Welcome to Police State America

[spicoli]

you'd have to ask them where they bought/got their gear.
the point of this whole thread is, if i'm not mistaken, not what the message is, but it's about the messenger having to right to deliver said message. it really is of NO CONSEQUENCE what the protested issue is, it is a basic civil liberty to speak out and speak up. whether or not the protesters are hypocrites of their cause and wasting their own time is not of my concern. when they are attacked for doing so, i get worried. our freedom as a whole is my concern, and i see it being slowly and methodically stripped away. next they're wanting our guns, those of us that still excersise that right. if they take those away, that's our last physical defense. that's when police state will have new meaning for us.
how is it that we are 'free' if we have to ask 'if' we can protest anything? because, as you know, those permits can be and are often denied.
asking for a permit to protest oppression is kind of ridiculous, wouldn't you say?
the more we limit what people can say, and where they can say it, the more freedom we lose as a society.
the politically correct movement really fucked things up, imo.
this here 'freedom' is costing us dearly.

[JcP]

JcP, you seem to think protesters are a threat to you and they need to be shut down before they hurt you in some way, am I wrong?

completely. did you not read the fact that I, myself, have protested on numerous occasions? My issue is not with protests, my issue is with protests that 1) infringe upon other's rights to carry out their daily business or 2) devolve into violence and/or riots.
Protesting is wonderful...I am not sure where you got the impression I was in any way suggesting protests should be shut down or are a threat to me in any way, as I have said neither.
Unless, of course, you misinterpreted my belief that unlawful (definition in tact) protests should be shut down. In which case, yes. I stand by that statement....but they are two different subjects.

Unless you are the one being protested against, I don't see how a protest scares you into forfeiting your rights unto the government.

what right(s) have I forfeited?

How do you claim to have a working brain when you tell me that I can do whatever I want so long as is not uniting with other people who feel like me about an issue to peacefully tell others about it?

....zerodown, I urge you to read more carefully before responding. I did not say you shoudn't unite with other people who feel like you and tell others peacefully about your belief. I said protests that are on public domain (like, say, a street in pittsburgh) where your actions prevent others from access and use of that public land is wrong.
If you want to walk around a park somewhere with some friends passing out fliers or talking to people, that's totally cool. If you get a bunch of friends together and stand in that park preventing others from using it, that's not cool.
The entire purpose of the 1939 supreme court ruling and subsequent state laws regarding protests getting permits for use of public land is because it is not your right to commandere public land for your own use, regardless of cause.

Like I said, US citizens are totally hopeless, for americans like you there is nothing wrong with the US, as long as the tv turns on everything is fine.

hyperbole and unfair. There's a lot I find wrong with this country. And, again, I've been involved in plenty of protests, marches, and social outreach programs based both from my UU church I attend on occasion as well as other programs I've found my way to.
Thinking people shutting down a city is wrong is not synonymous with blind adherance to this country...

I won't get into this shit with your politically correct crap, the fact that you think protests are an illegal act("Are you under the impression that it is your right to gather people anywhere you want any time you want regardless of the consequences to the common good, domestic tranquility, and ability for others to function and move without being prevented to do so by your actions?") only shows that americans are not only aware that they have no rights, but they are ok with it as well. Hopeless minds.

Protests are not an illegal act. Protests without permits on public ground (which is for the use of all) that prevents people not associated with your protest to go about their lives IS illegal. there is an extremely distinct difference between the two, and I urge you to think about that before you post again. Painting me as "against protests" is not only absurd, but completely baseless from anything I've said.

“Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.”

Robert F. Kennedy
Capetown, June 6th 1966

funny you quoted a president to support your belief(s) that the laws of the land are unjust. And the "protest laws" in terms of permits were already in place when JFK made this speech. woops?
Rioters and anarchists do not improve the lives of others, they hurt them through financial and social destruction. Injustice is an action that is against the law, and the law is quite clear about what is and is not an appropriate "gathering." Hope is personal and often at odds (Obama was hope for millions, and the antichrist to millions of others),
Opression is also personal, as one man's freedoms are another man's shackles, and resistance therefore is nebulous as well. Osama Bin Laden is "resisting" American cultural oppression...is he included in your noble belief in fighting for what you believe in?

Quotes like this out of context are meaningless...and I love JFK.

[JcP]

you'd have to ask them where they bought/got their gear.
the point of this whole thread is, if i'm not mistaken, not what the message is, but it's about the messenger having to right to deliver said message. it really is of NO CONSEQUENCE what the protested issue is, it is a basic civil liberty to speak out and speak up. whether or not the protesters are hypocrites of their cause and wasting their own time is not of my concern. when they are attacked for doing so, i get worried. our freedom as a whole is my concern, and i see it being slowly and methodically stripped away. next they're wanting our guns, those of us that still excersise that right. if they take those away, that's our last physical defense. that's when police state will have new meaning for us.
how is it that we are 'free' if we have to ask 'if' we can protest anything? because, as you know, those permits can be and are often denied.
asking for a permit to protest oppression is kind of ridiculous, wouldn't you say?
the more we limit what people can say, and where they can say it, the more freedom we lose as a society.
the politically correct movement really fucked things up, imo.
this here 'freedom' is costing us dearly.

the most coherant "opposing" view to mine posted yet. Thank you Spicoli.

a couple of quick replies:

"you" don't have to ask if you can protest anything. You can go right now. organizing a mass protest that prevents the use of public land or leads to a disturbance of the peace, however, requires a permit.

Permits are denied sometimes...and I speak from a non-first-person perspective here, but most of these seem to be either 1) too much of a disturbance (say, 100,000 people wanting to march down Broadway during a business day), or 2) a safety concern (say, 1,000 people wanting to stand outside the U.N. to protest something).

there are no limits to what you can say. There are no limits to where you can say it. There ARE limits on where CROWDS can say something.


lastly, using the G-20 as the primary example is, in a lot of ways, flawed. Was the police response in Pittsburgh over-the-top? Perhaps. But when you look back to Seattle and recognize the pattern of violence that follows the G-(whatever #) summits, I don't blame them.
If the protests were peaceful in the past, I HIGHLY doubt the city would have responded as they did...it's financially burdensome, and leads to viral videos like the OP. (this is a bit unfair, as we have no way of knowing since this reality does not exist, but I think the police response to other mass protests without a history of extreme violence and disturbance supports my claim).
Cause and effect, imho. Anarchists and rioters follow these summits...and the police's job is to protect people and property...people breaking the law (un-approved protests, blocking street traffic, etc) are easy targets to dispurse within their jurisdiction. Unfortunately, I think it's hard to distinguish a rioter from a "peacemonger" until it's too late. So they stop it all.
Again, I'd be more pissed off at those who spoil the pot for those wishing to protest peacefully (with or without a permit for that matter).

I'm also curious as to what new information has been presented to you to warrant your "slowly and methodically" statement. No new laws were passed that I'm aware of...nothing has changed. What new infingement has been put into place?

I do respect your ability to concisely and compellingly state your opinion(s). Thank you for that. Perhaps your response might change my mind on an issue or two (and vice versa).

[spicoli]

jcp- didn't they shut down the town well before any protesters got there? my little bro's school (duquesne) was closed for the days of the summit.

[JcP]

^^ because of the expected violence and history of these summits. I don't believe they actually "shut down" Pittsburgh like martial law or anything...I honestly don't know. Shutting down the schools seems like a precautionary step by school administrators to prevent riots from keeping parents from their kids or students unable to get away should they be at school/college
i do know my friends in Pittsburgh got the hell out of town because they expected Seattle 2.0

But I am not actually sure what the extent of the "shutdown" was as I am not in Pittsburgh atm...about an hour and a half outside of it.

[spicoli]

i suppose the slow and methodical would apply to the fear the police and military in our country are directed to instill in our citizens. fear of speaking up comes as a result of police/military attacking people only armed with voices and signs.
the patriot act is a reprehensible display of what our govt is capable of.

[spicoli]

i really grew up looking down on protesters...the media has a way of portraying them as though they are making trouble, and not paving a new path...

[JcP]

i suppose the slow and methodical would apply to the fear the police and military in our country are directed to instill in our citizens. fear of speaking up comes as a result of police/military attacking people only armed with voices and signs.
the patriot act is a reprehensible display of what our govt is capable of.

I agree with you about the patriot act.

I guess I don't feel the "fear" because I've never been afraid of speaking my mind...and I've had plenty of situations where speaking my mind was not easy.

I understand your "slow and methodical" now tho. thanks for the clarification.


and per your second post, I've never looked down on protesters because of PROTESTING...even the teabaggers are standing up for what they believe in (even if it's moronic). I look down on members of protests who use it as an excuse to be violent, or who use violence as a tool.
The media does focus on the fringes of any movement...and government too for that matter...because that's where the strongest conflict is...and conflict makes good story (trust me...I majored in theater lol). It's unfortunate, but at least take solace in knowing it works both ways...the worst of the worst of the protesters and the worst of the worst of the police.

[spicoli]

not to take the blame off, but i was raised my an ultra-constervative christian, the media that was spoon fed to me, and of course the sofa-sermons...i've allowed myself to be shaped by other's views, sure. up until the last few years i had a much different belief system...hell since i joined yahooka.
it's only now that i see from the lense of my truth. and my truth says beware, your rights are slipping away.

[Makros_01]

if it barks like a dog and acts like a dog.. its a dog

and that footage barks like a police state.

[stoneric]

I think any time a group of people protest their will be some inconvenience for the citizenry. I'd hate to see every "permit" be denied because of this reason.

[zerodown]

Clearly there is no way of getting through to you jcp, you strongly believe everything must be done by law, when it is these same corrupt and unjust laws what people are protesting about, but yeah you don't even know what people are protesting about so how can you even begin to understand their causes?

Just because something is law doesn't mean is right. That why laws can and should be amended.

You think people can "protest" in a park by telling others about their cause, but the moment others start listening to the protester and start uniting, then for some magical reason it somehow turns into an illegal act and police have to disband them? WTF? They can protest so long as no one else joins them? I would like to know what kind of protests you've been to with that way of thinking, did you get permits for your protests?

As I said on my first post on this topic, it is quite clear what is going on by watching these videos, to deny it or to defend it only serves as a means to measure how indoctrinated you are, and you jcp, are way on top of the chart.

"For those who stubbornly seek freedom, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination. These are easy to perceive in the totalitarian societies, much less so in the system of 'brainwashing under freedom' to which we are subjected and which all too often we serve as willing or unwitting instruments."

Also, you seem to have a strong fear of violence, if so, stay home, be safe but let protesters do their thing, they are doing it for us all, even if you don't think so or you can't see it, when groups protest for their rights they are doing it for you too, like it or not, want it or not. if you want to stay home, stay home, if you want to join, join, but whatever you do don't demonize protesters as vandals, you're doing the governments work for free.

Also, have you noticed these protests only turn violent when the police show up? They provoke violence, they don't stop violent protests, they provoke protesters into turning violent, which is two different things.

Did you watch the video I posted about the riot in my town? That was on a thursday, around 100 police were present before anything even started, what they were psychics? they knew before hand a riot was going to take place? or did they know a riot WOULD take place once they showed up and started pushing people around? Thursday after that, the students took to the streets, to protest, I was there, but the media was covering the issue, you know how many cops were there? 3 at most, you know how much violence went on that night? none. Cops stayed away because cameras were rolling, and no one died.

Its hard to explain this to someone who thinks protesters should get permits to protest. How would that go?

Protester: Yeah ummm where do I fill the paper to protest against my government?
government: Ummm yeah right here.

Protester fills papers

DENIED!!!

Yeah that works perfectly eh? you have a RIGHT TO PROTEST, you don't need to ask anyone in order to protest, that is why its hard to explain all this to you, because I probably need a permit to get through to your nugget sized brain.

For someone like you the only book I can think of that would help you understand is Erich Fromm's "escape from freedom". seriously, aside from all the debate and arguing on this topic, go get this book, go during the morning, at that time protesters are sleeping you'll be safe while you go to the mall.

[flappy]

you'd have to ask them where they bought/got their gear.
the point of this whole thread is, if i'm not mistaken, not what the message is, but it's about the messenger having to right to deliver said message. it really is of NO CONSEQUENCE what the protested issue is, it is a basic civil liberty to speak out and speak up. whether or not the protesters are hypocrites of their cause and wasting their own time is not of my concern. when they are attacked for doing so, i get worried. our freedom as a whole is my concern, and i see it being slowly and methodically stripped away. next they're wanting our guns, those of us that still excersise that right. if they take those away, that's our last physical defense. that's when police state will have new meaning for us.
how is it that we are 'free' if we have to ask 'if' we can protest anything? because, as you know, those permits can be and are often denied.
asking for a permit to protest oppression is kind of ridiculous, wouldn't you say?
the more we limit what people can say, and where they can say it, the more freedom we lose as a society.
the politically correct movement really fucked things up, imo.
this here 'freedom' is costing us dearly.

The second amendment (bearing arms)was put there to back up the first...assembly and speech. No permits required for either ....until recently.

[JcP]

zerodown, if you are unable to respond directly and instead retreat to your personal attacks and vague overarching conclusions without supporting them with facts, there is no conversation to be had.
I am truly baffled where you keep drawing these wild conclusions about me and what I'm saying.

In your world of "protest whenever, wherever" please explain to me how six guys from the bronx standing in the middle of the west side highway should be legal?
thousands upon thousands of people will be unable to get home. Is it those 6 men's right to do this?
How about a thousand people standing outside of a theater, shouting during a performance, destroying the show for the people who have paid for their tickets?


i have zero interest in following you from post to post, replying to each one of your new examples or random accusations about me, only to then have you not reply to me and instead post yet another ridiculous post.

Quit judging me, as you do not know me. You are more than welcome to critique my post(s) and what I say in them (and I urge you to do so! Please respond to my response above this one!), but trying to paint me as some blind "scared" sheep is not only unfactual, but ironic.
There is no fear for me in this situation. Who's the one screaming the sky is falling? YOU ARE. Smoke a bowl, chill the fuck out, and if you WANT, I'd love for you to answer my questions.
If not, your next post will not be replied to...but since I believe you gave me the last word in the music thread, this one is all yours.

[JcP]

not to take the blame off, but i was raised my an ultra-constervative christian, the media that was spoon fed to me, and of course the sofa-sermons...i've allowed myself to be shaped by other's views, sure. up until the last few years i had a much different belief system...hell since i joined yahooka.
it's only now that i see from the lense of my truth. and my truth says beware, your rights are slipping away.

right on.

Are your folks still alive? If so, I'd be curious to know when the media became ultra-liberal to ultra-conservatives...

And for fuck's sake THANK YOU for saying "lens of MY truth." Debating people who claim to hold objective truth on an opinion-based subect is infuriating.

I hear you, spicoli, and I indeed DID protest the Patriot Act and continue to bring up my objections whenever it comes up in coversation with friends who are in favor of it.

I just think in a growing society, if laws don't change with the times, you get archaic systems that don't work.
Jews don't stone people who sleep in too late on the Sabbath anymore, even tho their original document says they should.

the right to protest is a sacred one (as is the right to own a gun), but both have to be seen in context. Right to bear arms was about muskets...which took forever to reload...was for an agrarian society without massive megacities and focused populations.
I disagree with any attempt to outlaw guns, even though I have no interest in ever owning one. I do not see how gun registration and safety features are infringing upon your right to own a gun. You can still go buy one...you just have to go through a process that makes this "right" functional in a modern era.

Likewise, the first amendment. I repeat my example given to zerodown...without assembly laws, what is to prevent six guys from completely shutting down NYC by standing arm in arm across the George Washington Bridge?

Anyway, I agree with your overall sentiment, I just think, perhaps, I see a different REASON, which lessons my doom-and-gloom feeling about it.

[Peace seeker]

China and Iran are considered "real" police states.

I consider america a worse police state than China or Iran. I m sure in eother china or iran, cops only interfere with the masses when the gvmnt is threatened from mass protests. In the US, a cop doesnt need to be provoked or anything to shoot you with a taser gun so you cna "behave". Raise your voice to a cop for getting an unfair ticket and chances are you will get tazed to "Come down sir".

If i get a ticket here, i can call the cop every name in the book for about half hr (and yell on his face) and he will consider it "very normal". He might even apologise to me for giving me a ticket.

People in China get out and protest only to be greeted with tanks and tear gas.

in the US its proly worse.

If u protest u will be tazed, tear gased, hosed down, beaten and (lately) you will be microwaved by that giant truck with a satelitte dish-type of thing that sends enormous amounts of hot microwaves to protestors. In simple words you ll be nuked.

Like a TV dinner


from the laaaand of the freeeeeeeee......

[spicoli]

the personal attacks on each other don't get the problems fixed. we don't have to agree on the issues, we just have to agree that we have the right not to agree, and to speak out about it. if more people would actually engage each other IN PERSON, in PUBLIC VENUES, we would actually see what the majority is really in favor of. in person in public venues is where change happens. but we are scared into staying home and typing it up on a computer. the 'inconvenience' of not getting home in time, or to whereever you may be going might just give some people who don't otherwise try to change things time to think about why they are really being held up. it's always going to be inconvenient for some when trying to invoke change. hell it might even invoke some change and passion in them to try to make a difference. we all need to care more about where this country is going. honestly, i don't want to get gassed and shot at and noised out, but how will any difference be made if we don't get out there and shout from the roof tops what we need as THE PEOPLE. imo, my govt has done a pretty shitty job representing me so far, and i've done nothing to change that. i'm taking responsibility for that NOW.
i just can't wrap my head around people being arrested and physically attacked for walking down public streets with signs, or even no signs, just walking in groups, no matter their numbers. it does not jive.

[spicoli]

jeez i sound like i think i have all the answers, but i don't...i just know something needs to change.

[JcP]

I agree something has to change. I just don't see the validity in allowing people the right to do whatever they want regardless of the effect on the rest of us.
I am not a legal scholar and do not know the intricacies of the permit law(s), but I do see the problem in allowing anyone to protest anywhere at any time.
people protesting the "color pink" as a previous frivolous example in this thread, holding up the entire city of NY by blocking traffic, to me, is contrary to the purpose of protest.

The definition of protest is "To object to, especially in a formal statement." I am not sure if this "right" is being infinged upon in any way by limiting where people can physically manifest themselves. Protest is not synonymous with marching or gathering.
The other part of the 1st amendment (peacefully assemble), however, does deal with this action. And you can make a case for the belief that this right IS being infringed upon by permit laws... I just disagree with the extent to which the term "peacefully" can be applied. "peace" and preventing the use of public land, to me, are at odds with one another. And, therefore, I see nothing wrong with requiring physical protests on PUBLIC land to have to get permits from the state/city/federal government.

Anyway, in conclusion, I agree with you things have to change...I just think they have to change on both sides. Protesters need to distance themselves from violence and crying "police state" when the police enforce the law to ensure domestic tranquility, and the police need to find a way to stop treating everyone as if they are about to riot, even if SOME of the members of a group are indeed doing so...in essence, to stop profiling.
Perhaps that's the compromise and non-arrogant solution to this debate I (according to zerodown) should be unable to agree to, lol.

[zerodown]

Hopeless... God save you America, cause you can't by yourself...