Forum Post: NOT what democracy looks like: OccupyCal - Uber Violence by Police Against Students
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 9, 2011, 11:50 p.m. EST by groobiecat2
(746)
from Brattleboro, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Give me a break... they're a bunch of kids! I understand the cops have to hold their ground, but jabbing a teenage girl in the ribs like that can't make you feel like a big man... and yes it can do serious internal damage.
yes so sad, they couldn't do what the cops said and didn't leave and suffer for it. why does no one watch or read about the passive resistance tactics? you sit, you go limp, you make them move you. you dont face off with them. dumb dumb
Violence is the one thing they are equipped to deal with.
Actually it was kind of cool to see how ballsy these students are.
If it weren't for all the cameras I am pretty sure a few of them would have gotten knocked silly.
There is law against unprovoked violence by protestors. Why there is no law against unprovoked violence by the police? This footage clearly shows that the violence by the police was unprovoked, why could they walk away free?
Hi groobiecat2, Thank you for post. Best Regards, Nevada
Thanks, Nevada1. We accept violence in this country as a normal part of our lives, but it really doesn't have to be this way. In other countries, these protests go on without police brutality. I've documented a very brief example--same day, same issues--here:
http://groobiecat.blogspot.com/2011/11/tale-of-two-cities-two-demonstrations.html
Peace.
Good link----says so much. We are in a struggle to maintain freedom, that so many who came before us paid such a high price for.
Agreed. I just think people have come to accept inequality and aggressive abrogation of basic rights as part of every day life. This country has never been great at comparing what it does with other countries--the "We're #1!" nonsense keeps us nice and xenophobic and arrogant...
Man the police in California are nuts.
Yeah. Sadly. But people have to get fed up with it.
This is self-aggrandizing in that it's my blog, but I posted this today, to show people that it really doesn't have to be this way:
http://groobiecat.blogspot.com/2011/11/tale-of-two-cities-two-demonstrations.html
In the UK. Same day. Five times the number of protesters. And instead of violence, the students got--assistance from the police.
Imagine a police force that was there to actually keep the peace.
We only imagine violence here, because that's what we're used to...
Peace.
Many sit ins & peaceful marchs have gone really bad & very quickly. People have even been killed. Check out the 60' s Kent State 1972 if i remeber right. Many people are going to get hurt the longer we are out on the streets. The 1% will be yelling for the 99% to be taken off the streets, that's when we find out just who is running tthis country.
Why people should stop accepting violence against people:
http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/11/06/362326/video-police-shoot-protester-filming/
Guy doing nothing but filming the police. No altercation. The fuckers just shoot him.
Completely insane.
What's truly ironic about all of this? corporations now have been accorded the rights of people, and money is considered "speech," whereas actual people and their voices are no longer considered protected by the first amendment. That's what's ironic here.
Actually I'd love to fight both #14 and #63... them with their riot gear and clubs... me with my old SCA rattan swords. Two on one, and see how they do against a trained florentine swordsman.
[Removed]
They were told they could protest but not camp out. Anarchy is not easy. People get hurt.
It's unacceptable. And it doesn't have to be this way. We accept it, because, well, our culture is pretty fucking violent.
check this:
www.groobiecat.blogspot.com
check out the same day, 5 x the protesters, and see how the police respond--in the UK.
don't accept violence. don't give in to abrogating of 1st amendment rights.
peace.
They should follow the rules. School told them to leave. They should have listened
Here's another "rule": The 1st Amendment. They have a right to seek redress--a constitutional right. You and your ilk are great at pulling it up to suit your purposes, but when others use it, people should follow the "rules."
They are following the rules--the rules established by the founders of this country.
BTW, ever noticed how the "rules" are promulgated by the 1%? I have. I'm guessing you haven't...
there are limits on all your rights buddy. look them up. Is my rights to yell fire in a crouded room protected under the 1st ammendment? or my right to carry a gun into a school under the second? NO! So you have two options. Follow the fucking rules that the consitution and the supreme court have layed down or let people take machine guns into day cares. your choise
So which of these rights are limited by what the chancellor of the school says?
"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."
I agree that there should be limits to rights. Like, say, when corporations have been accorded status as human beings and their cash is accorded status as "speech." Yeah, I think that's not something that was originally envisioned by the founders, do you?
I do think that the kind of assembly that the students engaged in--and which the British handle very differently--is exactly what the founders intended.
As for machine guns and day cares and "choise" um, no idea what you're talking about. You seem confused.
Oh, and btw, if we "followed" what insane leaders kept telling us to do all the time--in a democracy that's increasingly a plutocracy--we'd stil be mired in Vietnam.
my point about the machine guns is that there exist limits on your individual rights. I can't bring a machine gun into a day care, even though such an act is protected under the 2nd ammendment.
If the land you all want to protest on is owned by someone, that's not one of you (including the government), you have to follow the rules set forth by government. They said you could protest if you didn't camp and what happened? OWS decided to camp. They are with in their rights to kick you off the park, as they are in all the parks OWS is calling home.
I personally want to know why those people had them backed up against a wall in the first place.
Oh, and P.S., we pulled ou of Vietnam becuase Kissenger got the North and South to sign a peace treaty we thought would last. If that had never been signed, we wouldn't have left
"my point about the machine guns is that there exist limits on your individual rights. I can't bring a machine gun into a day care, even though such an act is protected under the 2nd ammendment."
Um, yeah, no this is illogical: comparing bringing in a machine gun into a daycare center because you have the right to own guns based on the 2nd amendment (which was intended to prevent the people from being dominated by an imperial government) has nothing to do with people's right to petition the government for grievance and gather publicly to do so, as is accorded by the 1st amendment. Completely illogical comparison, sorry.
re: land ownership: the chancellor doesn't own that land. And ironically enough--no one has said this--those students are actually customers of the school. They paid to be there! The school should be protecting their rights to free speech, and that chancellor should be fired for allowing those kids lives to be endangered. They're not calling the place home, they're expressing their grievance--and rightly should do so.
The police weren't "backed up against a wall" at all. They were completely free to leave. The students were locking arms and resisting non-violently--as they have a right to do. Protest is at the core of this country's founding, and the 99% movement has every right to exercise that right.
We pulled out of Vietnam because people got sick of seeing their children come home in body bags--over 50,000 of them. And you somehow defend it? That horrible fucking waste of human life.
Angry. Violent. America.
WOW WOW WOW. BULL SHIT!
According to you, limitations on any of our rights is wrong. You can't just make an exception for the 2nd ammendment. WHat makes free speech more important than my right to bear arms. Why should the governmetn be allowed to limit one and not the other? It's a very logical comparison. Explain to me why one right is more important tha another.
The state owns the land, it's a state college. The Chancellor is in charge of the land which mean his decisions or the decisions of the state. He said they could protest for 7 days with no tent which mean the state said they could protest for 7 days with no tents. They pay to go to school there, not to camp out in a park on campus. When you pay for college, you see what you pay for. You pay for teachers, classroom, utilities, library fees, ect... That mean the state can not with out cause disbar someone from ony of those services. Camping in the park is not a "right" the students pay for when they signed up for classes. He did protect their rights untill they broke the only rule he gave them.
If the protesters were locking arms, they were blocking the path of the police offices. Police reserve the right, when surrounded to, if necesary, use force to escape (like all people). If the protesters were really peacefull, why would they be messing with cops at all?
And no. Nixon agreed he would pull troops out of Vietnam after a peace treaty was signed. He get that so he pulled them out. Do I defend Vietnam? Yes I do. Becuase if it comes to supporting the toops who risked their lifes or the ass holes who thought that a nice welcome home would be to call them baby killers, I will support Vienam every day. North Vietman wasn't just a communist regime, they were horrible people. When they captured our soldiers, they would torture them. When they entered a city, they would disguise themseelves as citizened then throw grendades in to barracs. Any nation that refuses to sign the geniva convention deserves to be fought.
You are delusional.
How am I dilusional?
LOL. Yell more, it'll make your argument stronger. You don't understand basic logic, so please, do some reading up on fallacious reasoning and "if this, then that" logic. I'm not going to waste my time explaining the obvious differences between the right to protest peacefully vs. the right to own machine guns, but not have the right to bring them into kindergarten. There is no comparison, and at some point, common sense comes into play.
As for the college issue, the chancellor doesn't speak for the state, he's merely an employee of the state, and there's a big difference. The students have a right to use that land for protest, but if you can show me the law that indicates differently, I'll be happy to change my view on this. As it is, protest is a long, and time honored tradition in our country, and always has been--since, you know, it kinda founded our country in the first place.
Look, you think that the only reaction to demonstrations is violence. That's your right, but it's not like that in other countries...
http://groobiecat.blogspot.com/2011/11/tale-of-two-cities-two-demonstrations.html
...and it doesn't have to be like this in our country, either.
Nixon and Kissinger realized that we were losing the war--the treaty itself is ancillary to that basic truth. Politicians are one thing, and one thing only: sensitive to the winds of public opinion. And public opinion was clearly against the war after 50,000 Americans were killed for a bad decision to take on something the French offered up to us and we accepted, foolishly enough.
"North Vietman wasn't just a communist regime, they were horrible people. When they captured our soldiers, they would torture them."
LOL. Here's more of that bad logic of yours. First, we weren't supposed to be in their country in the first place, got it? We were on their territory. Their land. So, if you say they tortured us, um, well, gee, what do you call dropping daisy cutters and napalming hundreds of thousands of their people? A slap on the wrist? Torture from 10,000 feet is still torture. I shouldn't have to point out the obvious.
Second, if you think that torture makes people horrible, then you oughtta take a look at your own country. Ever heard of Abu Ghraib?
Third, supporting our troops is very different from supporting the wars they fight in: they're two different things. Again, you need some lessons in logic. You can support troops who do their duty, but be against the wars they fight in.
Okay, enough of this. I've wasted too much time. Yours, because you won't understand what I've said. Mine, because I understand all too well what you've said.
Peace.
I'll walk you throughthe logic on the guns. Sencond amendment says "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Now as will all the rights in the bill of rights, the second amendment is considered an unlimited right. That would imply that government could not gegulate actions that fall under it. The 1st Amendments is also a "unlimited" right and as such it shoudl not be regulated. Why then, would you complain about the government limiting where you perform one right and not the other. Lets say you are having a peacefull protest, should the government be able to limit where you hold it? IF the answer is a no, len let me ask you this; If I am a law abiding citizen, why should the government limit where I can proctice my 2nd amendment right but not my 1st? IF you answer to free speech was a yes, then where do you think the governemtn should limit your right?
The Chancellor. He is a public employ, meaning that he is employed by the state of California. More specifically, he is an employ of the Clifornia Board of Education. The actions of him, reflect upon the actions of his parent organization and as such, he is consideded an representative of the state. The way to think of it is like this. Say a Walmart employ commits a tripple homiside in the store and is then shot by the police. The familes of the victems will want to sue, but who will they sue; they will sue walmart of lak of judegment in hireing this man. In the same way, if the Chancelor tells the cops to open fire on the porotesters with reall bullets, the case would go to court, but not as the chancelor of UCBercly v. (whoever), it would go to the courts as California Board of Education v. (whoever).
As for limits, the best case I can think of is Grayned v. City of Rockford
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0408_0104_ZS.html
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/grayned.html
States the government can provide restrictions as to the time, place, and, maner of public speech in public places; parks and the like. Restrictions based on the normal going ons of that place, like cerfue.
I'm not saying the only reaction to protest is violence, but the only good protest is the one that follows the law. if they don't and they refuse to comply, then maybe violence, but I'm am not say just brink in the tanks and hit it.
And I'm not going to argue Vietnam with you, becuase I am a very strong supporter of the containment doctorine and as such, will not be convinced that cintinued action in Vietman would have been a waist. As for the torture though, we dropped bombs on German durring World War II and they never tortured out troops.
The containment doctrine failed, miserably. Aside from the million-plus Vietnamese killed (and that had nothing to do with Germany--focus), and the 50,000 killed, Vietnam was a catastrophe for all involved. We tried to contain the soviets in Afghanistan--how'd that turn out? I'll tell you, because you may not know:
a) We spent millions arming bin laden and his mujahadeen. This is fact.
b) We helped them kick the Soviets out, and they used many of the SAMs we left to attack our our forces.
c) After they left, we left--and didn't pay a dime to help rebuild the country; nothing for schools, roads, infrastructure--nothing. We used the country to fill our won selfish ideological ends.
d) The void left in Afghanistan was filled by the Taliban, who supported the establishment of training camps for al Qaeda.
e) The very people we supported in getting rid of the Soviets filled the void in Afghanistan, turned it into a mini Kalifate of extremists, who eventually helped kill thousands on September 11, 2001.
That's the "success" of our "containment" strategy.
Okay. I think we're done here.
Peace and best of luck to you--the country is changing, whether you want it to or not.
First off, the containment doctorin failed beacuse we pull out of Vietnam and with the exact results the proponents of containment predicted. Vietnam fell, then Laos and Cambodia also decended into communism, if only for a bit. MY point on Germany was that we fire bombed their cities, bomded their town and they never tortured our soldiera, so what excuse did the North Vietnamese have?
On Afghanastan, the Mujahideen were a coalition of anti-soviet tribes in Afghanastan. Was the organization that came to be called Al-Qaeda one of the anti-sovet forces, yes. Did Bin Laden support them, yes. But at the time, were they anti-American/western? No. Bin Laden had many ties with the westers world and remember, his family forunte was in the oil trade with the west. It was not till afterwards that the anti-western side of the organization beagn to show.
Why did we not spend anymoney to rebuild the country? Becuase imediatly following the Ruso-Afghan War, the country fell into a civil war among the factions of the Mujahideen. There was no viod, the Taliban fought their way into control of tha nation. Yes they pushed for the istablishment of training camps for Al-Qaeda, but you still have to remember that it was not till the 1st Iraq War that the group became an anti-western force. In the 80's, Al-Qaeda was a militant group that wanted to support islamist movments in places like Palestine and Kashmire. It wasn;t untill Saudi Arabia accepted Americas help in the 1st Iraq War over Al-Qaeda's that Bin Laden and hence Al-Qaeda turned anti-western
You could try to go to Israel...that's supposedly a democracy too but it's 10 times worse than here in the states....
Actually, when it comes to occupying, that's incorrect:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2097627,00.html
I do agree that Israel brutalizes the Palestinians, and that has gone on for far too long--nothing democratic going on there at all...
Interesting that the first 30 minutes of your video is missing along with the audio of the police telling them repeatedly to dispurse for that whole time . . .
Yeah, no. That's bullshit. Telling a crowd to disburse for 30 minutes doesn't accord police the right to inflict punishing brutality.
Do you want to see how a civil society treats protesters?
Go here:
http://groobiecat.blogspot.com/2011/11/tale-of-two-cities-two-demonstrations.html
I posted this because I got sick and tired of apologists for uber violence in our society.
Imagine a police force that was there to actually keep the peace. And for fuxxake, please stop apologizing for violence and viciousness.
Peace.
That is actually the jab and step forward police tactic taught in riot control for every cop all across the country to push a crowd back. Lets not continue to kid ourselves that forcible occupation is 'peaceably assembly'. Lets break the law and be proud of it that we are doing it for a just cause, but we can't whine when we get the consequences.
It's their right to exercise their first amendment. They were no threat to the police. But hey, bonus points for knowing how cops use unprovoked force against such a dangerous threat.
As for for "kidding ourselves" -- what are you talking about? That was the definition of peaceful assembly.
And I'm guessing the "lets" (sic) doesn't include you. Poseur.
everybody who reads me posting here for weeks knows im trying to be a voice of reason, support OWS as long as it really is peaceful and that in our camp we ARE peaceful. Which means you don't confront the police and you do what they tell you. If they tell you to move and you dont, now your group is no longer peaceably assembling. I know Im older, and they don't teach civics in school, but I had to learn a lot when I became a citizen of the US. (legal mexican immigrant..its easy) so I know that much and this too I know it looks awful. but if you dont move when a cop says move, they can make you move. maybe just for us people who became citizens because we wanted to, we value it more?
I read you. What you posted was not "reason." It was a defense of the indefensible. Those students posed no threat and were wielding no weapons. The police were brutalizing them. The cops have no right to make them move. You're older, so am I. And if you know your civics, then you know the First Amendment. But I'll repost it here for you to read again:
"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."
Nothing there about backing up when police tell you to back up. Sorry, but this kind of wanton brutality has already put people in the hospital. And it has to stop. It's an excuse for brutalizing people who are legally entitled to exercise their rights to freedom of speech, end of story. California police officers are well known for these tactics, as we saw in Oakland. So, thanks, but no thanks for the defense...
yep, I did see that Congress 'made no law' about that incident.
Apparently, however, you missed the part of about the "right of the people to peaceably assemble" to petition the government. Those are kind of important, as far as the whole bill of rights thing goes. So, yeah, no law to impede these activities means they're allowed. Get it?
You're not reading far enough. Congress shall make no law (about prohibiting this or that or that) or prohibiting the right to peaceably assemble. CONGRESS shall make no law. You're missing the point about municipalities and other places CAN make laws regarding' no camping' on a college campus. You can want it to apply to everything everywhere, but it doesn't. You still can't yell 'fire' in a movie theater, or joke about a bomb in an airport. Understand your rights AND responsibilities.
You don't understand the amendment. It has nothing to do with "Congress making or not making a law"--it's a right to freely assemble and demand redress. I do understand your point about the law, and the "no camping" on a college campus isn't part of the law, from what I can tell. All the police did nothing but brutalize a few people and then leave; they didnt' destroy the encampment or otherwise "enforce the law." I know my rights AND responsibilities. Police brutality is police brutality, regardless of whether it's being hidden "behind the law." FYI: Here's what the head of the school said:
On Monday, if you recall, UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau sent out a campus-wide letter warning students and faculty against setting up tents or disturbing classes, stating: Any activities such as pulling fire alarms, occupying buildings, setting up encampments, graffiti, or other destructive actions that disrupt with anyone's ability to conduct regular activities -- go to class, study, carry out their research, etc. -- will not be tolerated. --How is that a law? That's not a law, that's an edict from the Chancellor at Berkeley--another overly paid admin who drives up the cost of education, no doubt.
Anyway, forget the constitution for a moment, police don't have to be thugs. And, in fact, in the UK, they showed what that looks like on the same day. To prove my point, see how other countries deal with this:
http://groobiecat.blogspot.com/2011/11/tale-of-two-cities-two-demonstrations.html
Peace.
Guaranteed you are no poser, ramous. I've read your posts. What most people fail to realize, along with the facts you've pointed out many times, is that local laws trump the Constitution every time. Failure to comply with an officer's command is a crime. In some places in the US a small crowd with a singular purpose can be construed as 'inciting a riot.' People keep playing the 'First Amendment card' without actually checking the laws of whatever jurisdiction they are in.
UK police club thousands of protesting students!!
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/11/10/thousands-of-students-take-to-londons-streets-to-protest-tuition-hikes/?xid=newsletter-daily
Oh, wait. No, they allowed thousands of protesting students to protest peacefully without clubbing them or threatening to damage their internal organs.
Your argument is yet another appeasement to a state that seeks to dominant any "unacceptable" demonstrations with force. My snarky point about the UK is that you very rarely read or see the UK police beating the shit out of protesters, yet you read and see it hear quite a lot.
As for the "playing the first amendment card," first, it's not a card alright? It's a basic human right conferred on people by the Constitution. It's not a bullet point. It's not a tactic. It's a right.
As for the law, well, we've seen laws broken on both sides, but one side doesn't have clubs or has its internal organs threatened by cops who weren't ambushed or being backed into a corner, they decided to start slugging kids.
You're just used to violence and accept it as a matter of course. Other countries don't follow our violent, fucked up very American lead on this issue, and that's why I posted the link to the UK protests.
On another note, apologies to Ramous for referring to him as a poseur. We can agree to disagree with civility. But I'm getting really fucking tired of people trying to justify wanton violence from the police. And if you're not tired of it too, you're probably not paying close enough attention (or have been somewhat co-opted by the media).
Peace.
www.groobiecat.blogspot.com
Listen, we can go round and round on the violence thing but I'd like to make a couple things clear. I'm not justifying violence or appeasing the state. I disagree 100% with the brutality the police have been using. I haven't been co-opted by the media, in fact I pay absolutely zero attention to MSM. I haven't got any of my information from them in many years. I was the very definition of a juvenile delinquent back in the '70's and had plenty of run-ins with the police, spent time in jail, the whole nine yards. Remember, back then, there were no camcorders, dash-cams, none of that. If the police wanted to kill you back then, they had a 100% chance of getting away with it and I know of more than one instance first-hand where they did 3exactly that. Our point, mine and ramous, is we CANNOT use violence in this protest. To do so would be playing right into the hands of the feds. Do a web search on the government provision known as 'Rex 84.' In a nutshell, the government can declare martial law for even peaceful civil disobedience. We're treading a very fine line simply by Occupying. If martial law were declared our so-called revolution is over. Finished. The government has been preparing for this for ten years. Haven't you noticed that our local law enforcement departments have been militarized? Apparently it's you that haven't been paying attention. Google Rex 84.
Well, your premise is wrong: there was no violence actually being used byt he protesters. None. Zero. Zip. So, when you say "we CANNOT use violence" we/they didn't use violence. Those students weren't threatening the cops, they were just trying to hold their ground, and then the cops started fucking them up.
Period.
here's the 2nd half of the video and now we know a little more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAmVKdQDkeI&feature=related
It was over the tents. Berkeley rules say no camping. (camping not a facet of assembly). Police went in to take the tents (camping shelters) not do disperse the assembly. students tried to stop them from taking the prohibited shelters. (confrontation). Police pushed them back, confiscated the tents. (finished their objective.) crowd brought in more tents. (no real gains or losses here.)
Right now, its still tents (shelters.) But there was a post on this board a few days back, that asked an excellent question. What if you painted your message on your tent? And argued it was no longer a shelter, but a sign? If you did that, is it still a shelter, or has it become your free speech? Worth trying, it would keep the courts busy and we might see different definitions of what constitutes free speech. A shelter could become free speech.
On a side note, its dumb to confront police and keep them from taking your stupid tents that have been disallowed by the university (who gets to make the rules for their grounds.) You can get hurt. SO I have posted protest tactics that will keep us all safe as we protest.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/passive-resistance-tactics-for-protests/
And may I recommend this site as well for non-violence for our message. http://global-human-rights.us/home/
I like your point about free speech. that's worth doing; not that it'll work, because the cops will do what cops do. It's just that it shouldn't be even remotely acceptable. And a chancellor doesn't determine laws that are enforceable by the publicly paid police. No. That's b.s.
what's truly ironic about all of this? corporations now have been accorded the rights of people, and money is considered "speech," whereas actual people and their voices are no longer considered protected by the first amendment. That's what's ironic here.
I agree that the message has to be non-violence. Those students were acting non-violently. But the occupation is the thing. And taking space to send the message is the medium.
Thanks for the links.
Peace.
Cops will do what they do based upon current law. Yeah, it will take a court case to go up through the courts to change a tent into a sign and BE free speech. we're going to do it here. they're letting us have tents so far anyway, but can't hurt to just in case. And yes I am sick that corporations have people rights.
gno, thanks. Our rights end, where others rights begin. I put up a post on HOW to protest using passive resistance tactics. so we don't get hurt and can really be non-confrontational. Our local camp has a good will with our city and we intend to keep it that way so we can stay where we are. They are allowing us tents, but no open burning and our sanitation has to stay good.
Protest tactics every protestor should learn:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/passive-resistance-tactics-for-protests/
I read that a couple days ago. People don't realize how important it is to maintain a peaceful protest. If they think violence is the way they are very narrow-minded. They don't really realize the full scope of their actions. If you get a chance do a web search on 'Rex 84.' The feds can declare martial law whether we get violent or not. Civil disobedience is all they need. And if you get a chance, read this. It's a bit long, but explains the effectiveness in the recent past of nonviolent change:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/02/16/revolution_u?page=full
thanks again. very clear article.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3010
can just see the railroad cars..
Scary stuff, man. Interesting times ahead, that's for sure.
Just fucking MOVE...and you don't get hurt. Imbecile liberal protesters have a heck of time, NOT getting clubbed, tear gassed and arrested. Too bad. No sympathy for dumbbells
how about expecting nonviolence. it's not a fairytale. christ, you violent people are unimaginative.
It's unacceptable. And it doesn't have to be this way. We accept it, because, well, our culture is pretty fucking violent.
check this:
www.groobiecat.blogspot.com
check out the same day, 5 x the protesters, and see how the police respond--in the UK.
our 1st amendment rights should be protected. peaceful protests shouldn't be attacked violently. angry. loud. dumbbells. and not the students.
peace.
They're NOT peaceful. Quit the bullshit lies. Molotov cocktails, smashing windows, spray painting. We enjoy seeing you bag of idiots getting clubbed.
Do not conflate the actions of the whole with the actions of a few. This specific demonstration had nothing to do w/ the actions of that group that "went rogue." That's fallacious reasoning, okay? Here's how your logic "works":
Men are violent. I'm a man. Therefore I must be violent.
You're a violent, not terribly smart person, and hopefully, the days of anti-logic and aggressive stupidity espoused by the likes of you are numbered.
Now run along and read more apocryphal bullshit at the Freedom Justice and the American Bullshit Party League or whatever the "real tea party" is these days...
I don't understand, what's the problem?
Well, at least you got the first clause right...