And lets never forget the terror of Krystalhotsaucenacht.
This would then suggest that it’s not liberals who are creating criminal activity, but rather Republicans who are inspiring it.
Would you still like to make a point?
Well, congratulations, you’ve just offered up an observation that i made all the way back in the OP:
The question here is not whether a whole lot of conservatives were arrested. The question remains, as it has always remained, whether the number of liberals arrested justify your generalization from this number in order to make sweeping generalizations about liberals/Democrats in general was ever justified.
Just out of curiosity, if you were to discover that everyone arrested outside Terri Schiavo’s hospice last month was a conservative, would that lead you to draw any general conclusions about your side of the political fence?
For exactly the reason you said. Because you’re picking a subset of people with a propensity for illegal activity from a subset of people with a propensity for a particular legal activity rather than from the whole set.
In your example, you’ve got 100,000 liberal demonstrators and 10,000 conservative ones. But all of them (except for the 2,000 from the first group and the 400 from the second group) are engaged in entirely legal activity. Choosing “demonstrators” as a subset of each group (liberals and conservatives) is arbitrary – you could as easily choose 100,000 liberal donators and 10,000 conservative ones. The overall sets, liberals and conservatives, is not known from your example. Demonstrating is not the only way to be or to demonstrate that one is liberal or conservative. Perhaps there were only 10,000 conservative demonstrators because the US Open was on that weekend and we all just wrote a check to Bush-Cheney '04 and settled in to watch Tiger. 
Perfect example – Eric Rudolf wasn’t a demonstrator (that I know of) but surely everyone would agree that he has a propensity for illegal activities and is associated primarily with conservative ideologies. But under your example he wouldn’t “count” because he’s not in the subset from which you draw candidates.
Fair enough. I’m just saying that using a bad example as a counter to a different bad example isn’t a good way to go about arguing a point. You’re already winning – don’t lose on a technicality.
No. You don’t seem to be getting it. You still have not shown that there is any correlation between arrests and criminal activity. You have produced no data whatsoever about criminal activity. Extropolating “criminal activity” from raw arrest numbers is a non-sequitur.
Ah. but he’s not. He’s extrapolating criminal activity from convictions. Which is still a non-sequitor, but that doesn’t seem to bother him much.
First, Delay wasn’t advocating violence against judges (despite the left’s desparate and fruitless attempts to frame the debate in that erroneous manner), and he has since apologized for the way he worded that statement, so that dog won’t hunt. As for murdering doctors who are doing their jobs, what Eric Rudolf did was disgusting and indefensible. But would you be honest enough to admit that he is the extreme minority of anti-abortion protestors who gets trotted out here whenever the left gets another black eye because of their embarrassing and violent protestors? We’ll see.
Which makes more sense logically: to assume that someone who has been convicted is actually guilty of criminal activity, or to assume that someone who has been convicted (not just arrested, but convicted) is innocent of criminal activity?
Seems to me that you are the one more likely to be extrapolating a non-sequitir.
I’m absolutely willing to admit it (although I suspect that if the penalties for murdering doctors were as small as the penalties for throwing pies, there would be a helluva lot more dead doctors out there). Let’s see if you’re honest enough to admit that the pie-throwers are an extreme minority of leftists.
Daniel
I have no problem admitting that. I disagree with your suspicion that there would be more dead doctors if the penalty was similar to that received when throwing pies, based simply on the fact that one can be emotionally driven to throw a pie at someone more quickly than one can decide to kill someone. Hitting someone with a pie, while childish and cowardly, is a relatively safe act. Murder on the other hand, could be argued as more cowardly and is certainly much more permanent.
We’ve seen right in the OP that the DA was securing convictions by using deceptive and tampered-with evidence. And that witnesses (i.e. cops) were lying on the stand. That alone suggests to me that all bets are off.
One thing that hasn’t really been addressed yet is the nature of the crimes charged. Are we talking molotov cocktails here, or just a bit of jaywalking? Before we preemptively send all registered Democrats to Sing Sing, perhaps we should clarify that.
Translation: He shot off his mouth, the public gasped in shock and horror, and he broke the Guinness Records for World’s Fastest Political Backpedal.
And I notice you completely glossed over Edwin Vieira’s endorsement for the assassination of Justice Kennedy, too.
Sure, but what do numbers have to do with this? A thousand conservative commentators getting pelted with cream pies doesn’t begin to approach the irreversible tragedy of a doctor getting shot by some nutjob.
Clothes can be cleaned; dead doctors can’t be resurrected.
What crimes were committed, I cannot find any information on that? However, from the group that is doing the mass defense, NLG-NYC The following table is offered:
So, 6 found guilty, 135 Guilty Pleas. Anybody know what the convictions were(there’s only 6). Further down on the page you will find that many National Lawyers Guild Legal Observers were arrested as well. To me, this supports the idea that the police were arresting blocks of people with wanton abandon.
Also, from Times-up.org, 400 bicyclist were arrested, seemingly for being bicyclist. Would be bicycles were thwarded when the police cut securing chains and made off with their bikes.
From World Change, an arrestee reports his opinion on why there were so many Pleas:
He is wrong about the conviction numbers, but it isn’t beyond the realm of belief that pleading to a lesser charge would be account for a goodly number of those 135. Anyone know where I can find this listserv, or digests thereof?
So, regarding the question of who were acted illegally, I say it was the city and the police. I feel the evidence is stacking up against them, the doctored evidence, policemen lying, random arrests, and don’t forget about Boomberg refusing to release the protesters even after being order by the courts to do so.
Well, that’s interesting. 135 plead down. Having been in court twice in my life, I plead down both times. Not because I was a willful lawbreaker, but because it was the easiest and cheapest way to get out of there and get on with my life. Far easier than getting a lawyer and dragging things out.
This is ridiculous. There were half a million protest marchers on the Sunday of the NYC/RNC convention alone; the number probably doubled throughout the week. There’s no way in hell the Boston/DNC protests got even 1/10th that much traffic. How can anyone possibly compare the arrests using raw numbers? The very idea is farcical.
I can’t speak for what went on in Boston. But I know first hand what was going on in NY. The RNC was guarded by police who, after the march was over, threatened arrest towards exhausted people who were just carrying their signs home. We had to dismantle them and roll 'em up before we could walk off Seventh Avenue on our way to the subway. I’m not surprised the cops were nervous: the Republican politicians and pundits had been hyping the possibility of violence and mayhem for weeks – including all those famous terrorism warnings (remember those? Funny how they almost disappeared after the election). All these predictions went on even though the main groups organizing the protests consistently preached peaceful, orderly protests. Is it any wonder the cops were on edge and got out the riot gear?
You want “Brownshirt” behavior? How about the underhanded thugs who slipped into the marching crowd and tried to incite violence during the protest. When we reached the convention site, this band of agent provocateurs shouted “let’s storm the barricades” in loud voices – all with smirks on their faces, clearly hoping we’d be stupid enough to follow their commands. Our group of marchers told them to shut the fuck up and kept walking without incident. The thugs left the march in disappointment – probably on their way back to watch the convention on FOX and jack off.
Again, I have no idea what went on in Boston. But unless they had nearly a million people during the convention week – doubtful! – the comparison is utterly meaningless.
Way to avoid a substantive response to mhendo’s question at post #73.
As I’ve said, I got the hell out of Dodge for that week, but people who stayed told me that Boston was practically a ghost town. It was pretty much a non-event.
This seems relevant to me – one of the protestors wrote a detailed account of his experiences with the NYPD. He was charged with Disorderly Conduct, but later those charges were dropped.