You bleeding heart liberals are all alike.

There's something I never thought I'd be called in this forum, or anywhere else for that matter. :lol:

I'm really trying to find a reason to support the officers involved in the video, but so far I'm drawing a blank.

 

Your diatribe is heart-warming and all, really, but where did I say that government should do something about it? How about big business do the right thing, for a change?

 

Businesses, big and small, exist to create wealth for their owners. Publicly held companies do that via dividends and increase in stock price. For companies that do not issue dividends the only way to create wealth is through stock price increases. As I stated, the evil in all of this is the manipulation of stock price - usually via fuzzy accounting or downright fraud in reporting business results that affect stock price. When executives are paid in stock or given stock as compensation the temptation to illegally or artificially manipulate numbers to drive the stock price is great, and yes, sometimes executed on. Again, the SEC is supposed to regulate this.

 

The public stock market is subject to manipulation. The concept of computerized trading where humans do not even make the actual decisions shows that. I know that right now computer farms that are physically close to the Wall Street exchange are going for a premium because the concept of day trading and computerized trading had gone to the next level - micro-second trading. The closer the traders computers are to the computers that execute the actual transaction the more they can 'micro-second' trade all day. The market, overall, is no longer driven by basic fundamentals of business.

 

Mark Cuban has been making this point recently. He has some interesting concepts.

 

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2011/10/mark-cuban-takes-aim-at-wall-street-cheetahs/1

It's certainly very uncomfortable for the person on the receiving end. Pepper spray causes significant eye irritation that makes it extremely difficult if not impossible to open them, makes breathing difficult, and coughing. It isn't a pleasant thing to have done to you...

I know I'm about to shoot myself in the foot here, but something happened this morning, and it seemed so poetic that I can't resist the temptation to share it:

 

I made my breakfast this morning as usual. Today, it was a Jimmy Dean D-Lites breakfast sandwich. I microwaved it, then added salt, pepper and a little bit of Tabasco. I like to take a finger and rub it in, so it doesn't concentrate in one spot.

 

So anyway, I finished breakfast, while reading the paper a bit. Finishing up, I put away the dishes and pitched the garbage. As I was about to stroll into the living room, I got a bit of an itch in the corner of my left eye, so I reached up a finger to rub my eye. Umm...did I mention I like to rub in that pepper sauce with a finger?

 

Yep...I basically pepper sprayed myself. :ohbrother:

 

Well, it's certainly very uncomfortable for the person on the receiving end. It causes significant eye irritation that makes it extremely difficult if not impossible to open them, makes breathing difficult, and coughing. It isn't a pleasant thing to have done to you...but doing it to yourself is worse. :cry:

There's something I never thought I'd be called in this forum, or anywhere else for that matter. :lol:

I'm really trying to find a reason to support the officers involved in the video, but so far I'm drawing a blank.

 

Here's something to ponder...we're in P&R and you and I agree on something....and Birdsfan dissents. :lol: I don't think that I can laugh any harder for fear of...well...embarrassing myself.

Here's something to ponder...we're in P&R and you and I agree on something....and Birdsfan dissents. :lol: I don't think that I can laugh any harder for fear of...well...embarrassing myself.

Dang this lousy excuse for a time machine. Slipped right into a parallel universe! :irked:

Dang this lousy excuse for a time machine. Slipped right into a parallel universe! :irked:

 

Back to the drawing board, Boy Wonder.

Back to the drawing board, Boy Wonder.

Funny, my brother calls me that all the time...with similar amounts of sarcasm I'm sure.

Funny, my brother calls me that all the time...with similar amounts of sarcasm I'm sure.

 

:lol: Could be.

Here's something to ponder...we're in P&R and you and I agree on something....and Birdsfan dissents. :lol: I don't think that I can laugh any harder for fear of...well...embarrassing myself.

 

Soiling came to mind, but we can go with embarrassing.

What has stood out to me the most from this current rash of protests has been the governments’ responses, far more so than the message of the protesters, whatever it might be. It appeared that in nearly each case police were eventually ordered to disperse the protests despite their being peaceful, showing up in military style riot gear and authorized to use force on the protesters. I found the images of the subsequent violence and arrests to be unsettling, particularly in a society that allegedly values liberty as much as ours. There have been several times over the last month that I’ve clicked through the news and had to double take to see if the images on the screen were from some Middle East dictatorship or the United States. I wish that were alarming to more people.

 

I realize that there is both an authoritarian strain in our country and knee-jerk partisanship driving either cheerleading against the protesters or insouciance about what is going on. But, there is also a very strong strain of support for liberty and adherence to the Constitution in this country. I was curious how people meshed the two, which is why I asked the questions I did at the start of the thread.

 

As for me, I take peaceable assembly to mean nonviolent or not inciting violence. People have the right to congregate in public and express their views. While it isn’t or shouldn’t be absolute, I think the government should almost always err on the side of liberty. And when it invariably doesn’t it should be held accountable, either through the system of checks and balances or through public opinion. I think preventing overbearing reactions on the part of the government is precisely the intention of the Bill of Rights. The government has a long history of breaking up “peaceable assemblies” or restricting other forms of speech under the flimsy application of laws only to have them overturned or struck down for the exact reason stated above.

 

Of course, this right isn’t absolute. Protesters shouldn’t interfere with others’ rights nor should they be allowed to. However, to me this should be the primary purpose of any sort of government response. The police should be there to insure others’ rights aren’t violated (e.g. keep a path through the sidewalk open), but they don’t need tear gas or rubber bullets to do that nor do they need to arrest anyone standing in a public place. Riot-geared officers marching on protestors was nonsensical in my eyes.

 

This is what I found so ludicrous about the UC Davis case. The police were called in to disperse non-violent students on campus, where they showed up in riot gear ready to throw down. These were students peacefully protesting (at an institution that is supposed to have an even higher regard for free speech than legally obligated to, mind you), not an armed guerilla military unit. In nearly all of the other cases the government response was similar. When this is the accepted norm I think our priorities are severely out of whack.

 

As Supreme Court Justice William Douglas wrote:

“[A] function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions, and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech . . . is . . . protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. . . . There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view.”

 

While he wrote about free speech in the broadest since, it can be fairly applied to assembly more narrowly, as it eventually was during the Civil Rights era. And I agree wholeheartedly. I think thus far that the reactions to the protests fall under that “more restrictive view.”

So is it ethical to bribe people for recall signatures with cigarettes at the Wisconsin Occupy 'event'?

 

At first it was reported that those bribed were underage. But no worries - they were 20 and 22 years old - apparently making the cigarette for signature routine just fine. Maybe the 22 year old could hold out for some hard liquor if the cigarettes are not enough. The 20 year old will have to make due with just the smokes.

 

http://www.dane101.com/current/2011/11/21/young_women_signing_walker_recall_petition_in_video_are_not_underage

 

http://biggovernment.com/mtrackers/2011/11/21/occupy-bribes-minors-with-cigarettes-in-wisconsin-recall-election/

 

So you are fee to assemble. But are you free to pass out products that are known health hazards in exchange for a signature?

This is what I found so ludicrous about the UC Davis case. The police were called in to disperse non-violent students on campus, where they showed up in riot gear ready to throw down. These were students peacefully protesting (at an institution that is supposed to have an even higher regard for free speech than legally obligated to, mind you), not an armed guerilla military unit. In nearly all of the other cases the government response was similar. When this is the accepted norm I think our priorities are severely out of whack.

 

Sorry, Habib, but I couldn't disagree more. I think you need to walk in the shoes of a police officer/law enforcement agent to fully understand. Regardless of whether you agree with the directive they were given, their orders were to disperse the crowd. When dealing with a large number of people where the potential for violence exists, you take all precautions necessary to prevent and combat that violence. It doesn't matter that the group had been peaceful up to that point. Similar protests across the country have escalated into confrontation and violence. You don't show up to a situation such as this and demand the demonstrators leave, only to have the situation turn ugly (for whatever reason) and find yourself unprepared. You can't exactly call time-out so you can go back to the station to gear up. I've executed many arrest warrants on individuals who had no past record of violence. I nonetheless still carried my weapon, wore my vest, and had a partner with me. You don't dismiss the possibility that it could be as dangerous a situation as someone who does have a violent record. You prepare for the worst. If you end up "over-preparing", so be it. There was nothing whatsoever inappropriate with these officers responding in riot gear.

 

Now that all being said, I do not support the pepper spray response by the police officers, most certainly not at the point that it was used.

Sorry, Habib, but I couldn't disagree more. I think you need to walk in the shoes of a police officer/law enforcement agent to fully understand. Regardless of whether you agree with the directive they were given, their orders were to disperse the crowd. When dealing with a large number of people where the potential for violence exists, you take all precautions necessary to prevent and combat that violence. It doesn't matter that the group had been peaceful up to that point. Similar protests across the country have escalated into confrontation and violence. You don't show up to a situation such as this and demand the demonstrators leave, only to have the situation turn ugly (for whatever reason) and find yourself unprepared. You can't exactly call time-out so you can go back to the station to gear up. I've executed many arrest warrants on individuals who had no past record of violence. I nonetheless still carried my weapon, wore my vest, and had a partner with me. You don't dismiss the possibility that it could be as dangerous a situation as someone who does have a violent record. You prepare for the worst. If you end up "over-preparing", so be it. There was nothing whatsoever inappropriate with these officers responding in riot gear.

 

Now that all being said, I do not support the pepper spray response by the police officers, most certainly not at the point that it was used.

 

That’s fair and I understand the need to be prepared, especially for the officers’ safety. I’ve tried to steer my comments more toward the various governmental decisions rather than the actions of individual officers as I think they were mostly following protocol. While I understand that law enforcement is a dangerous and necessary job, I also think that part of the reason it is dangerous is because certain tactics or procedures are proscribed to protect the rights of the public. I suppose that’s my complaint here in that when I see the riot gear brought out for a peaceful protest, then see the subsequent violence I’m not entirely shocked. I don’t think they should have been called in in the first place, but even still I think those who wanted to go to jail for their cause could have been handled by well trained officers without all of the riot gear. That might have been more difficult, but I also think that’s what makes it one of the more noble professions – not just anyone can cut it and we are a better country because of it.

Habib, I'm not sure why you keep calling it a peaceful protest. At least 10 of those peaceful protesters are facing charges for not abiding by the rules of the college. They did not follow the orders of the Chancellor. Its a college. A learning environment. You are not holding any of the students accountable for their actions. The cop that used the pepper spray should face consequences but don't act like the students were mere victims.

Habib, I'm not sure why you keep calling it a peaceful protest. At least 10 of those peaceful protesters are facing charges for not abiding by the rules of the college. They did not follow the orders of the Chancellor. Its a college. A learning environment. You are not holding any of the students accountable for their actions. The cop that used the pepper spray should face consequences but don't act like the students were mere victims.

Aside from the UC Davis incident, I think your post gets back to my original point. What rights do non-protestors have against those protesting and halting activities, out in public right-of-way, blocking access in to buildings, etc? There almost needs to be a book written on the "rules of protesting." :lol:

 

Sadly a lot of the disruptive actions in many protestors across the country have almost created a dangerous culture. Kind of takes away from the "peaceful" aspect of it all.