StrangeSox

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 17, 2012 -> 05:23 PM) clearly it's something being talked about if the security services are telling people to dress down. But it's based on a myth. It's not something that's ever been documented as happening to my knowledge, but the companies that sells the face shields to police love to talk it up. Security forces can tell you to do something based on crappy information, like when they told everyone to buy duct tape to protect against Saddam's WMD's. Dressing down is going to make you less of a target for harassment in general during the protests, but that doesn't mean physical violence necessarily (I'd include that sort of act as physical violence). You even said in your original post "who knows if this is true."

He could be. I'm going to remain doubtful given the lack of confirmed reports.

BTW protesters throwing urine or feces seems to be an unsubstantiated myth.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 17, 2012 -> 04:51 PM) Well, i'm hoping that SS and Balta are right, that all these protestors will be peaceful. I have to go to court monday morning. Suit+Daley Plaza+NATO summit means i'm getting piss thrown on me. Enjoy your f'n freedom! That sucks that you have to go down there. Any s***head who is doing something like that should be arrested, charged properly and be subject to a civil suit from their victims.

TED is censoring one speech on economic inequality by refusing to release the video but they have another up. TED is tone-trolling.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 17, 2012 -> 03:56 PM) Only if you don't warn me, that way I can't be arrested. This is iron-clad logic, in that it's impervious to any sort of new information. Choose to remain willfully ignorant in this case as well, I don't particularly care.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 17, 2012 -> 03:55 PM) So by your definition giving someone a ticket for jaywalking is illegal, because that is exactly what is happening. So would a parking ticket. No, that's incorrect as well. Being issued a citation is not the same as being arrested and detained, which is what these protesters were compensated for. Issuing mass amounts of jaywalking or other appropriate citations would probably not have been illegal, but arresting and detaining them was.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 17, 2012 -> 03:54 PM) "Hey guy shooting someone! That is illegal. Now I can arrest you." Please read the court decision to understand why you are wrong.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 17, 2012 -> 03:51 PM) Keep bending. I'm not bending. You are clearly wrong here and the courts are on my side. I was presenting a hypothetical that casts your contention that there's nothing wrong with arresting and detaining people without warning for minor offenses in a very poor light. It's not necessary, though, because it's still not legal to arrest those protesters in that manner, either. Somewhat familiar but not intimately so. The intent, during the course of the march, did become to march to LSD after several other paths were blocked. No one disputes that.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 17, 2012 -> 03:50 PM) And why do you need a warning if you are doing something illegal before you get arrested? Because it's the law.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 17, 2012 -> 03:49 PM) By that interpretation, Jaywalking is legal. So would stopping my car on the Ryan for no reason. Jaywalking is not legal by that interpretation. But neither is arresting and detaining a jaywalker without warning. Please read the 7th Circuit ruling to familiarize yourself with what actually happened in this case and why the court ruled the way it did.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 17, 2012 -> 03:48 PM) Police allowed=directed? Did not stop and blocked alternative routes before trapping a large crowd and arresting hundreds. How familiar are you with the facts of the case? Would it be appropriate for large-scale arrests of a non-political parade that turned down the wrong street? They would be breaking the same laws as these protesters.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 17, 2012 -> 03:45 PM) The idea that you need to be warned to quit blocking traffic is just stupid. Like you don't know that is not allowed? Please. The idea that police can arrest a large group of protesters without warning is just stupid and, thankfully, wrong. Have you read the 7th Circuit's opinion? It is not very kind to the police for their actions. Or perhaps it is just more "propaganda?"

Here is the 7th Circuit ruling in Vodak v Chicago

Some googling reveals that the 7th Circuit also blocked Illinois' eavesdropping law last week that makes it a 1st class felony to video tape police performing public duties. The DoJ just released a memo this week stating that citizens have constitutional rights to video tape police offices in public. Another victory for freedom and accountability.

The police allowed them onto LSD and then arrested them without notice to vacate. That is not legal and the federal appeals court strongly agrees. A similar situation occurred in NY on the Brooklyn Bridge early on during OWS but I don't know if there are any lawsuits over that and what the status is. Wrongful arrest and detention are much more serious offenses than trespassing or blocking traffic. It's the use of government force to violate your rights.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 17, 2012 -> 03:31 PM) Versus the anti-war group that shutdown LSD and got paid for it after getting arrested... The government isn't allowed to break the law and illegally detain people. That's a much more serious offense than blocking traffic temporarily. http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/01/19/set...war-protesters/

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 17, 2012 -> 03:30 PM) And there's a clear redress if protestors do something wrong. The next question is whether or not it winds up applied fairly. Of course, I'd argue that it doesn't. That's how you can have the Police decide to destroy a protest in Oakland and have no one charged. But there were a couple of anonymous reports on Drudge that a couple of protesters were throwing rocks, so any action, even firing gas canisters into the crowd and fracturing a skull, is justified.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 17, 2012 -> 03:28 PM) Well before a lot of the modern laws designed to allow protests but within reason for the safety/order of the rest of the city. restrict free speech rights and cordon off protesters while providing maximal cover for use of force to disperse non-violent crowds.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 17, 2012 -> 03:24 PM) You've provided one example where the authority of the cops is at issue. No, I also mentioned the case that really started getting OWS attention when a protester was maced for no reason at all while standing behind a barricade. Free Speech! The main issue at UC Davis wasn't lack of authority, that merely compounded the problem. The issue was unjust use of force on non-violent protesters.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 17, 2012 -> 03:21 PM) U.S. Navy Recruit Training Command · 28,819 like this Yesterday at 11:34am · By order of the Commanding Officer, Naval Station Great Lakes, areas of downtown Chicago is off-limits to MILITARY PERSONNEL IN UNIFORM, between May 18-22, 2012 during the The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit. Newly graduated Sailors must remain in complete uniform at all times, civilian attire is strictly prohibited. A map outlining the off-limits area will be printed in the May 18, 2012 Pass-In-Review/Graduation program. The off-limits areas include: • Northern Boundary: West Division St. • Eastern Boundary: Lake Michigan • Southern Boundary: East 47th St. • Western Boundary: Interstate 94 I would imagine that this is two-fold, both to make sure soldiers stay away as potential victims and to make sure active duty, uniformed soldiers are not participating in protests.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 17, 2012 -> 03:21 PM) Police don't just decide "oh hey, a peaceful, legal march, let's go f*** em up!" Protestors go beyond the bounds where they're supposed to be and the cops respond accordingly. How can you keep saying this when it is plainly untrue?

Does anyone know how they get the "1 in 8 people in the world have facebook" claim? Is it just (estimated population)/(total registered users)?

Those people know they're about to do something that requires responding with deadly force. Why else would they have them?!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 17, 2012 -> 03:04 PM) Just because the response to some non-violent protests is illegal doesn't make the violent protest (the initial questions) itself justified. And we have this wonderful judicial system that when police/the gov't abuse their authority, people get paid for the injustice. I'm curious if the UC students sued and if so what they ended up getting out of that. You made the jump to sweep all "left" protests under the violent or almost-always-violent category while praising the never-absolutely-ever violent "right" protests. You've also continued to justify or minimize what happened at UC Davis and other protests.