G-20 articles and discussion (Pittsburgh, Lawrenceville: store, pictures, market)

[groar]

Originally Posted by ditchdigger

I'm old enough to remember the riots of the 1960s. Both the anti-war ones, and the race riots in the wake of Martin Luther King's assination. Fortunately, I'm just a little too young to have wanted to go and participate myself, but the images were all over the 6 o'clock news. It was based on those recollections that I suggested the Pitt students haven't really experienced "real" police brutality, and I'll stand by that. In the 60s, the girl that threw the bike at the police wouldn't have regained conciousness yet.

i don't think "other police have done worse things" is an excuse for some of the things the police did.

i definitely haven't seen anything approaching some of the brutality i've seen, even at semi-recent marches. but there were police acting out of line. with great power comes great responsibility and all that - the police are given extraordinary powers and if they abuse them they should face consequences.

what happened friday certainly seems like abuse of power, and there were a few other instances throughout the protests where police were behaving inappropriately. all in all, excluding friday, it wasn't that bad, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the problems.

[WILWRadio]

^^^Correct. Applying the theory that Ditchdigger uses to justify the mass roundups and subsequent arrests of people that were not acting in a criminal manner would then set a legal precedent for future action of all sorts. For example: Two cops are arrested for being part of an alleged burglary ring. Using Ditchdiggers theory it would now be possible to either arrest every officer in the police department for potentially being a part of the burglary ring or at the very least they would be dismissed for alleged improprieties.

[groar]

Oakland's long night

it is looking more and more like the police screwed up big time on friday.

and they were almost done!

[dugdogmaster]

Originally Posted by groar

Oakland's long night

it is looking more and more like the police screwed up big time on friday.

and they were almost done!

Indeed, they overreacted big time in this instance.

Loved the photo of Pamela's you posted a few pages back, too, despite all the bad grammar.

[ditchdigger]

Correct. Applying the theory that Ditchdigger uses to justify the mass roundups and subsequent arrests of people that were not acting in a criminal manner would then set a legal precedent for future action of all sorts. For example: Two cops are arrested for being part of an alleged burglary ring. Using Ditchdiggers theory it would now be possible to either arrest every officer in the police department for potentially being a part of the burglary ring or at the very least they would be dismissed for alleged improprieties.

That's not a valid analogy. (Although, I guarantee you that if ten cops were at a particular scene, and something of value disappeared, all ten would fall under suspicion.)

What we're talking about here is entirely different. It's a matter of keeping control of a situation. Above I asked "how much prevention is worth a pound of cure?", and that was never really answered.

To put it another way, how much stuff should law enforcement allow to happen, versus how much should they deal with once it's already happening/happened? It's got to be a very tough call to make, and one that I'm sure neither you nor I am qualified for.

More on the implications of that below.

i don't think "other police have done worse things" is an excuse for some of the things the police did.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that to protest "police brutality" for the actions of our police is itself an over reaction. From what I saw they were very measured and restrained in their actions, and I only gave the other examples as a yardstick by which to judge where on the scale of "brutality" those actions fell.

all in all, excluding friday, it wasn't that bad, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the problems.

Pre-post edit: The "Long Night" link was posted between the time I began this post and when I finished it. This edit has been inserted here, because I think the following paragraph addresses the question, and because I think the article confirms what I'd already typed.

I'm sure everybody's behavior will be put under a microscope in the days to come. That's another difference between now and the old days. If anything really inappropriate was done, it's likely to be revealed. I'm willing to wait and see before passing judgement. (I guess that "innocent until proven guilty" thing can cut both ways. )

Essentially then they are throwing out the baby with the bath water. This is not the correct way to handle this situation. How do you think the following situation should be handled?

Let's say... (etc.)

How about a counter example then?

A village has a problem with a field infested with poisonous snakes. The villagers set fire to the field, and kill the snakes as they're driven out into the open. Do we lament the burning of the "innocent" weeds? As BrianTH said above,

The problem is that even when just a few people are using crowds for cover to do illegal things, the police still have to disperse the whole crowd.

Once they tell you to disperse, and you don't, as far as I'm concerned, you've defined yourself as "part of the problem". I really think that's the crux of the issue with regard to Friday.

I don't want to come off as being an extremeist in favor of law enforcement. I'm not. But I expressed my sincere opinion several pages above (too lazy to go looking for it), when I said that to go where any of the action is, without it being necessary for you to be there, is the epitome of stupid. I appreciate the pictures and video from Scott P, but if he'd been arrested for his trouble I wouldn't be very sympathetic, because he put himself there in the time and place for it to happen.

Another pre-post edit, in light of the contents of the "Long Night" article: Apparently, the size of the crowd was due in part to the throngs of "the curious", so obviously many others put themselves in that time and place as well. Consider this--maybe if the crowd had been smaller, the police wouldn't have felt the need to act?

If you go looking for trouble (as differentiated from looking to cause trouble), you can't complain when it finds you.

[ditchdigger]

Another thought to add to the above--Flyers were being passed out earlier in the day advertising the time and place of that gathering. Obviously, it was on somebody's agenda to maximize the size of the crowd. Do you believe their motives were entirely pure, or was there an intention to create a flashpoint for trouble? To create a fertile ground for trouble to grow from?

[dugdogmaster]

Originally Posted by ditchdigger

Another thought to add to the above--Flyers were being passed out earlier in the day advertising the time and place of that gathering. Obviously, it was on somebody's agenda to maximize the size of the crowd. Do you believe their motives were entirely pure, or was there an intention to create a flashpoint for trouble? To create a fertile ground for trouble to grow from?

I've come to the conclusion that both sides wanted a major confrontation. From what I've heard and read about police pumping themselves up over the couple days, to what anarchists just like to do.

[groar]

Originally Posted by ditchdigger

Another thought to add to the above--Flyers were being passed out earlier in the day advertising the time and place of that gathering. Obviously, it was on somebody's agenda to maximize the size of the crowd. Do you believe their motives were entirely pure, or was there an intention to create a flashpoint for trouble? To create a fertile ground for trouble to grow from?

i think there was intention to hold a protest. apparently even that barely happened.

protest is not synonymous with causing trouble, believe it or not.

[WILWRadio]

Where were the police during the LA Riots? Not to be seen because the people in those neighborhoods were not peaceful protestors or a few student anarchists throwing rocks.

If you don't think my original analogy is a good example then here is another.

Ditchdigger and family are at a local public park enjoying a day outside. They happen to be sitting at picnic tables under a large pavilion with other people and families not a part of their own gathering. During that afternoon, one of the other groups has some trouble erupt among a few of its guests and a right breaks out. Eventually the police arrive and determine that the entire pavilion must be cleared out and that everyone should be arrested because they believe that all of the people underneath the pavilion are part of the same party. Sound logical or even legal? Nope.

Here's another one and this really happened. In 1980 thirty two people were gathered at a place called "The Tree" in my CT hometown. This is a 400 plus year old oak next to the river where people fish and launch their boats. The police showed up and decided to arrest EVERYONE there because one person got out of hand and pushed one of the cops and mouthed off to him. We went to court two weeks later and the Judge threw out every single case except the one for the guy that pushed the cop. He got a disorderly charge and a fine. This my friend is the correct outcome of a situation where the police over reacted to a bunch of non violent people sitting around and not doing anything to cause any trouble.

[ditchdigger]

Ditchdigger and family are at a local public park enjoying a day outside. They happen to be sitting at picnic tables under a large pavilion with other people and families not a part of their own gathering. During that afternoon, one of the other groups has some trouble erupt among a few of its guests and a right breaks out. Eventually the police arrive and determine that the entire pavilion must be cleared out and that everyone should be arrested because they believe that all of the people underneath the pavilion are part of the same party. Sound logical or even legal? Nope.

Never gonna happen, because Ditchdigger and family are smart enough not to hang around once the riot breaks out.

Here's another one and this really happened.....We went to court two weeks later....

Well, I suggested earlier that you might be biased. I now understand where that originated. And believe it or not, I sympathize/empathize. You were wronged by the police, and that's now part of your world view. (Although I'd like to know more details, before passing judgement on the police. Why did they show up in the first place? Was this a known trouble spot? Was this just a recent trouble spot? Was the bad actor causing trouble to the rest of the group, or was he a negative influence on the rest of the group, inciting them? You know, that sort of thing. Until all the information is in, from both sides, I'll give all parties the benefit of the doubt.)

At the same time, consider that the day to day life of a police officer is one of confrontation (sometimes violent), with people that oppose them. Ideally, most of the time, that's because those people are in violation of the law, and the police are there to enforce the law. Good guys vs. bad guys. And sure, sometimes the cops are in the wrong too.

I have a few friends and aquaintances that are police officers. One of them shared something with me once that was very informative--A police officer must always be the one in control of the situation. It's the only thing that guarantees he'll be able to go home at the end of his shift. Any time he's not in control of the situation, he'll do whatever it takes to gain control of the situation, and go on from there. To not be in control of the situation is a cardinal sin. That's the mentality of the individual police officer, and it's dictated by the circumstances under which he works. (Use that information in your own life however you see fit.)

I don't think it's unreasonable that the same philosophy then permeates all facets of the profession, including multiple officers dealing with multiple individuals. It's a measure of their professionalism as to how well they do or do not adminster that control.

I've come to the conclusion that both sides wanted a major confrontation. From what I've heard and read about police pumping themselves up over the couple days, to what anarchists just like to do.

Perhaps, but if the police had really pumped themselves up, I doubt we'd have seen as little violence as we did. Yes, they're human too, and can get swept up in the event just like the crowd can.

protest is not synonymous with causing trouble, believe it or not.

I can agree with that, but at the same time, I don't agree that preemptively bringing an end to a particular protest, before it turns into trouble, is necessarily wrong.

And we're all "Monday morning quarterbacking" at this point.