Still haven’t read a news story that didn’t sound hinky.
I feel strongly that this force was far more than necessary, yet don’t have enough reliable evidence to argue that this use of force was at odds with published procedures.
If the Oregon state legislature has its way, these protestors could all be charged with terrorism and sentenced to 25 years to life. I guess some rubber bullets to the chest is the better alternative.
Anything that can result in an ER visit for an innocent bystander is either too much force, or is being used by incompetent morons. I find it hard to believe that this many uninvolved people would have been injured if the police were making any kind of reasonable effort only to aim at peole who were behaving in a violent manner.
Utterly disgusting. What powerful drugs were the bongo-mashers taking?
Protesters have the right to voice their dissent. But to block the legal activities of a business? Even better, to block the work of a business that is quite literally supporting the war-effort? Nothing less then treasonous.
The police were acting well within the scope of their duties in using whatever means necessary to disperse this rabble. Perhaps next time the hippies will listen when asked to disperse from a certain area?
“Bongo-mashers”? If you’re not going to be creative, at least be accurate. Did you read anything whatsoever about the injuries to the people who were just trying to do their jobs? Have you ever tried dispersing if you are surrounded by thousands of tightly packed people?
Eva Luna, who once had the amazing bit of good fortune to be tear-gassed while vacationing in Paris (and no, I wasn’t demonstrating; I just got close enough to talk to some bystanders to figure out what the people were demonstrating about. Apparently some moron a block ahead started throwing Molotov cocktails at the gendarmes. Now that’s violence, and I can understand the use of tear gas in that situation, although the headwind sure made it suck for me.)
Use a bit of deductive reasoning, and pick from the following:
The cops were there to disperse the longshoreman, who ignored the order to move/disperse.
-or_
The cops were there to disperse the ‘protesters’, who ignored the order to move/disperse.
Don’t try to lay this on the cops. They have limited resources to work with, stretched even thinner by the need to keep the damned bongo-mashers in line along with all of the added post-9/11 duties they have. Add to it all the nature of the business (A shipping company, which probably is keeping our troops chock-full of what they need. Most of that sort of work is contracted out these days), and end result: Cops, in a hurry to clear a crowd of ‘protesters’, who shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
I don’t understand the issue. Once again, a bunch of protesters block traffic and disrupt legitimate businesses in order to incite a reaction. Now they got one and they’re surprised.
Sure wish I could link to it. Sorry, but I think of these people more as “anarchists” than “peace protesters”. Not just because of my views, but because they admit it, BTW.
Seems like Brutus is of the “shoot the hostages!” school of hostage negotiation.
Of course, his position is convieniently unfalisifiable. Any charge that means were ill-thought out, or overly destructive, or blows up tons of innocent people, is automatically faced with the counter-charge that the protestors made it unavoidable, and its all their fault.
Don’t have much sympathy for the protestors, but their actions don’t magically justify the wisdom or justice of any action the police decide to take in response. Their JOBS are to resolve exactly these sorts of situations without causing extra harm.
Sooner or later, I can imagine the cops trying to justify using lethal weaponry on protestors.
*"They were disrupting a business and were refusing to leave the area! They threw rocks, so we had to retaliate. refers to how Israel deals with rock-throwing Palestinians"
Rubber bullets amuse me. Honestly. Rubber bullets…the concept is just such a dichotomy. At any rate, the cops did what was necessary. People, especially those with a bent for protest, think that freedom of speech exists without consequence. No freedom is free, that lesson is being taught right this minute to a quarter-million kids in the sands of Iraq.
So I, as a protestor, should be able to block traffic, cause congestion in traffic that leads to individual people actually losing their ability to earn a living for their family, and not to mention forcing my views by proxy, on those who may not even have an opinion on the war? This idealism is pure, unadulterated bullshit. If you protest, and the people that contol the streets (yes, the police control the streets, anyone who thinks otherwise is just foolish. It’s what we pay them to do) tell you to get off the street, than you do it, or face the consequences.
I realize, of course that this did not occur on the street, that doesn’t change the reality that the greater good is served equally by protecting both the company that employs a given amount of people, and the right to free speech of an individual or group, when one thing overlaps the other illegally, it is then that the police need to step in.
