Have police forces become like another branch of the military?

They all seem to have the military toys: tear gas, rubber bullets, automatic weapons, beanbag bullets, flashbang grenades, etc... All they need is someone to give them orders and they are ready to "protect" the people...

This shouldn't happen. Those protestors are there to protest for the cops and firemen as they are the other 99%. Every state is letting cops and firemen go. The system is affecting them as much, or more, than anyone in this country. This is unexplainable.

I mean, a TANK. They use it to shock and awe the public in parades and festivals. I have no delusions about their willingness to use it on the citizenry should we ever forget our place.

They are "just following orders . . . "

like it or not, they still have to do their job. If they don't it could get even uglier.
Guntoting teabaggers would love, love love to open up on some "commies" on the streets of this country

Just like it says on their vehicles?

which means businesses and enforcing the laws and ordinances of their locality.

Do you think they enjoy busting up keggers because of noise complaints anymore than they enjoy arresting people whose views they share?

If the police were to join the protests it would lead to chaos

And not tear gas everyone, even peaceful demonstrators? Doesn't that sound more logical and lawful?

I've found the best way to not get tear gassed is to leave before they move in

when they open fire on the crowds with real bullets maybe the comparison would be apt

Comparison is apt.

the other fired tear gas after asking people to vacate an area beforehand....yeah, I can really see the parallel

G-d help us all if we ever approach the point of El Salvador '81.

they are sworn to serve and protect! And in a democracy that means ALL or at least the majority, and not the pathetic 1%.

I don't see where you think a few hundred people in a large city get to just do as they please

the city of Oakland allows protests at city hall from 6am to 10pm. There was already an attack on a homeless man by people at the camp, who didn't call the police...but rather beat the man after he allegedly sprayed pepper spray at someone.
The camp was no allowing the police to enter into the camp, the camp went further by trying to put on a concert without a permit, security or bathroom facilities.

Now, at what point should the city step in and make them follow the rules like everyone else?

no way will you convince me what happened was right, as an American, a verrry proud one and a bleeding heart liberal to boot.

without begging government permission too, amIrite?

And I should be able to expect to not be arrested, hassled or detained by the police, correct?

funny... you care more about guns than anything else on DU. Go to bed.

But feel free to believe whatever you want.

all other rights are not as important to you.

All Civil Rights are of equal value and weight. They are mutually supporting and reinforcing. If you weaken one, you weaken all of them.

But we have a process for utilizing public areas so as to make them available to all, ensure public safety and minimize disruption to others. The OWS protesters (and I support their messages, if not all their methods) are violating that set of rules. Don't like it? Get the rules changed (there's another set of rules for that, by the way...).

If I were to smugly declaim that I don't need a permit or background check to exercise my Second Amendment rights, you'd have a hissy fit. In fact, I think you have. You would advocate my arrest and incarceration.

So, why the double standard, the hypocrisy?

every effort was made to accomodate the protests, in spite of the laws about public protests outside city hall.

The OWS camp went to far and the city responded as it would with any other unlawful gathering. If it were teabaggers you wouldn't be supporting their actions in this case had they been doing the exact same thing

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

there? I believe the right to assemble and of free speech in our Constitution, trumps all "permit" requirements and authoritarian laws designed to stop people from doing what is supposedly protected by the Constitution.

You side with the police who instead of policing and diffusing situations, instigated and escalated violence?

Just how far does one have to go in your mind (standing unarmed) to be shot in the head with a potentially deadly projectile?

Is it when you don't move fast enough for the authorities? Is it when you refuse to stop video taping their actions?

What line has to be crossed before militant police dressed in riot gear can start beating, macing and shooting projectiles into crowds of people?

The police instigated this situation, just as they have instigated violence in other cities around this country in order to provoke a response and when they don't get the response they want, they force that response.

Great, so you side with the Tony Baloney types? Good for you, enjoy the liberation you might receive one day handed to you by those who chose to fight for what is right, rather than just kneel to authority.

They'll do all the work, take the beatings and submit to the powers of arrest, taking a stand for we the 99% who have decided not to take it anymore from the 1% and their operatives, while you stand with the police, their crowd plants and their militant tactics to injure rather than disperse unarmed non violent protesters.

The authorities and those in power just love all of their home grown human tools.

Lou

Always have and always will.

everyone hates the police until they need them for something

come from the tax payers.

no police officer in the world has a mind of his own

They usually make things worse.

Anyone who thinks that 99 percent of the population supports OWS is delusional. People who don't support OWS have rights also and the police have to protect them too. Sorry, but that's why we have laws.

If you are going to break the law with a protest, you shouldn't expect the police to look the other way.

Camping (setting up a tent city) is prohibited by most cities in public parks. IIRC, they were told to take down the tents and vacate but did not do so. As I see it, that is a clear violation.

While the police used excessive force, the city was quite reasonable in allowing the camp to stay as long as it did. They could have kicked them out on Day 1.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

surely I should not be required to get a permit to exercise my Second Amendment rights, amIrite?

Are you a militia?

SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed an individual right to keep and bear arms.

BTW, I did not come up with the militia argument on my own. My elderly FIL, who worships Ronald Reagan and the GOP, is quite scholarly. He is the one who convinced me that the framers never intended for individuals to have that right. They meant for individuals to have the right to form a militia to protect themselves.

Technically the 99% could do it - arm themselves - as teabaggers often do at their gatherings. However, given the response from the authorities so far that would be a complete disaster.

I'll have to think on that. I suppose you'd allow folks to have weapons that would be needed in a militia, perhaps without the handguns and that sort of thing. During the founders time I would guess folks hunted for their food, and would have guns for that purpose so those would certainly be allowed.

I think we've gone off on a tangent, but at any rate it is a good question re gun control.

People still get food by hunting.

And the very weapons "that would be needed in a militia" are the ones all the pro-restrictionists/Militia-clausists want to ban.

The dichotomy is rather staggering when you think about it.

The only opinion that counts, however, is that of the SCOTUS and they saw it very differently. Citing George Bush's name changes nothing - RKBA as an individual right is the law of the land

Even if it wasn't... Umm, armed people, gathering together. Presto, Militia!

See how that works?

Just their efforts to block/monopolize public space without proper permits.

What are you doing on a democratic message board?

I also recognize that rights are subject to reasonable limitations. Just because free speech is guaranteed, you can't yell "fire" in a movie theater and you can't slander someone. You're entitled to keep and bear arms, but that doesn't mean you can own a SAM missle or a bazooka. None of those is a reasonable exercise of the right in question.

As far as protests are concerned, I fully agree that people have the right to peacefully assemble and petition the government. I also believe that government can and should place reasonable restrictions on how that right is exercised. For example, I think it's reasonable for municpalities to require a permit for a large assembly and to require the people assembling to compensate the city for the costs involved. (I have permits for my firearms and I paid the costs for processing the applications - no problem there). There is a big difference in my mind between a peaceful assembly and an indefinite occupation. For one thing, other people have the right to use the facilities in question and indefinite occupation would infringe on that. In addition, proper sanitation, security and nuisance factor to the neighbors become bigger issues over time. At some point the exercise of 1st Amendment rights becomes unreasonable and government needs to act to protect other peoples' rights.

I'm fine with peaceful assembly and protest, but I don't consider a "permanent" tent city in a public park a reasonable exercise exercise of first amendment rights.

If the austerity continues you're not going to have a choice you know. With the number of people losing their jobs and homes they are going to have to reside/sleep somewhere? Are you simply going to jail them all?

And we're "liberating" the Arab world. Maybe we ought to think about our "liberties" here at home and whether they even exist anymore.

It's not about protesting; it's about a permanent encampment on public property.

nt

when the teabaggers were gathering with their firearms? Why no show of force for those actual mob scenes? Is it because they were supported by the power brokers? Promoted by corporate news? Where were the police who "work for everybody," when baggers were spitting on Congressmen and carrying their firearms and their threatening misspelled signs? Where were all of these police when the town hall meetings were being taken over by the baggers screaming and being disorderly? They were a tool of power, so the police left them alone. OWS is not a tool of power and therefore, police in riot gear show up in force. Sorry, when it comes down to the big issues in this country, the majority of police are showing us all with their actions who they truly work for and even though they are paid with our tax money, it's not us.
Lou

I am sure you meant. :rofl:

yes, they are part of the 99% unless inherited money makes them otherwise ... but they are going to do their jobs as they always have. Unless and until they hand back that badge folks have to be aware they are the enemy. We've got to realize what we're dealing with here people.

just a good small town police department that doesn't see the citizens as the enemy.

If you give them the equipment, then there is little functional difference between them and the military.

Only the real military isn't fighting unarmed protesters. What the police have become is bullies who are looking for a fight.

Under her watch as Attorney General, a memo of cooperation was signed between the DoJ and the DoD to share technology so that local law enforcement would be able to fight "urban hostiles" -- URBAN HOSTILES = you and me.

Of course the backstory is that defense contractors needed to keep making billions of dollars, and they could sell weapons to local law enforcement. And so they did.

So the "citizen" became the "urban hostile" and the weapons were developed for control of dissenters.

Fast foward, today. Here we are.

people who used to drive snowplows, etc.... with "office people " of their choosing.

to train at our regional military camp???? Yikes!
They are building a new facility without many windows there also that is connected to that. Seems like there have been many "resignations" and replacements of heads of Police Dept. around the middle of MN also.

scary stuff. There was a good Frontline exposing this lately

it's time to occupy Courthouses, Police stations and city Halls!

Most of those putrid fucks wouldn't make it through basic training.

If you weren't around during those years, Nixon was a paranoid freak who thought college kids were going to start a revolution (fat chance) and started to hand police forces military style equipment and training so that they'd be able to cope with the terrible threat a bunch of shaggy kids under 22 presented. Other administrations, even Democratic ones, have continued the process.

So now instead of keeping the peace and protecting the citizenry, their mission has morphed into protecting the status quo by attacking the citizenry.

Most cops are still basically decent guys. Unfortunately, a lot of them have been dazzled by all the new toys and can't wait to try them out.

We deserve better. Blame Nixon for the fact that we won't get it any time soon.

two words perhaps completely obliterated by the Patriot Act?

THIS is a very important point

Greater numbers and power of guns and gangs on the streets will naturally be cause to beef up law enforcement so they won't be outgunned.

"tear gas, rubber bullets, <snip>, beanbag bullets, flashbang grenades", not so much. These are legitimate riot-control weapons.

Now, whether they were applied to legitimate riots is a different question.

Which is pathetic. If you want to be a soldier, join the military. Don't try to act like a tough guy when you know the people you bully generally aren't going to fight back. Police spend the majority of their time dealing with the mentally ill, the homeless and people with serious substance abuse issues or emotional problems. And sadly we get a bunch of thugs to do a job like that rather than people who can handle problems like that responsibly. I think 30%+ of police cases in large cities involve the homeless. How are a bunch of paramilitary marine wannabes going to handle a problem like that? Just bullying and scaring people into never even asking the cops for help.

Supposedly community oriented policing is becoming more and more popular. Lets hope so.

"There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state... the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people."

I keep thinking next... BLUE THUNDER...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd3lDhyM21M