from the atrocious pepper spraying of peaceful protesters to the where the protesters force the cops out is incredible. The major turn-point where the cops are straight up TOLD to leave starts around the 6:00 minute mark.

"As the students cry “Shame on you!” the police arrest a few students; but as the crowd circles them—non-threateningly, but insistent—the police begin to retreat. Then, amazingly, the students (via People’s mic) offer the retreating police a moment of peace: “We are willing to give you a brief moment of peace so that you may take your weapons and your friends and go. Please do not return.”

And the police do." /via Balloon-juice.com

More info, including the name of the more abusive cops there over at Balloon-Juice.

Ok, some of the protests have been infected with the same anarchist numbnuts who join any protest just to throw bricks through windows, turn over cars, and cause any mayhem they can (like the abundance of idiots both here in Portland and up north in Seattle). They can only hurt the cause (whatever that is) by creating indifference in potential supporters. I can almost hear my father while watching this shit on TV... "damn hippies!".

But the videos I've seen so far have largely (solely?) been cops attacking peaceful protesters. If they are trying to discourage/scare people into not participating, then the answer is larger, louder protests. Their tactics need to be rendered ineffective. There haven't been any deaths yet, but that just seems inevitable to me if cops continue their bullshit and things escalate. And once you've released that Krakon, something's going to get broken.