Hard time upvoting this, because of the comment from the women, essentially, "Fuck them, we'll be back next saturday."

Free speech zones FTW!

Oh my god, thank you for posting this, blankie!

I had no idea how much of an idiot this guy is. "The police force in America does not exist for public safety." This is so laughably stupid.

Even The Stranger, a bastion of alternative news weeklies and no fan of "the man", vigilant at calling out the cops -- and in Seattle, that is a full time job -- recently ran love letters to the police who are there to help.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/cops-we-have-loved/Content?oid=8205798



>> ^blankfist:

>> ^bareboards2:

Oh my god, thank you for posting this, blankie!
I had no idea how much of an idiot this guy is. "The police force in America does not exist for public safety." This is so laughably stupid.

Wake up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmCqn9maWBs

*law

Adding video to channels (Law) - requested by gwiz665.

Explain to me. How does ticketing & arresting people for dancing promote safety?

Explain how raiding the houses of War Veterans with para-military police, instead of just serving warrant promotes safety.

Explain allowing an officer to walk free after murdering a helpless older citizen promotes safety.

>> ^bareboards2:

Oh my god, thank you for posting this, blankie!
I had no idea how much of an idiot this guy is. "The police force in America does not exist for public safety." This is so laughably stupid.
Even The Stranger, a bastion of alternative news weeklies and no fan of "the man", vigilant at calling out the cops -- and in Seattle, that is a full time job -- recently ran love letters to the police who are there to help.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/cops-we-have-loved/Content?oid=820
5798

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Explain to me. How does ticketing & arresting people for dancing promote safety?
Explain how raiding the houses of War Veterans with para-military police, instead of just serving warrant promotes safety.
Explain allowing an officer to walk free after murdering a helpless older citizen promotes safety.
>> ^bareboards2:
Oh my god, thank you for posting this, blankie!
I had no idea how much of an idiot this guy is. "The police force in America does not exist for public safety." This is so laughably stupid.
Even The Stranger, a bastion of alternative news weeklies and no fan of "the man", vigilant at calling out the cops -- and in Seattle, that is a full time job -- recently ran love letters to the police who are there to help.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/cops-we-have-loved/Content?oid=820

5798


So.. wait.

You're taking her point the wrong way, she never said ticketing and arresting people for dancing promoted public safety, she was making fun of the people who think that cops exist solely to antagonize people.

The rest of your post is irrelevant, the law is in place so that people can't be disruptive in a place of A) Respect, B)Reflection, and C) a tourist spot. The law is there so people aren't disturbed in a public place, not to mention that those that DID protest, did so without a permit.

I'm not taking the time to respond to the other two "Explain to me" questions, because you seem to just be trying to pick a fight unrelated to the topic at hand. Good day, sir.

>> ^Shepppard:

You're taking her point the wrong way, she never said ticketing and arresting people for dancing promoted public safety, she was making fun of the people who think that cops exist solely to antagonize people.

Who's saying they exist to solely antagonize? I think people are claiming they're becoming a jackbooting revenue generator instead of Barney Fife.

um, hmm.. *dance *controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy, Dance) - requested by Trancecoach.

@Shepppard

Let's get this straight first.
There is a difference between the personality covered by a uniform and what that uniform represents itself.

Your mental framing of police is obviously a reminder of a protector. A beloved personality who you respect probably.

Many others tho, view police thru the frame of the uniform & what it represents. A corrupt government. The hired attack dogs of an oppressive institution, run by mysterious elites, hiding behind arbitrary titles & large stone buildings.

Here's a question for you and bareboard:

If the government you live under is blatantly corrupt, why would you expect anyone to respect the individuals whom enforce that corruption with the threat of violence?

Do you really feel the 15% of officers that are polite, well-behaved, & sincere in their work.. make up for the millions of wrongful deaths & imprisonments of the innocent?

I don't believe our government is blatantly corrupt. I think that you are naive in thinking that, and show a lack of understanding of history and the definition of corrupt.

I don't agree with your 15% figure of "good cops."

So there is no point in having a discussion, because we can't even agree on basic facts.

Also, the conversation has devolved, as these comment streams almost always do, into picking out a phrase and triumphantly pointing out that the words aren't exactly accurate, so the rest of the comment is ignored.

So I'm out of here, too. There is no future in continuing this conversation. If you can call it a conversation.


>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@Shepppard
Let's get this straight first.
There is a difference between the personality covered by a uniform and what that uniform represents itself.
Your mental framing of police is obviously a reminder of a protector. A beloved personality who you respect probably.
Many others tho, view police thru the frame of the uniform & what it represents. A corrupt government. The hired attack dogs of an oppressive institution, run by mysterious elites, hiding behind arbitrary titles & large stone buildings.
Here's a question for you and bareboard:
If the government you live under is blatantly corrupt, why would you expect anyone to respect the individuals whom enforce that corruption with the threat of violence?
Do you really feel the 15% of officers that are polite, well-behaved, & sincere in their work.. make up for the millions of wrongful deaths & imprisonments of the innocent?

"The law is there so people aren't disturbed in a public place, not to mention that those that DID protest, did so without a permit."

-Shepppard

I've long thought it incongruous that protesters should obtain a permit. Actually, the word incongruity fails to convey the de-clawed nature of a permitted protest. Protest without the threat of disruption is part of the Disneyfication of opposition politics.

You know what my permit to protest is? The first amendment: "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It's deeply disturbing for me to see protesters corralled into "Designated Protest Zones" (also referred to as Free Speech Zones), which is a truly bone-chilling Orwellian concept.

This isn't the first time this has happened.

@petpeeved

The reason people need to obtain a permit is because people gathering to protest could lead to a "security risk".

May not happen, but if you incite enough people to do something stupid, all those stupid people with adrenaline running through their veins may lead to them damaging the area they're protesting on.

Granted, it could be seen as an overly elaborate way to stop people from protesting, but it's more of a damage control then a restriction.

Essentially, you get a permit to allow you access to a venue, and should something go wrong at that venue, you're held accountable for it. So, to that end, I don't think someone "Peacefully assembling" should have ANY trouble obtaining a permit, and should therefore take responsibility for whatever their "peaceful protestors" do to the venue they're at. After all, they're peaceful, nothing should get damaged. Right?

@Genjipatrick

Basically, see @Barboards2.

Shepppard said:
◄
@petpeeved

The reason people need to obtain a permit is because people gathering to protest could lead to a "security risk".

May not happen, but if you incite enough people to do something stupid, all those stupid people with adrenaline running through their veins may lead to them damaging the area they're protesting on.

Granted, it could be seen as an overly elaborate way to stop people from protesting, but it's more of a damage control then a restriction.

Essentially, you get a permit to allow you access to a venue, and should something go wrong at that venue, you're held accountable for it. So, to that end, I don't think someone "Peacefully assembling" should have ANY trouble obtaining a permit, and should therefore take responsibility for whatever their "peaceful protestors" do to the venue they're at. After all, they're peaceful, nothing should get damaged. Right?

@Genjipatrick

Basically, see @Barboards2.

Vague terms to justify stepping on fundamental civil rights is a hallmark of the 20th and now 21st century. "Security Risk" sounds just like one that I could see any right wing politician using to justify anything that opposes their agenda. The protests of the 1960s were messy, disruptive, powerful and sometimes very effective but in almost all cases where there was violence, it emanated from the government, not the protesters. Americans haven't conducted a large scale armed organized resistance against the government since the Civil War so what exactly is the "security risk" of protesting without a permit? Damage to property? We have laws to cover that. No need, and no right, to insert a layer of bureaucracy on top of the First Amendment. In fact, we have so many laws on the books now that almost every conceivable (and inconceivable as evidenced by the recent Jefferson Memorial arrests for dancing) offense is covered by normal criminal procedures.

To put it bluntly: do you not feel uneasy about say, protesters being allowed only to protest in a corral many blocks and sometimes a mile from the actual site of the event or politician that is the subject of the protest? Look at the G8 summits. That's standard practice now simply because of some property damage. That's not a protest; that's a wax museum depicting a protest.

Read this: it's just one of a dozen similar accounts across the globe:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/05/g8.globaleconomy1

weird