Yes, but some people are dumb enough to think it makes a difference.
The police sprayed a “disabling spray” in an unarmed not dangerous woman’s face today, who committed the crime of protesting the bankers who destroyed the world economy and got away with it.
Would that make any damn difference?
Mace vs. Pepper Spray | Pepper Spray Store Not much difference and this suggest pepper spray is worse. So do you have a point at all?
Actually, normally he does. Been paying attention much?
And mine to *you *would be not to make shit up. :dubious:
Me? Nothing. Not on my knees screaming with mace in my eyes.
That dumb woman had to do about 5 stupid things in a row, one after another, in order to get maced.
- Go to a protest about nothing
- Stick around when things get heated
- Get in the face of a cop when he is feeling threatened
- Fail to follow police orders
- Do whatever it was she did in the moment that she got up in the cops face and the camera briefly pulled away (kinda conveniently, don’t ya think?) that caused her to get maced.
She deserves it. She was asking for it. And… after she gets what she wants, she screams like a baby. Her behavior was basically choreographed to elicit a forceful response. Gimme a fucking break. It’s poetic justice. I love it.
Same goes for that idiot in the next video who also fails to follow police orders and instead stands there, spreads his arms and attempts to dialogue.
I don’t go to protests and I’m not a policeman, but I know enough about basic tactics and logic to understand exactly what is going to happen when a small, armed, professional, minority is attempting to control a hostile mob. It ain’t dialogue.
You’re a fucking scumbag, Scylla.
A slow motion annotated video of the incident. Offered without comment.
Well, I for one sure hope that Bricker’s cop friend can be persuaded to share more details of this tactic, which seemingly would require not only perfidious protesters but (at least in the 2011 demonstration) plotting police complicit in spraying fake Mace to elicit a pseudo-reaction. What was in that canister being sprayed at the “penned” protester? Chanel #5? Formula 409? Wasabi pea dust?
It’s a fascinating conspiracy theory, worthy of PrisonPlanet or whale.to, and we should be grateful to Bricker for sharing this inside knowledge.
Having become politically aware in the era of the 1968 Chicago protests and so on, and having breathed tear gas a couple of times, I’m merely astonished that there are people who are so naive as to think that they can go protest and not get maced. They think it’s a garden party?
They must. Joe Hill is rolling in his grave.
Nah, saw him just last night.
Possibly. But I’m not stupid.
I’ve never been to a protest, but I’ve read about them from some of the more serious types. You know, the types that would risk getting run over by a tank in India or taken away to a rural police station in Alabama… You know, serious people, protesting a serious issue, who have thought through what they are doing, weighed their tactics, and are aware of the consequences. I can respect such people.
What I see here is people being stupid, self-entitled, willfully oblivious, and being surprised when they elicit the actions they provoked.
Police were attacked there, you know? There’s even a policeman getting attacked on the video where they put the knee on the guy’s neck.
I’ve never been to a protest, but I think I understand the theory, and I recall reading a thing or two from protest organizers on advice for behavior and dealing with the police.
Protestors need to be nonviolent and non-threatening. I believe that when you are confronted directly by the police you are either supposed to follow their directions immediately, or sit down and go completely limp. You are not supposed to get aggressive either physically or verbally with the police. Additionally, if you choose not to immediately comply with the police and you choose to do something else besides going limp, that is going to be construed as a threat, and treated accordingly.
Didn’t look at the video I posted the link to, did you? I’ll inform the kitchen to thaw out some crow.
I just watched it. The protestors are obviously in a great deal of pain, but I don’t see that there’s enough information there to say what happened for sure. It looked as though several cops were trying to hold them within a certain area, and they may have been trying to push past the cops–were they? Were they getting directions from the cops and refusing to comply? What exactly was going on?
I did. I watched it about 5 times. I am absolutely fucking amazed about how incredibly stupid those women were. I am so happy that probably for the first time in their life, they had a collision with reality and faced the consequences of their entitle obliviousness.
I notice a lot of things in that video that aren’t annotated.
Bullshit. You’re bluffing. We got the same videos, point it out. Ought to be easy for you.
“Look there, at 47 seconds, the hippy in the blue tank top slips brass knuckles on!”
You got it, you bring it.
OK.
The women on the sidewalk being corralled are labelled “observers.” I would dispute that what the two women who were aggressively yelling at the police could reasonably be called “observing.” It looks to me like they are “protesting,” not “observing.”
That’s an extremely interesting mislabel, don’t you think?
That’s it? That’s what you got?
Seriously, that’s what you start off with?
To answer the question: no, not especially. “Interesting” in this context pretty much has to mean “justifies the folks’ getting maced.”
It’s interesting, because if one is an “observer” the built in assumption is that there is something to observe, right?
But these women aren’t “observing.” They appear to be the center of the action from the film’s pespective.
Even the annotator seems to have acknowledged (perhaps accidentally,) that we are missing something by pointing out that their is something to be observed that we don’t get to see.
So, what is it and why don’t we see it?
Watch the film again. Watch far downframe in the middle of the street. Their is a struggle that appears to be just finishing there. It appears that police that police have finished subdue some people. What it several times. There is quite a crowd of cops who are pretty intently focussed on the action.
We don’t see the action. It happens before the film starts, which is curious, because if that was where the film really started an annotator wouldn’t really be able to tell that those women who to all appearances seem to be the center of attention are actually observing another action.
So, there has been a deliberate edit. We do not see what happens immediately before the film starts, but we know that the annotator has, and that it is enough to label the women as “observers.”
It’s such an interesting word “observers.” It suggests that the women are not a part of the action which has just occurred off camera.
Why would the annotator feel compelled to tell us that these women were not a part of something that we did not see and are not aware of, something that has been hidden by an edit?
It’s clearly not true. The brunette is actively pointing and yelling. She doesn’t act like an observer. She acts like a participant in what just happened. As does the blonde.
No, you don’t. You apparently never learned the subjunctive mood:
Here’s a helpful hint: the word “if” often signals a hypothetical, as distinguished from an actual claim.
However, you have a history of offering these hypotheticals with one hand, while holding evidence that they’re not hypotheticals concealed in the other hand, in an effort to prevent people from moving goalposts once they see that the hypothetical is real. Don’t you think it’s reasonable for people to suspect you of doing the same here? I’m so used to this tactic from you that I was certain you were about to reveal that this really was a fraud.
Without that reveal, I really can’t see the relevance of your hypothetical question: it’s about as relevant as if I asked you whether you’d be outraged if the cops in question murdered the women once the camera was turned off. Sure, you can offer an answer, but it’s a non sequitur question with ugly insinuations–just as I think yours was.
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/09/stock-trader-europe-will-collapse-because-goldman-sachs-rules-the-world/ Goldman is even hated and feared in Europe. They have already had huge protests. It is in America that we are sissies.