U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 09-28-2009, 04:07 AM
 
Location: About 10 miles north of Pittsburgh International
2,123 posts, read 1,982,546 times
Reputation: 1742
One scene that stood out for me, from the video there in post #455, was the one (at 1:00 of the video), of the officer approaching the camera, as the kids says "Alright, sir, just tell me where you want me to go", but continuing to face the officer and tape him.

It stands out, because it's the same sort of behavior I get from my four year olds when I tell them it's time to go inside at dinner time--acting like they're doing what they've been told, but doing all they can to stay outside for a few seconds more.

A police officer in full riot gear shouldn't have to resort to, "I'm going to count to three, and then you're going to get a spanking. One...Two............."

These are (supposedly) people that are mature enough and intelligent enough to be worth sending to college.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-28-2009, 05:27 AM
 
7,360 posts, read 7,167,042 times
Reputation: 4719
that was footage from friday though, when by all accounts the police had absolutely no right to be dispersing people in the first place.

i happen to think it's worse to arrest 110 people who are not doing anything illegal or disruptive than to face an officer and film him (while also walking backwards away from him). the former is unethical and possibly illegal, the latter is rude at most. and it's very possible that the guy didn't know where to go - it's very common in these situations that that isn't made clear, and often it looks like there is nowhere to go because you're surrounded by cops.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2009, 05:45 AM
 
4,071 posts, read 5,050,997 times
Reputation: 1492
Simply follow orders right? Where have we heard that one before. "But I was just following orders".

Following orders from an alleged authority are not justified when someone is not engaged in any kind of behavior that warrants the initial directive.

BrianTH. The police had no business telling people to disperse in many situations the first place. I've seen larger crowds in the streets of NYC during a normal business day and people simply go about their business without any trouble and without the need to be controlled. I don't see ANY evidence that most of these crowds were engaged in any kind of unacceptable behavior. As more videos and stories come out it will be evident that these goons were out of line.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2009, 06:12 AM
 
20,274 posts, read 18,251,764 times
Reputation: 2823
Quote:
Originally Posted by WILWRadio View Post
Following orders from an alleged authority are not justified when someone is not engaged in any kind of behavior that warrants the initial directive.
Perhaps it is worth considering another sort of analogy. There is a car accident and a call goes into 911, and dispatch activates a police car. It puts on its siren and starts racing to the scene of the accident with its siren and lights on. It gets to a crowded street and most of the cars pull over to let the police car pass. But one car refuse to pull over and blocks the police car from moving rapidly to the scene of the accident. The police officers in the car use their loudspeaker to signal and then tell the car to pull out of the way. But the driver of the car still refuses to pull over.

So does your principle as stated apply to this case? After all, the driver of the car was originally just legally driving down the street. Does that immunize them from any sort of moral blame or legal consequences for refusing to pull over once the police ordered them to do so?

My point is that a lawful order to disperse need not be based on you personally doing something wrong--the police can in effect just be ordering you/most of the crowd to get out of their way by dispersing. And I think most people understood that, because apparently in all these cases when the police ordered the relevant crowd to disperse, most of the people did.

Quote:
I don't see ANY evidence that most of these crowds were engaged in any kind of unacceptable behavior.
Again, this is the wrong question. It doesn't have to be the entire crowd, or even most of the crowd, engaging in illegal conduct. Once even just a few people are using a crowd for cover for their illegal conduct, the crowd may be subject to a lawful order to disperse.

Consider another simple analogy: a protest crowd of 1000 people gather outside a corporate headquarters. 10 people in the crowd, a mere 1%, start throwing rocks at the building, breaking windows and threatening the safety of the people inside. Can the police order that crowd to disperse in order to stop the rock-throwing? Or do they have to let it continue because 99% of the crowd isn't doing anything wrong other than providing cover for the rock-throwers?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2009, 06:54 AM
 
4,071 posts, read 5,050,997 times
Reputation: 1492
^^^It all boils down to bad judgment on the part of the goons when ordering people to disperse when they are not engaged in any unacceptable activities. It is not only unethical to punish people that have done nothing wrong it is also a sign of limited intelligence on the part of the goons that can't exert a little time, effort and investigative work to find the real culprits and then punish them.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2009, 08:06 AM
 
7,360 posts, read 7,167,042 times
Reputation: 4719
i was actually impressed that there were so few arrests on thursday. it seems like they mainly focused on perceived troublemakers and left the rest alone. i really thought they were going to do sweep arrests, possibly even pre-emptive ones.

friday was a whole other thing though.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2009, 08:37 AM
 
20,274 posts, read 18,251,764 times
Reputation: 2823
Quote:
Originally Posted by WILWRadio View Post
^^^It all boils down to bad judgment on the part of the goons when ordering people to disperse when they are not engaged in any unacceptable activities. It is not only unethical to punish people that have done nothing wrong . . . .
It is not really punishing those people to order them to disperse, any more than it is punishing people to make them pull over for emergency vehicles. Punishment only becomes an issue when people fail to disperse and they might get cited for doing so.

Quote:
. . . it is also a sign of limited intelligence on the part of the goons that can't exert a little time, effort and investigative work to find the real culprits and then punish them.
You are once again avoiding the real problems presented by people who use crowds for cover to do bad things. It isn't a question of intelligence or effort--what people have found is that you can't effectively deal with certain problems without first dispersing the crowd. That is because there just isn't a practical way in many crowd situations for police to move through the crowd, identify the people doing bad things, and pluck them out of the crowd while leaving everyone else undisturbed. In fact, trying that approach can lead to a lot more altercations and violence in the long run.

So the intelligent first step in these situations is sometimes to disperse the crowd. I know you are insisting on viewing this as collective punishment, but often it is just a practical measure designed in part to actually reduce the harm to innocent people of the necessary law enforcement measures. And in fact I think we saw that happen in practice: in each of these cases apparently a lot of people did in fact disperse when ordered, and those are all people who avoided the risk of harm as the police subsequently went after the vandals, rock-throwers, and so on.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2009, 08:40 AM
 
20,274 posts, read 18,251,764 times
Reputation: 2823
Quote:
Originally Posted by groar View Post
i was actually impressed that there were so few arrests on thursday. it seems like they mainly focused on perceived troublemakers and left the rest alone. i really thought they were going to do sweep arrests, possibly even pre-emptive ones.

friday was a whole other thing though.
I agree, and that is another thing that should definitely be investigated (why there were so many more arrests on Friday, particularly when the overall security goals had largely been met on Thursday without a lot of arrests, and of course given that the summit was over as of Friday night).
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2009, 09:32 AM
 
7,360 posts, read 7,167,042 times
Reputation: 4719
i've read a few articles about what happened friday in local media, and the police keep contradicting themselves.

in their press release, they say people were throwing rocks and that someone bought bic lighters and fluid earlier in the day, but they can't connect the lighter buying to the protesters.

Police: BIC lighters led to Oakland alert - The Big Story - post-gazette.com

in a statement to the post-gazette, a police representative said that the crowd was starting to block forbes (contradicted by videos of the event) and implied that bic lighters were definitely bought by protesters.

In the aftermath of the G-20 summit

i smell a rat.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2009, 09:42 AM
 
20,274 posts, read 18,251,764 times
Reputation: 2823
Yep, Friday still looks like a decision hunting for a post hoc justification.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top