The Capitol Hill Police

[akarunway 1]

Did the top cop do the right thing or should the (so called) anarchists have had the shit beat outta them and arrested? Boy I'll bet the riot squad was chompin at the bit. Story>http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/012507/protesters.html

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[mnealtx 0]

Top cop FUCKED UP... they (in essence) just told those folks that "the mob rules"...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Top cop FUCKED UP... they (in essence) just told those folks that "the mob rules"...

Hey. They say there is strength in #'s. If a few more people in this country would have the balls to stand up and risk being beaten and arrested (or shot or gased or hit w/ that new microwave beam or whatever new SECRECT weapon ). Well, ah. I'm beating a dead horse as usual. This country belongs to the people and it needs to get back that way. Edit to add: Actually it never has been. The rich always have been in control. They just indoctrinate you into believing you are free.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Top cop FUCKED UP... they (in essence) just told those folks that "the mob rules"...

How are you going to live with the horror and devastation caused by these people? My god! There were "minor instances of spray painting of pavement" . Even worse, "police had to stand by and watch as protesters posed in front of their graffiti".

About the only thing I like about you neo-cons (yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, you are not a neo-con) ...you're predictable.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Top cop FUCKED UP... they (in essence) just told those folks that "the mob rules"...

How are you going to live with the horror and devastation caused by these people? My god! There were "minor instances of spray painting of pavement" . Even worse, "police had to stand by and watch as protesters posed in front of their graffiti".

About the only thing I like about you neo-cons (yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, you are not a neo-con) ...you're predictable.

Da, tovarisch... so are you Libs.

While you're at it, why don't you tell me where vandalism is legal?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Top cop FUCKED UP... they (in essence) just told those folks that "the mob rules"...

How are you going to live with the horror and devastation caused by these people? My god! There were "minor instances of spray painting of pavement" . Even worse, "police had to stand by and watch as protesters posed in front of their graffiti".

About the only thing I like about you neo-cons (yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, you are not a neo-con) ...you're predictable.

Da, tovarisch... so are you Libs.

While you're at it, why don't you tell me where vandalism is legal?

OK, hotshot, if you were the top cop, what would you have done? Tear gas? Attack dogs? Call in the National Guard and Kent State their asses? Perhaps a Tiananmen Sqare senario would be more pleasing to your socio-political agenda?

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[rushmc 23]

And . . .You are not??

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,643]

ROFLOLPIMP

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

ROFLOLPIMP

Wendy W.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Top cop FUCKED UP... they (in essence) just told those folks that "the mob rules"...

How are you going to live with the horror and devastation caused by these people? My god! There were "minor instances of spray painting of pavement" . Even worse, "police had to stand by and watch as protesters posed in front of their graffiti".

About the only thing I like about you neo-cons (yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, you are not a neo-con) ...you're predictable.

Da, tovarisch... so are you Libs.

While you're at it, why don't you tell me where vandalism is legal?

OK, hotshot, if you were the top cop, what would you have done? Tear gas? Attack dogs? Call in the National Guard and Kent State their asses? Perhaps a Tiananmen Sqare senario would be more pleasing to your socio-political agenda?

O Noes!!!111!!1 Blud in teh STREETS!!!

Spare me the melodrama. The crowd was contained at Third Street - the commander should've left them there until/unless the position became untenable - which the article doesn't state.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Butters 0]

I never condone vandalizm and or violence during a protest. The individuals that vandalized should be arrested and charged accordingly.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[warpedskydiver 0]

Jen must think they have a "RIGHT" to vandalize and act like asswipes.

I wonder how she would feel if it were her business or property that were vandalized, would she cheer them on?

BTW it seems they were hoping for a heavy handed response by their "Nazi Opressors" but were sorrowly dissapointed.

Media event failed.

Hey maybe they should have had Al Franken ram the doors of the capitol with his flying saucer in order to breach the walls of the "Enemy Fortress"

[Kennedy 0]

While we don't have alla the details, the information given in the articles I've read make it look like the top cop screwed the pooch.

If the cops were needed to fall back to reestablish a stronger line, or to support another "flank" that needed help, that would make perfect sense.

If falling back gave the officers better tactical and strategic position, thta would make perfect sense.

If falling back was the choice simply to avoid any and all physical confrontation with rioters, then top cop royally screwed the pooch.

If he was willing to give the rioters all ground short of the actual building, then I don't see why he wouldn't just set the line near that area. There is no good reason to pull back your line two or three times. That is a very dangerous situation for the crowd control officers. It also seems cowardly to grant rioters the ability to vandalize the grounds he is sworn to protect.

I would wager that he violated his own specific plan and written general guidelines for crowd control on this one.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

How are you going to live with the horror and devastation caused by these people? My god! There were "minor instances of spray painting of pavement" . Even worse, "police had to stand by and watch as protesters posed in front of their graffiti".

Why should he have allowed rioters access to Capitol grounds. I read several accounts and spoken with secondary sources about this, and there seems to be no logic behind pulling deeper into the Capitol.

If the violent part of the crowd was stopped, what reason is there to pull back. No one here has suggested violent means (other than you) except where it is necessary to make an arrest.

I'm not a fan of mass arrests - the tend to seem overly broad, unjustified, and very heavy handed.

I'm not a fan of endagering cops to avoid an incident that violent parts of a demonstration really want to happen.


Cops are placed in a spot to protect it and that people inside. This is no way hampers the demonstration except in preventing it from damaging that spot. If you want to march three feet away from the line, fine. If you want to stand there and yell ugly things at the cops standing the line, fine. But if you want to do anything physical to that line, you ought to get your ass thrown in jail, and cops are legally and morally justified in using necessary force to effect that arrest.

(edit: spelling)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[warpedskydiver 0]

Tactically withdrawing the line in to a predetermined perimeter is not a bad thing...if needed.

Falling back several times gives a crowd a sense of power, and emboldens them to a point where the fervor, and sheer mass of the event takes over, giving the protesters a virtual "Mob" mentality.

This is not just my opinion, but fact that can easily be verified in several studies, and real life cases.

It's a damned good thing that the whole situation did not go bad.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Falling back several times gives a crowd a sense of power, and emboldens them to a point where the fervor, and sheer mass of the event takes over, giving the protesters a virtual "Mob" mentality.

That's exactly what I meant to include in my last post. The last thing you want to do with the violent mab is make them think you can't handle things.

Quote

This is not just my opinion, but fact that can easily be verified in several studies, and real life cases.

It's a damned good thing that the whole situation did not go bad.

It's a damned LUCKY thing it didn't go bad, and a good thing that great men and women were wearing the badge that day.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[akarunway 1]

Quote

I never condone vandalizm and or violence during a protest. The individuals that vandalized should be arrested and charged accordingly.

So. Would you condone bloodshed to arrest a few vandals? Trigger happy fuckin cops nowadays. Could have very well turned into another Kent state. I think for once a good call was made. I'm sure all the HARDCORE criminal ANARCHISTS are on video and will pay the price.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Tactically withdrawing the line in to a predetermined perimeter is not a bad thing...if needed.

Falling back several times gives a crowd a sense of power, and emboldens them to a point where the fervor, and sheer mass of the event takes over, giving the protesters a virtual "Mob" mentality.

This is not just my opinion, but fact that can easily be verified in several studies, and real life cases.

Lets look at a real life case.

A most interesting read is James Ahern's Police in trouble; our frightening crisis in law enforcement

It's been a few years since I read the book, but the gist is to deny confrontation to demonstrators until real threat to people or property exists.

During the May Day Riots in New Haven, Conn in 1969, Chief Ahern received national attention and praise and his strategy credited with preventing a disaster that very well could have burned Yale to the ground with his plan of keeping police out of sight and staged in area buildings to be quickly deployed to hotspots, then quickly withdrawn. The disaster noted in other city riots of the era was averted.

Ahern stood his ground against the FBI and the Nixon whitehouse to retain local control and exercise his plan. The Govenor backed him.

http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/2006_07/panthers.html

Just three days later, in another demonstration in Ohio, J. Edgar and President Nixon were determined to show America who was in charge. The National Guard was sent in with orders to disperse or arrest the protestors...at Kent State.

It was a national disgrace right up there with Tiananmen Sqare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings#Casualties

Do you think we could have spared them the melodrama, mnealtx?

Quote

It's a damned good thing that the whole situation did not go bad.

It was a non-violent outcome with a bit of paint on the pavement. Lighten up Francis.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Do you think we could have spared them the melodrama, mnealtx?

Appeal to emotion...try again.

Quote

It was a non-violent outcome with a bit of paint on the pavement. Lighten up Francis.

Did you forget about this part?

Quote

The right of the people to PEACEABLY assemble

Their right to assemble without interference is conditional on their behavior. They abrogated their right to assembly by their own actions and they broke the law - but I guess that doesn't matter, as long as it's not the Reps doing it, based on your posting history.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Kennedy 0]

OK, so you believe it is OK to allow damage to property in the name of "avoiding confrontation."
(if the rioting part of a protest is seeking that confrontation)

In theory I might agree with you. I wouldn't be opposed to say, allowing marchers to cross a lawn, trampling sod and maybe ruining a not-particularly important garden, if it made sense to an overall plan. I disagree about allowing protesters to vandalize national landmarks when they could've been stopped hundreds of feet prior to the grounds with no additional threat.

My question is where do you draw the line in allowing criminal acts to continue in the name of avoiding conflict?
disorderly conduct by several different means: you appear ok with it
vandalsm: you appeare ok with it
simple assault on LEOs: you appear ok with it

Where do you draw the line?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

OK, so you believe it is OK to allow damage to property in the name of "avoiding confrontation."
(if the rioting part of a protest is seeking that confrontation)

In theory I might agree with you. I wouldn't be opposed to say, allowing marchers to cross a lawn, trampling sod and maybe ruining a not-particularly important garden, if it made sense to an overall plan. I disagree about allowing protesters to vandalize national landmarks when they could've been stopped hundreds of feet prior to the grounds with no additional threat.

My question is where do you draw the line in allowing criminal acts to continue in the name of avoiding conflict?
disorderly conduct by several different means: you appear ok with it
vandalsm: you appeare ok with it
simple assault on LEOs: you appear ok with it

Where do you draw the line?

Since you are rewriting what I wrote, go ahead and answer for me.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

OK, so you believe it is OK to allow damage to property in the name of "avoiding confrontation."
(if the rioting part of a protest is seeking that confrontation)

In theory I might agree with you. I wouldn't be opposed to say, allowing marchers to cross a lawn, trampling sod and maybe ruining a not-particularly important garden, if it made sense to an overall plan. I disagree about allowing protesters to vandalize national landmarks when they could've been stopped hundreds of feet prior to the grounds with no additional threat.

My question is where do you draw the line in allowing criminal acts to continue in the name of avoiding conflict?
disorderly conduct by several different means: you appear ok with it
vandalsm: you appeare ok with it
simple assault on LEOs: you appear ok with it

Where do you draw the line?

Since you are rewriting what I wrote, go ahead and answer for me.

Since you're evidently able to make the mental stretch to directly compare Capitol Police in a riot line with National Guardsmen firing at Kent State, why don't you stretch that TINY bit more and answer the questions?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

OK, so you believe it is OK to allow damage to property in the name of "avoiding confrontation."
(if the rioting part of a protest is seeking that confrontation)

In theory I might agree with you. I wouldn't be opposed to say, allowing marchers to cross a lawn, trampling sod and maybe ruining a not-particularly important garden, if it made sense to an overall plan. I disagree about allowing protesters to vandalize national landmarks when they could've been stopped hundreds of feet prior to the grounds with no additional threat.

My question is where do you draw the line in allowing criminal acts to continue in the name of avoiding conflict?
disorderly conduct by several different means: you appear ok with it
vandalsm: you appeare ok with it
simple assault on LEOs: you appear ok with it

Where do you draw the line?

Since you are rewriting what I wrote, go ahead and answer for me.

Since you're evidently able to make the mental stretch to directly compare Capitol Police in a riot line with National Guardsmen firing at Kent State, why don't you stretch that TINY bit more and answer the questions?

Dude, you had the opportunity to respond to the facts of my post ...you passed.

I realize that chest pounding, erection baring and brandishing of weapons is pretty much your sole response to complex problems, but most situations require a bit more mental flexibility (a stretch, as it were ) than you have exhibited. Abhorrent as it may be to you uber types, sometimes you gotta give a little.

Now, go sit in a corner and eat a cookie.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Since you're evidently able to make the mental stretch to directly compare Capitol Police in a riot line with National Guardsmen firing at Kent State, why don't you stretch that TINY bit more and answer the questions?

Dude, you had the opportunity to respond to the facts of my post ...you passed.

I realize that chest pounding, erection baring and brandishing of weapons is pretty much your sole response to complex problems, but most situations require a bit more mental flexibility (a stretch, as it were ) than you have exhibited. Abhorrent as it may be to you uber types, sometimes you gotta give a little.

Now, go sit in a corner and eat a cookie.

Oh, I'm cut to the quick... hold me.

Your disapproval of my answer doesn't negate it, sorry.

I've noted you still aren't answering the question... all that chest pounding and erection baring scare you off?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

... all that chest pounding and erection baring scare you off?

I was puzzled, actually. I'd never seen one that small.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".