Elusive Trope's picture

    This Just Proves My Point

    By Elusive Trope on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 5:32pm |

    In a video which describes itself as an example of police brutality is a perfect example of the generation raised by helicopter parents who believe that there should be no consequences

    Start watching at 2:00 minute mark.  The officer attempts to ask the people to move back.  But what does out hero do?  he freaking reaches for the gun.  As a nine year old snot I could have told you this was a bad move.  And of course the police move to subdue someone who is willing to reach for a deadly weapon. 

    And as he is taken into custody the crowd goes nuts.  As if the police were over-reacting.

    And people wonder why I don't want to identify with these people.

    Comments

    Now its the 'helicopter parents' at fault too, call your buddies at Oakland PD, maybe they can use that as an excuse in court for cracking that kid's skull, and throwing a flash grenade at him while he was writhing on the ground trope.

    Frankly, Trope, I for one, do not give a crap with whom you 'identify'.

    Fortunately the SF cops handled the situation in the video without sending anyone to a trauma hospital for treatment by neurosurgeons. Speaking from experience providing medical care to inmates from state prisons, you have to learn how to handle all sorts of people, drunk, on drugs, high, low, suicidal, the seriously mentally ill, aggressive, zoned out or verbally abusive, and those with helicopter parents, drunk or drugged out parents, abusive parents, or no parents.


    by NCD on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 5:59pm

    and those with helicopter parents, drunk or drugged out parents, abusive parents, or no parents.

    Or desperate people without homes or  food;  nothing but hopeless despair, unable to pay the government to do what the governed want.

    The will of the people has been replaced by the will of the lobbyists.  

    The End.


    by Resistance on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 6:23pm

    Exactly. The point is when working as a 'public servant', behind bars or on the streets, you have a solemn responsibility not to abuse your authority, to resolve an issue or solve the problem at hand without making things worse. No one gets hurt. The cops in SF did that, the cops in Oakland did not.


    by NCD on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 6:44pm

    without making things worse.

    But that responsibility doesn't also belong on the other side, too?


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 11/01/2011 - 10:19pm

    and quite frankly i don't give a shit with who identify with.

    and if you watch the video you linked to you can see that there is no way you can say the police officer could see who was on the ground or not on the ground. chances are it was it was just some stupid officer launching a flash grenade because he or she perceived something we don't know.  That doesn't play into your narrative so you will do what you can divert people's attention from the facts.

    can you just admit for a moment that maybe just maybe those on the protest side have not acted purely?  or are you stating that because of their righteousness, what ever wrong moves they have made should be ignored?


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 6:47pm

    [edited - no ad hominems, please]


    by cmaukonen on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 8:53pm

    "... you can see that there is no way you can say the police officer could see who was on the ground or not on the ground. chances are it was it was just some stupid officer launching a flash grenade because he or she perceived something we don't know."

    I was going to call you out on this ridiculous assertion when you made it on another thread.

    It is abundantly apparent that the officer knew exactly what he was doing. For openers, prior to tossing the grenade he stood in the police line directly adjacent to where Scott Olsen lay injured. To pretend that a cop somehow failed to observe this body laying prone on the pavement all alone is simply not credible. It is in the cops' training, after all, to be extremely vigilant of their surroundings in crowd control situations such as this. Scott Olsen lay within a very short toss of the cop in question.

    Furthermore, to suggest that this cop was simply throwing stun grenades around willy-nilly is an extreme absurdity, even coming from you.

    As to your larger point here, Trope, I'd call it an epic fail. This video proves your point? Hardly. Pretty well looks like anyone assaulting the SF cops was dealt with pretty harshly and was disabled from continuing any further such assault. Meanwhile, they dismantled the encampment and disbursed the crowd. Mission accomplished!

    In reviewing the procedures used to accomplish the mission, Trope, a few questions are appropriately considered: How much tear gas was used? How many rounds of rubber bullets and bean bags were fired into the crowd? How many stun grenades were tossed? How many skulls were fractured? How many non-combatants were ever at threat of physical injury?

    I think any honest answer to the questions points out the major distinction between this police action in SF and the police riot in Oakland.

    But, golly, none of it appeals to you. Bummer! So be it. Frankly, you wouldn't be of much use to an activist group engaged in civil disobedience anyway. You've proven to be more comfortable as a wet blanket prima donna than anything else, and so you'd do all a favor by staying home tongue-clucking at will.

    And this proves the point.


    by SleepinJeezus on Tue, 11/01/2011 - 9:22am

    I've seen a couple of videos and none of them actually show the officer who actually shot it. Want to post some video that actually does and also shows (or another video) that shows said police officer shooting it

    .You desire it seems to want in a land of demons and angels.  A land where there are no idiots, where police officers don't follow protocol and commit abuse not because they are demons, but idiots.  In your world, if it was wily-nily then they must be demons.

    And yes, the people in the video are dealt with harshly.  But the police are there to maintain order.  Once a police officer tells you do something, you do it.  When they grab your arm you don't try and pull away.  If you want to confront the authority, fine.  All the more power to you.  I've done a number of times.  But I understood the limits.  This isn't, in spite of some the revolutionary rhetoric, Iran or Egypt or Russia or Chile in the bad old days.  No one in these protests were going to "disappear."  No one was going to come home and find their family "disappeared." 

    In the end, where are the rights of the city to maintain control?  At what point is a citizen in the right to ignore the requests of the police?  And when you answer, you answer not just for those who are aligned with your politics.  You answer for the neo-nazis, the anti-abortionists, the people who want to stand by a funeral procession and scream that someone died because god hates fags. 

    And don't worry. I will stay home at this time.  And given the size of the crowds, so are a lot of other people.  And maybe they are just those who watch Fox News.


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 11/01/2011 - 10:17pm

    And of course the police move to subdue someone who is willing to reach for a deadly weapon. 

    Who in the heck brought a deadly weapon to a peace protest?

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Patrick_Henry

    They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?........,

    It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope and pride. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

    And people wonder why I don't want to identify with these people. 

    It is vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, peace! But there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle?

    “What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

    Go back to bed Trope

    "Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

    While THEY bring deadly weapons to a peaceful protest.

    Go home and put on the shackles, you are outgunned?

    Buy your own lobbyists, if you want to change the system? 

    •  

    by Resistance on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 6:18pm

    Kids these days! Spoiled snotnoses, the lot of 'em! Back in the old days, kids were raised right. They said yes, thank you to the nice policemen when they were shouting anti-war slogans, and they behaved themselves when they did their LCD. The old folks back then, they knew that the protestors were good kids, even if the dudes had long hair, and they identified with them because they believed in justice too. Kumbaya.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 8:21pm

    My husband tells the story of busing in Detroit, talk about some angry adult rioters, they overturned buses and did all kinds of crazy things. Not that I advocate what the kid did, cause it is a way to get yourself shot. However, when we rioted at a Led Zeppelin ticket selling day in 76, which I sneaked out and slept at the venue to get, there were thousands of people and we just knocked over the fences and trampled those cops in our way, oh and other people too. I think most kids today are much smarter than we were.

    by tmccarthy0 on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 2:23pm

    Obviously you have mistaken me for someone who idealizes all of the protests of the sixities and the manner in which they were conducted.


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 11/01/2011 - 4:35pm

    First as tragedy, then as farce.


    by Qardinals (not verified) on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 10:58am

    Perfect!


    by SleepinJeezus on Tue, 11/01/2011 - 9:23am

    Witness to the ‘Occupy Oakland’ Assault

    On Thursday, two days after Oakland police violently routed peaceful protesters occupying a downtown plaza in protest of America’s economic inequality, I was approached by Bill Lo, a seasoned security guard and photographer who was on duty directly across the street that night.

    He had observed and filmed the entire pre-dawn raid and his compelling, soft-spoken eyewitness account contradicted much of what the police said — and the local corporate media parroted — about what happened at the camp and the supposed dangers that it presented to the city and its residents.

    by Donal on Tue, 11/01/2011 - 3:57pm

    Maybe you believe that I believe that Oakland Police and the others brought in from the outside acted perfectly, that abuses did not occur and excessive force was not used.  If so, then you are mistaken.


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 11/01/2011 - 5:07pm

    But then the point becomes we should not exercise our free speech and assembly rights because it might invite a police reaction that is dangerous, illegal, counter-productive, excessive, and stoopid!

    Ok, pal, I guess you're talking some kind of sense now! Congratulations! Can you point me toward an interpreter?


    by SleepinJeezus on Tue, 11/01/2011 - 6:02pm

    Musical interlude

     


    by Resistance on Tue, 11/01/2011 - 7:19pm

    Maybe you believe that I was posting this for your eyes only...


    by Donal on Tue, 11/01/2011 - 7:43pm

    You did post it on my blog as opposed to writing a blog around it or posting it in the "In The News" section.  So forgive me if I thought you were attempting to make some kind of point in response to what I wrote in the blog.  You could have also posted it below someone's else post and said something to the effect "hey, you might be interested in this." 


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 11/01/2011 - 9:32pm

    I do forgive you. It seemed pertinent to this subject, so I put it here. The way you reacted says it was indeed pertinent.


    by Donal on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 8:16am

    Trope and anyone else who might be interested in the culture of a New York City police precinct should listen to the online streaming story linked below. It is about a cop who tape recorded cops and it reveals things we all wish were not true and which many try to ignore and pretend are not true. It gives evidence of how totally pervasive within the cop culture is the criminal conduct that is revealed. The story does not directly apply to the cops actions in dealing with the OCS bunch but I believe it tells us things that are pertinent when judging, as we must, who to believe or to give the benefit of the doubt to when conflicting stories are told. I am aware, trope,  that you have professed to know that the cops are not all innocent, but considering your apparent strong interest in what is going on coupled with your apologetic attitude towards stories of abuse, as well as your advice to cooperate with their bullying, makes me think that you should look closer at available evidence. Begin listening at the seventeen minute mark.

    http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/414/right-to-rema...


    by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 11/01/2011 - 6:29pm

    your apologetic attitude towards stories of abuse

    When there is abuse, I do not have an apologetic attitude in my opinion. 

    I do look at both sides.  I don't give the protesters a pass in judging their behavior just because I might agree with their politics.

    Apparently there is some wide-spread agreement that the protesters have no responsibility, that they are not accountable in any way, they don't have to be answerable for their actions.  The moment that one can point to this or that abuse on the police means any discussion about the behavior of the protesters is off limits.


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 11/01/2011 - 9:59pm

    Latest Comments