And you know if i had done that, then your post would be justified.
The question was asked WHY the police did it. The answer is that they asked to block the road, they were told no, they did it anyway. So, that is why the police responded. Blocking roads is not peaceful assembly. It is illegal.
But as i said, Now, I think pepper spray was wrong.
So, what should’ve happened is that after the rally, the police should have peacefully cited a couple of the organizers for violating their permit. Pepper spray was absolutely the wrong response.
So the organizers clearly knew it was illegal, but decided to do it anyway. So, you give them a citation. The innocent victims here are the marchers, the organizers are also at fault for doing what they were told not to do.
I read. I simply disagree based on the facts of the case. It wasn’t only that pepper spray was wrong. It’s that you accept the Graham city spokesperson’s explanation, and I and others, based on the statements of witnesses and the dubious response of police, are loathe to do so unless and until solid proof validates the Graham police version of events.You readily accept the Graham police spokesperson’s version of events. There’s enough reason to doubt that I do not.
You assume that I didn’t read, when in actuality, I read critically, as should we all.
The witnesses werent at the meeting where the organizers asked to block the roads and were told no, now were they? The marchers are the innocent victims here, the organizers clearly didnt tell them what they were doing was illegal, and the police clearly over-reacted.
And several of the cites above give similar stories.
Do you think that the organizers got permission to block the streets? Is that what you think? The police said “Sure, go ahead, block the streets”, then pulled the old Lucy Football switcheroo? Come on.
Now, the police also have said they had to use tear gas, and that is full of crap. So, yes, I believe the organizers did not have permission to block the streets, since that is rarely given. That is all i am buying of the Graham police version of events, because that is verifiable, and makes sense. Their justification for the use of tear gas is bullshit.
Like I said, what the police could have and should have done was issue a couple of citations after the event. Then, this wouldnt be on national news.
I know what you said. I don’t think the details of how they may have been engaged in peaceful disobedience matter. Yes, I know you disagree with the pepper spray. Good for you! That’s not our area of disagreement: I disagree that it’s worth digging into whether they were protesting legally or illegally, and I disagree with you when you say “Blocking roads is not peaceful assembly. It is illegal,” as though “peaceful” and “illegal” are antonyms.
Getting into the weeds on the question of whether the permit was issued, or whether a permit could be legally required for a peaceful assembly, or whether they received adequate warning from the cops to clear the streets, plays into the hands of the cops. It’s a distraction from the core issue, the issue we agree on.
The march from Selma to Montgomery blocked an entire bridge. No permit was issued for the protest at all.
It wasn’t legal, but it was right.
This is more of the same. A protest doesn’t do much good if uninvolved citizens aren’t inconvenienced, since at that point they’re free to ignore that there is a reason to protest or to do anything about that reason.
I disagree with Bull Connor’s opinions on use of force as strongly as I disagree with yours. There’s a giant middle you are excluding. While it seems like you started off angry, and are more angry now, hopefully you can see why I fall in that middle ground.
I am a proponent of trying to ignore the cause in these situations. Walking to vote or the celebration of Adolph Hitler’s in front of a synagogue are the same in how I would make my decision about use of force. That seems to not be your approach.
Which begs the question about the big problem IMO with your apparent approach. What standard should the police use to determine when they should ignore time and place restrictions in a given case but not in others? That involved electorate will support all kinds of things that you likely find morally offensive. The have a right to peacefully assemble as much as demonstrators in this group. Sometimes those groups will ignore the restrictions that the 1st Amendment judicial interpretation allows and violate the law. Sometimes those groups will have kids. We need an answer to sort through that whole ecosystem of sometimes unlawful political speech. Ignoring it in this one case is not preventing all kids from getting gassed. It is choosing which kids get gassed. If we are not careful with an apolitical standard it is choosing kids to be gassed based on their parent’s politics.
To be clear the reason why I favor my approach is because without a clear standard it is easy for the decision maker’s personal bias about the demonstration to guide enforcement. That is already a big problem without making it worse. It is generally going to be worse for minority political positions. Minorities have enough issues without active calls that majority positions receive special treatment from the police. As a position, leaving enforcement of political speech subject entirely to the decision makers personal political preference appalls me. I want to remove as much of that bias as possible. I may be as appalled by that notion as you are by what you thought I was advocating.
That was the question asked- why did the Police react in the first place? We have to know that to know whether or not the reaction was reasonable. If they had been burning cars and firing guns off at random- then maybe tear gas might not be so bad. But all they did was exceed the bounds of their permit- knowingly and wilfully. Bad? Sure. But not worthy of tear gas. Worthy of a fine for the organizers, perhaps. We cant know if the response was unreasonable until we know why the response in the first place.
It’s irrelevant if the protest is illegal or legal if the response is wrong either way.
The idea they were burning cars is entirely your invention, and something we know didn’t happen. It is thus a strawman. What is in question is whether they blocked a road or not, and whether they had a permit to let them do so.
I never said they were burning cars, doesnt anyone read anymore?
Look, in order to know if the Police response was reasonable, we have to know what the protestors did. IF they had been burning cars and shooting gun (they werent) then tear gas is reasonable. But since all they were doing is blocking traffic- tear gas is NOT reasonable. So, the response was wrong, and not reasonable.
By that logic, I never said that you made that claim about the car burning. I said it was counterfactual, and that bringing it up is a strawman, but never actually said you claimed it.
But you know as well as I do that posts carry implications. The implication of my disagreeing with said statement was that I thgought you were arguing it. Similarly, the implication of bringing up something in and if statement is to imply that such a thing is a possible conclusion. The implication of replying to a post and disagreeing with it is that you disagree with the whole thing. Otherwise you say something like “I agree with most of this post, but…”
I did misunderstand your point. But it was not due to not reading it. It was that I read your post as implying things you did not wish to imply. I will adjust my interpretations of your posts in the future. However, since I am not the only poster who has misunderstood your posts, I think it would be good for you to also look at your posts and see if you can be more clear.
This reply to me was much clearer than the one I replied to, IMHO.
No, because whether or not using pepper spray was justified is the only thing in question here. No other middle ground options were used, so they aren’t relevant to this particular case.
His argument, to paraphrase, is that, given what we know, it is highly unlikely that any additional information would make it justified. There is little these people could have been doing that would justify the use of pepper spray (especially in a group that included toddlers). The worst thing they seem to have done is possibly block a street.
Pepper spraying is a violent act. We know this because it is prosecuted as such when used against police. One is not supposed to use violence unless necessary, and then stick with appropriate force. Unless the people were getting violent, pepper spray is not a proper enforcement tool.
If you believe that, given the facts we have, it is equally likely that pepper spray was justified, then you are artificially putting your thumbs on the scale for the police. Or you don’t see peppers pray as violence. Either is a bad position to take that puts one in bad company.
Then you are against current practice where police have discretion in enforcing laws. It’s an inherent aspect. And it is one that was used in this case: if a law is violated, the proscribed actions are either arrest or fines. They had discretion and did not do this.
And said discretion is seems likely political: small town cops (most likely to be Republican)decided a more violent action to disperse protesters (more likely to vote Democrat). It’s exactly why they shouldn’t make these actions. Even if it wasn’t political, it appears political, and thus creates problems.
Voting being paramount is not something any of us are “morally offended” by. And it is not a partisan position–it is only political in the same sense that saying “freedom of speech is important” is political. It is absolutely fundamental to a democracy that people be able to vote, and that people not see any potential unfairness. Yet, when you disperse people like this, it sure looks like you’re keeping them from voting.
That’s why it’s offensive. Not morally, and not in a partisan way. It looks like fascism, from a group (cops) who have a history of being overly authoritarian, in a place where that is more often true.
It’s a bad action. We don’t need bright lines to determine this–that is why police discretion exists. They can determine that democracy is more important than enforcing a technical violation that they weren’t even going to arrest or fine people for.
I was pretty amazed to see police aiming pepper-spray at the ground near people’s feet. I wouldn’t have expected that–usually it’s straight in the eyes. Somebody instilled at least some discipline in those cops.
I’m sure the kids who got the gas appreciated it being sprayed low. And cops: keep mentioning that the event was the work of an (gasp!) “activist”. That’ll get you some leeway.
It is a simple fact about how tear gas works that it affects everyone in an area, not just the people it’s targeted at. And that’s exactly why it should not ever be allowed, in any circumstances. It’s why the world as a whole has already decided that it’s not even acceptable in warfare, where, famously, “all’s fair”. Why the Hell do we continue to argue that it’s acceptable for police?
And the reason supposedly justifying the police action is that they were preventing people from voting? That’s what the police were doing, not the protesters.
not sure why protestors keep going back to that crappy little town. I guess one factor is around 6 million people live within 2 hours . Big NC cities have all gotten rid of their confederate monuments, some were torn down. There are a lot still up in small NC towns like Graham.
As I mentioned sometime ago, Trump’s unique campaign requires him to engage in loyalty politics, and he seeks out people who ‘need’ him in some way. That’s why he refuses to disavow the white nationalists - because he is speaking directly to them in ways that few other politicians until now would dare. The white nationalists need Trump, and Trump needs people like the white nationalists.
Similarly, some police departments fall into that category. A lot of police departments don’t want to be told to change or how to do their jobs, and Trump has doubled down in support of this mentality, so they’re supporting him in return. This is also why I have very serious concerns about the post-election aftermath if there’s a serious challenge to the legitimacy of the outcome.