And some believe the use of the term Gestapo Tactics is hyperbole in and of itself. You position it as pure harassment. If you (re)read the original story, the people questioned were all associated with the anarchist movement. Do you think it totally outrageous that maybe the NYPD heard about the Cleveland plot and thought they should check in on their local branch? Not to mention that one guy is actually accused of assaulting a police officer. You make the whole thing sound like it goes on every day – like it did in Germany – or are all those stories being suppressed by a complicit global corporate media cabal?
Our democratically elected representatives wrote what “legal” means. None of whom were Nazis.
Just let us all know when the law is amended to send Jews to the death camps, and we can all agree that the NYPD is employing Gestapo tactics. Until then, complaining when the police investigate twits makes you look nearly as stupid as those dolts in Occupy Wall Street.
You wanna cry “Wolf!!!”? Feel free. But those of us with more than a passing familiarity with zoological classification are going to snicker when you pee yourself at the sight of a schnauzer.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, I know.
But certain folks here certainly latched onto that, and diverted the conversation into the realm of what the Gestapo did, was the NYPD merely Gestapo-lite, and potentially it would finally morph into a debate about the tactics of Rommel’s troops in North Africa.
From a recent article in the Atlantic, here’s the voice of your would-be Gestapo…
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/occupy-wall-streets-may-day-in-new-york/256657/
[QUOTE=OP]
Occupy Wall Street hopes to shut down New York and cities across the country in massive May Day protests
[/quote]
Unless you consider blocking traffic and preventing individuals from earning a living merely an inconvenience, (and barring the creation of a ‘FuckOWS’ counter-movement that could hypothetically (but illegally) create a human chain that blocks Zachary Dempster’s ability to leave his Bushwick apartment to ‘shut down a city’), what non-Gestapo tactics should police employ prior to the commencement of such planned crimes/inconveniences?
There is absolutely nothing illegal about being an anarchist. That is, presumably, one of the better features of living in the US. You can hold any political view you want without fear of retribution from the government.
Did the police have ANY evidence of a planned future crime? All we have evidence so far is the police kicked in the door and sent six officers in to arrest someone on a six year old unpaid open container violation. There is no mention of them having evidence that anyone there was planning some future attack.
As for it going on every day…it does.
New York’s “stop and frisk” policy is going to court. Oh yeah…here is an example of a cop claiming he was assaulted. Totally false and made up (there are other stories to be had of police using excessive force on protestors under the blanket of the person assaulting them or resisting them…to the point the experienced protestors go totally limp and shout, “I am not resisting”).
As for more police-state tactics perhaps you missed the Pulitzer Prize winning series of stories recently on the NYPD spying on Muslims.
These are not just one-off oddities. These are continued police-state tactics.
The Gestapo had nothing to do with sending people to the camps (although many Gestapo goons would later be detached to the organizations who did focus on that ; and the Gestapo also had a role in nipping prisoner escapes/revolts/conspiracies in the bud within the camps themselves).
That is not what people are talking about when compare the NYPD & the Gestapo in any event. Stop being intentionally obtuse.
Can’t happen here right?
See Korematsu v. United States. Not death camps but definitely rounding up Americans who worry you and imprisoning them with no due process.
But that was legal, in a democratic society no less, so ok by you right?
It could - it just hasn’t, in the sense that nothing the anarchists suffered is even remotely similar.
Regards,
Shodan
Since when are police allowed to come in and harrass you based on the mere possibility that you may do something they dislike in the future?
If they have actual evidence you plan to commit a crime then sure, they should go arrest you. Here though there is no such evidence. The best they had was a six year old unpaid ticket for an open container violation.
Besides, civil disobedience has a long history in the US and usually there is not much fuss. Here is a picture I took last November of OWS sitting in an intersection in the Loop (business district) in Chicago. They stopped traffic and police were all over the place and let it continue for ten(ish) minutes. Then the police walked in and started taking people away. No knocking heads…the people stood up and calmly walked away with the police to be arrested. No muss. No fuss. No riots. No violence. It was downright civil.
Death camps have not happened here but then actual death camps are a relative rarity even in history. Imprisoning people wholesale that worry the powers that be with no due process or actual proof of intent to commit crimes is common in police states and has happened here (which I just showed you).
I think it would be absolutely terrific if the NYPD would check in with the “local branch” of the anarchists. However that is exactly what the NYPD did NOT do.
Were these guys the “local branch”?
And how exactly did they “check in”? Did they call them up ans schedule a meeting? No? is the normal way of “checking in” coming by in the early morning with 6 armed officers and interrogating residents?
I"m afraid I don’t buy the “accused of assaulting a police officer” bit. These accusations are routinely made, and have a way of diasappearing once they rubber hits the road (ie there is no evidence whatsoever)
Who authorized this? Who signed off on spending the money to keep six policeman on one case, and that case trivial? Doesn’t the local government have standard techniques for dealing with unpaid tickets? Do they typically involve a visit from the police? Is there a presumption of necessity for forced entry, such that no warrant is required?
Yoko wrote that part. True fact, you could look it up.
When you say “accused of assaulting a police officer”, are you saying he has been charged with assaulting a police officer?
Perhaps when five brethren attempted to blow up a bridge, they felt more urgency. I am not sure the Anarchists have an office New York so maybe they couldn’t call, maybe they’re unlisted.
You don’t seem to get that the guys in Cleveland planted bombs and dialed the code to detonate them. When the charges didn’t explode, they called the guy who sold them the dummy C4 – in order to double check that they got the code right. There is no speculation about their intent. I am simply saying that the episode could have made any number of police forces around the country jumpy.
“Accused of assaulting a police officer” was my paraphrase of the information in this graph from the article linked in the OP:
So old Zach was suspicious of their motives.
“brethren”. Were these activists related to the accused bridge-blower-uppers in some way? Did they attend the same anarchist meetings? Did the police have evidence that they were related to the Cleveland group? I must assume you have evidence that confirms this. And that the police in New York were acting on this evidence. I’ll wait while you look for the evidence…
…
… dum de dum…
You know, I think police need actual evidence of a crime before they bust in with 6 of the best to roust out a nest of Anarchists, even if they are Dirty Fucking Hippies.
I’m thrilled that the police in Cleveland did such a good job. I remain unconvinced that this means there is an open season on any and all unrelated Dirty Fucking Hippies in the ENTIRE COUNTRY who remain unconnected to the Cleveland crime, and they can be harassed at will.
So you’ll believe the DFHs about this entire incident, but not the police about the alleged assault? Not saying you’re beliefs are wrong, I’m just wondering why you trust one group over the other.
Because these kinds of accusations against police are somewhat routine, and they do have a tendency to disappear just as quickly.
Again, not saying you’re wrong. Just wondering.
That’s just it.
Such accusations (either direction) are generally a matter of he said/she said and in such cases the presumption usually goes with the cop making the accusation telling the truth. Up a few posts I linked to a case where the cop claimed the perp assaulted him. Video of the incident showed the cop totally made it up. So clear was the evidence the DA dropped charges on the kid and is investigating the cop.
I have shown (and you can easily Google) cops using excessive force against OWS. To the point a federal court is looking in to police conduct in Oakland. Not to mention the pepper spraying of protestors doing pretty much nothing in New York and UC Davis (I linked to these earlier).
We have a lot of examples of police being abusive in the OWS protests. Do you have a lot of examples of police getting their asses kicked by OWS protestors?
I can also cite a case of a man who was tasered to death by the police. They reported under oath that he was assaulting the 4 of them, and they were in fear for their lives. Subsequently, video emerged that was taken by another party which showed that he did no such thing.
Each of the police officers are now charged with perjury.
Sadly, cases like this are only too common. With the advent of cheap and common video phones and cameras, it seems the the charges of “assaulting an officer” are made up in many, many cases.
Perhaps not in this particular case of the OWS protesters of course… but there is certainly doubt in my mind about the veracity of any officer’s claim.
But the anarchists were neither imprisoned, nor deprived of any of their due process rights. So I don’t see what your example has to do with this.
You have to give some indication that a slope exists before you can drag out even as sorry a slippery slope argument as this is.
Regards,
Shodan