Forum Post: Again? "Army veteran injured in Oakland clashes with police."
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 5, 2011, 1:52 p.m. EST by hairlessOrphan
(522)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/05/us-protests-oakland-veteran-idUSTRE7A37A820111105
"The veterans' group said in a statement that police struck Sabeghi with nightsticks on his hands, shoulders, ribs and back, and that in addition to a lacerated spleen he suffered from internal bleeding.
'He told me he was in the hospital with a lacerated spleen and that the cops had jumped him, Kelly said, adding that Sabeghi had served as an Army Ranger in Iraq and Afghanistan.
'They put him in jail, and he told them he was injured, and they denied him medical treatment for about 18 hours,' he said.
The Oakland Police Department did not immediately return calls seeking comment."
The biggest problem that no one seems to be touching on this story is that he was denied medical rights.
I don't care if he was a psychopathic serial murderer that started crap with the police, he gets medical assistance if he needs it when he's arrested.
You don't just leave someone to die, ever.
The oakland police are out of hand. As are the people, but only one group is acting on behalf of the government.
deaconsyre wrote: The oakland police are out of hand. As are the people, but only one group is acting on behalf of the government.END------
Correct, and only one group is violating law, the oakland PD (OPD), on behalf of protecting the infiltrated government. The other group is seeking to protect the constitution lawfully, whether they know it or not. BTW, if they are not talking about the constitution, they are helping to provide excuse for OPD.
You're kidding me....this is how we treat our returning vets? Shame
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." Thomas Jefferson
Oakland seems to be actively trying to get support for OWS. Once the military is on our side, it's harder to say we are wrong.
[Removed]
Being a veteran myself, I can honestly say that are some people in the military that I would applaud the police for that act. But the story doesn't exactly tell you the entire truth which is part of a major problem with the news. They are required to tell you the truth, but not necessarily all of it. This guy could have been provoking the police for all we know, or maybe they really just like to beat people up. If that was a riot going on, that just may be the case because dealing with mob mentalities are frustrating and infuriating. On the flip side, rights don't give you permission to void the law. With protest, there are permits and such that need to be filled out and taken care of to alert the city to the protest, so they have all the police protection in place to ensure things are not getting out of hand, which this is. So either the protestors need to follow the rules to ensure their credibility, or cut these guys lose to deal on their own as they will only damage credibility if this keeps up.
You are correct that we can't arbitrarily ignore the rule of law. But there is an argument, philosophically, that we can legitimately and morally exempt ourselves from certain laws so long as the reasons for doing so serve the spirit of the law, and that by ignoring those laws we do not incur costs that act against the same spirit of the law. Everyone needs to think real hard about this.
I can't tell you what to believe. I will only point the difference:
Either you believe the ultimate legitimization of power in the US stems from written law - in which case, you can't ignore the law, ever - or you believe the legitimization of power in the US stems from "We, the People." In that case, the written law is itself legitimized by the people, and is only legitimate so long as it serves to protect the people.
This is not in ANY WAY an argument for chaos, vandalism, looting, baiting the police, or other adolescent stupidities. This is only the argument that, for example, people have the moral legitimacy to protest in public spaces even without a bureaucratic permission slip. This example explicitly challenges people to ask themselves why they feel (correctly) that burning and looting is wrong, but that protests are rights, and even protests without official permits are sometimes justifiable.
Everyone needs to think long and hard about what they should and should not applaud. That's all I'm saying.
I would love to say we don't need law, but the reality is that we do. I could go on with an argument long enough to write a book because it delves into morals, religion, and the fact were animals, but I'll simplify it.
Without social morals and rules to nurture our people, the natural instincts of nature would take over, and the end result is the chaos, the rioting, the looting, ect. I fully believe that this is happening now with the breakdown of marriage, high divorce rates, and single parents, along with parents that just don't care what their kids do. There is a complete lack of morals and social rules being passed down from parents to kids, and were ending up with kids that acting more out of nature than nurture. This isn't to say that nature is wrong, but nature is neutral to what's right and wrong in a society.
I completely agree that we need laws, and that is why I have been doing my best to pee on the anarchist influence on the movement. Figuratively speaking.
However, note that even in your argument you treat The Law as a (justified!) means to an end, and not the end itself. Like any other means - or, slightly reworded, any other tool we use to accomplish a purpose - it's usefulness is confined to the space where it serves that purpose. It's usefulness must not be taken as a universal principle. Hammers are great for nails. Not so much for sawing wood. If your purpose is to build a house, sometimes the hammer is necessary, and sometimes it needs to be set aside.
Knowing when is the discernment that we as a people desperately need.
As a side note: I believe that divorce rates and single parenthood are symptoms of a fundamental societal change that is, ultimately, for the better. Shocking, I know, but I believe it despite the fact that single parenthood is often bitterly difficult and a negative force. But there is empirical evidence that shows higher divorce rates are a symptom of better, more self-sufficient, less dependent lives for women as a whole, even though single parenthood makes some individuals' lives more difficult. For more info, check out "Logic of Life" by Tim Harford. Note that from my perspective this is totally irrelevant to my argument above. I don't want to start a fight over this!
I'm not one for starting fights, just intelligent discussions. I can see how divorce can make someone more self-sufficient. I'm divorced myself. I was more concerned with the cause and effect of how the parents treat the kids after the divorce. That has more longstanding damage as those kids will pass it to theirs and so on. As for the law part, if everyone did the right thing there would be no need for it. But...
On topic: if the house was already built we wouldn't need hammers. I agree. But in this particular case there's another example of when we don't need hammers - or, to drop the analogy, when we can selectively ignore laws morally. To do that properly, we have to make really fine distinctions that seem academic but in fact are way more important in, let's say, unusual circumstances - such as with widespread popular protests.
Once a specific law stops protecting the greater people, it loses its moral legitimacy, and therefore it must be challenged. And that is the moral justification to act in violation of that specific law. For example: protest permits are legitimate only so long as they protect the greater people from a small population being whimsically and shiftlessly disruptive. Protest permits cease being legitimate when they are used against the greater people to suppress a morally justifiable protest.
So which is Occupy? That's my question. Right now, too many people cling to the myth that Occupy is whimsical and shiftless disruption. But these incidents show veterans, working families, college graduates, true and real American citizens involved in the protests - involved and invested, to the point of risking physical harm. This is what causes the shift that legitimizes ignoring bureaucratic permits - and gets people to sit up and reconsider their stance.
(Note: the moral justification lasts only so long as we continue to act morally - which does mean striving to change the law, not just ignoring it. It is complicated, but I'm just getting the starting point down.)
Kind of off-topic: Yeah, the stresses of a divorce are unfortunately too often vented on the children. But it isn't the divorce that's the problem, it's the venting, right?
I'll be the first to agree that the government has been pretty lax in it's housekeeping of the law. I think it's beginning to become a bit bloated, and starting to step on itself in spots. They also have a nasty habit of addressing one specific problem when implementing new law instead of addressing much larger issues that may be causing smaller problems. In essence, they keep plugging holes in Swiss cheese instead of putting it in a plastic bag.
There is also the whole issue of the criminal justice system which is supposed to rehabilitate criminals. Instead it locks them away and expects them to adhere to social standards when they have their own social structure within a highly flawed system. It actually makes it more worthwhile for them to remain a career criminal than attempt to get out of the system and attempt to adhere to the external social standards.
As for the protest permits, I think they were actually intended just to alert a city to the protest so they can plan to have the resources in place in case violence breaks out It's possible that cities may also use them to deconflict their event schedule. I don't think they were ever really intended to dissuade or prevent protest, though I wouldn't put it past some cities to use them for that purpose. I don't think there is any law mandating them other than maybe local laws, but their interpretation of that can change depending on what part of the country your in.
I think Occupy is a well organized group with no clear direction of what they really want They really need a spokesperson, and a clear, well defined set of goals to achieve, and wants of the government to give them credibility. It's a means to an end with no clear direction of exactly what that end is. And little small actions like the Oakland problems are only serving to discredit what can be a good thing. They really need to watch out who exactly they let into it, because the bad apples are ruining it for the whole bunch. It also needs to get some direction before it becomes overly burdensome on the cities. OWS has already cost NYC well over $2 million in overtime for the police needed to keep watch over it, and that coming from the tax payers. At some point, this will end badly if they are not making progress.
You said it better than I ever could; act as you choose so long as you incur no harm, direct or indirect, to others. You'll find that 99% of the time that actions that break the law also violate this principle. Now, when you hit the 1% or so of actions that are illegal but not harmful it's an occasion to think long and hard about what your next steps should be.
What a pile of assumptions! You toss out possibilities as if it were true. Another example a shithead tactics.
From http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/05/us-protests-oakland-veteran-idUSTRE7A37A820111105
"Brian Kelly, who co-owns a brew pub with Sabeghi, said his business partner told him he was arrested and beaten by a group of policemen as he was leaving the protest to go home."
Have you ever had someone tell you something only to find out later they were not telling you the whole truth?
Again more distraction...your question does not change the simple fact that you toss assumptions around as if they were fact. Your current question is called a 'red herring'.
So your assuming there are no other possibilities? Just because someone is on their way home doesn't mean they couldn't provoke an attack in the process?. And what's to say what he told his business partner was the truth? Every man can lie, especially when he holds a different perception of what the truth should be.
I'm not assuming anything. You are. And you toss those assumptions around as if they were facts. Go ahead...respond again. I am done with this and anyone who reads this will know why.
Another make-believe martyr for the cause.
"The veterans' group said in a statement - Sabeghi's name was listed by the Alameda County Sheriff's Office as among those arrested that night, and Highland General Hospital confirmed he was a patient in its intensive care unit."
So:
Veteran's group says he's a veteran.
Bureaucratic paperwork says he was arrested.
Hospital says he's in ICU.
Who are you accusing of lies? Please explain.
CYNIC
if one held no military position, it is less important