Using the NRA example in my last post made me think of this again.
If you have a group that promotes gun ownership I would say it’s essentially inevitable that sooner or later someone will get shot.
I accuse the NRA of being too stupidly starry-eyed about guns to understand what they are doing.
If you want to say the NRA is just exercising a constitutional right (to keep and bear arms) I would say OWS is exercising a constitutional right to peaceably assemble.
Call me when there is a peaceably assembly lobby, where manufactures of peaceable assembly equipment stand to lose billions of dollars when that right is infringed.
My comment is based on numerous news reports similar to this one:
[quote]
Mayor Bloomberg said the demonstrators do not report crimes to the police, allowing predators to remain on the streets.
Many similar reports reveal the same theme: distrustful of police and organized authority, the OWS folks have tried to solve their own issues. Great for when someone takes too much meat sauce for his share of communal spaghetti, but utterly reckless when it comes to sexual assaults.
I would not expect OWS people to rat out someone smoking a joint or peeing behind a tree but I would be stunned to find anyone knew of a sexual assault or murder going on and figured to just let it go and not find the police.
I disagree. The NRA certainly recognizes that gun accidents, and gun crimes, are an inevitable consequence of guns in society.
The NRA has spent a great deal of time and attention on gun safety programs, lobbying efforts, and general education efforts to quantify and manage that risk.
The entire OWS effort was started with no clear goal. No plans were made for the presence of predators in the tent cities, and how they would reconcile a movement with an antipathy towards authority with the need to involve police when a serious crime occurs.
It’s not a fair contest; the NRA has had years to develop their approach and programs. But the fact remains: the NRA sins do not include starry-eyed innocence.
How do you explain the multiple reports of that happening, then? Not “just letting it go,” I grant, but not notifying the police; the prevailing sentiment seems to revolve around dealing with it themselves.
(space added in quote bracket so it didn’t fuckup my quotes. Also fuckup is now one word.)
Funny how when you don’t like something you seem so gung ho about the news, but healthcare rescission you were fucking clueless about.
Evidence it takes true tunnel vision to remain Republican.
For example, right above your quote, it says:
Given the police example in this thread, where might they get that idea?
See that’s the republican playbook though, take a soundbite out of context from a much larger issue and bleat it like a distressed sheep. Fuck the truth if it won’t get you your way. OWS protesters are all rapists.
Do you know that people were aware of rape and murder occurring and doing nothing about it?
I recall a few years ago a woman was raped in Chicago in broad daylight just off an extremely busy street in Chicago’s business district. She was maybe 20 feet from the street and hundreds of people but no one knew it was happening.
Point being is it is possible for a rape to be occurring close by and those nearby not knowing about it.
Absolutely true. But if said lunatic is organizing and speaking for OWS, then he is not so fringe, unless, of course the middle is also at the fringe. The Anthony Hayne quoted in the following article is the same one now in jail. So there are no spokespeople for the Movement and there are no bombers associated with the Movement. Quack. Quack.
These numerous reports? Words like “numerous” are a bit vague. You give us one and refer offhandedly to “numerous” reports that are “similar”. And we are expected to take this at face value, are we? That we have your assurance that you have carefully sifted these reports, with the open and unbiased mind that is your very hallmark…and here are the results, the plain unvarnished truth. Strong evidence, indeed, Counselor. Naturally, one reels in dismay at such an evidentiary thunderbolt!
I cannot offer anything so substantial. But I do know these people, a lot of the people at my local OWS gatherings are friends of mine, some of them are the children of my friends. Merciful Debs, some of them are…never mind.
There is no such uniformity of thought or deed. If one hundred OWS bystanders happened to witness a rape, or be convinced that one had occured, maybe some wouldn’t all the police, but it wouldn’t matter because somebody else would. About twenty of them would be busy keeping about ten of them from beating the living snot out of the perp.
So, no, extra special unlikely. Maybe once, but only maybe. “Numerous” such reports? Well, of course you said “similar”, which grants enough wiggle room to hide the Hindenburg. Before it burned up.
Rush Limbaugh is a big part the Republican party. Therefore the Republicans are all misogynists. Bush had innocent people tortured, therefore republicans are all sadists.
Bank management intentionally took actions that trashed the economy, therefore all banking staff hates people having jobs.
You need a shrink, and not a quack, retard.
Since we have drifted into crimes at OWS events, the National Review (long may it publish) has thoughtfully provided a blotter:
How clever. How original. Bush! Rush! Bankers! Retard!
Great argument.
It’s called an “analogy”. You could look it up.
Except maybe in Baltimore where the Occupy group published a pamphlet that expressly states that they “**do not **encourage [sexual assault victims] going to the police”*. Though they are so gracious as to allow that victims have the right to do so.
*emphasis is mine.
You realize that OWS is a nationwide movement (worldwide even as the style has spread if not the name).
One guy in Cleveland who organized an information session is not a spokesman for the movement. He is a guy who talked to the press in Cleveland.
Remarkable, innit, how so many folks think a group has to have its own cable news network to provide organization, promotion, and spokesmen for it, or else it isn’t really a true popular movement at all.
Interesting except your quote is nowhere to be found. You paraphrased and selectively quoted.
Here’s the whole thing:
“Though we do not encourage the involvement of the police in our community, the survivor has every right, and the support of Occupy Baltimore, to report the abuse to the appropriate authorities.”
Bit different that.
I did. It means that there are similarities or comparability between two things. However, in this case, no. I have not, and would not claim anything about “all” Occupy protesters. What I did do is refute some claims that no crimes were committed, that the organization had no spokespeople and that at least one lunatic was not on the fringe. Now that’s no reason for name calling is it, asshole?
My attempt to quote was inept but not intentionally so. It doesn’t change that in the context of your claim that beyond pissing on the sidewalk or blowing a bowl the organizers would surely contact police for a major crime. Here is a statement that they will not.