Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 21, 2012 -> 11:35 AM) I'm aware it was just so hilarious. The same message is repeated when you see half the crowd has a damn starbucks coffee. I'm a fan of the typical occupy protestor - young white males with smart phones/laptops/tablets/video cameras talking about how unfair it is that older white males have lots of money.

I heard someone this morning on the news that said the protest worked because Boeing basically shut down for a couple of days. Now mind you, the corporate office did, not the factories. So....really nothing stopped. Zero gained. I was also interested in the coverage of all of this. TV media was very pro-police. The print media comes off the other way. Anyone else notice this?

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ May 19, 2012 -> 11:39 PM) Was behind on this week's The Killing, finally watched and jumped in here, and no commentary. Any thoughts? The last two (including last nights) have been better, but it's still a really s***ty show. Half of the motivations to act seem 100% ridiculous. If you watched last night, Linden going into the casino wouldn't have happened in a million years. All the shady "police" work they do is basically screwing any chance a prosecutor would have to bring charges.

Back from court with no bodily fluid incidents. Hoorah! Gotta say, unless something happens today, this gigantic pain in the ass of a weekend was not worth the hype. That "incident" last night that was covered by every news channel for 2 hours was much ado about nothing. "Cops are walking towards the crowd now. The crowd is....still being a crowd. Oh, more cops have shown up! The crowd is...still a crowd. OH OH! They arrested someone!! And the cops are walking again!!!" Ugh. They covered that story like it was a Katrina-type natural disaster. Have to ask too, for all of those out there that think violent/disruptive protests lead to something - what exactly did those hardcore protestors gain last night? You know what wasn't really covered? The rally. You know what was for 2 hours? A small number of people being dicks for no reason. Message 100% lost.

I'm an 18 demon hunter, part way through Act II. So far so good. This game feeds my unhealthy obsession with finding/destroying/looting just about everything I can.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 17, 2012 -> 05:17 PM) He could be. I'm going to remain doubtful given the lack of confirmed reports. clearly it's something being talked about if the security services are telling people to dress down.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 17, 2012 -> 05:08 PM) BTW protesters throwing urine or feces seems to be an unsubstantiated myth. Well, unless the good friend of the other associate in my office is lying, it's not. It happened earlier this week (w/ puke).

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 17, 2012 -> 04:56 PM) Jenks, Check to make sure court is open, we were just told that it will be closed on Monday. I cant confirm online, and they werent scheduling that day for the last 3 months, so I dont know if its true as every Judge I have didnt schedule any cases basically this week or the beginning of next. They let me set it up (emergency motion). I'm going to try to get the other side to agree to kick a deposition date in lieu of having to argue this motion Monday. Doubt they'll go along with it UNLESS they're one of the lucky firms that told people to take a day off.

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!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 17, 2012 -> 03:26 PM) Wouldn't be the first time 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.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 17, 2012 -> 03:25 PM) Is it wrong that people inappropriately/illegally assaulted by police have a right to seek redress through the courts? Absolutely not, that's my point. There's a redress if cops do something WRONG.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 17, 2012 -> 03:22 PM) How can you keep saying this when it is plainly untrue? You've provided one example where the authority of the cops is at issue. In Chicago there will be no such discrepancy. These groups had to apply for, and receive, permits with specific times/locations/limitations on how/when/where they can protest. If they go beyond those limitations, the authority of the cops is 100% clear. When the Chicago PD starts beating the s*** out of protesters walking down a planned route, i'll change my position on this.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 17, 2012 -> 03:07 PM) Of course they sued, and of course it hasn't been settled yet, but obviously it will be, since UCD has zero urge to have the case go to court. We also have this wonderful judicial system that if the protestors actually turn violent and are arrested doing so, face charges. Is that wrong?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 17, 2012 -> 01:52 PM) Marching down a street where you're not allowed to be is also non-violent until the police decide you're not going down that street. Sitting at a counter or sitting at the wrong place on a bus is non-violent only until someone decides to use force to remove you. Under this standard, the only thing that makes a protest non-violent is that the police arrest rather than beat up first. 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. Yes, sometimes in excess. Again though, that does nothing to add to the protest of X issue other than framing cops and the gov't as free speech oppressors, which is generally a bunch of nonsense.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 17, 2012 -> 01:35 PM) Many of the non-violent protests were met with violent resistance, which is the exact sort of thing you're saying "ho hum" about in the UC Davis case. Using police powers to arrest non-violent protesters is still a use of state-backed force to enforce injustice. 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 17, 2012 -> 01:26 PM) When I'm thinking about "is initiation of violence ever justified," I'm thinking back to Gilded Age-era union crackdowns by private 'investigator' firms and sanctioned by the government. Or the 60's civil rights movement, of which there was a violent element in addition to King's non-violent movement. Right, and IMO people today remember King more than they remember Malcolm X. They remember the message of a dream over the acts of the black panthers. If anything, all of that violent stuff fed racism even more ("look, we give them a little and they become unruly and violent!"). And I'm not talking about the Rosa Parks sitting on a bus and getting arrested for it type thing. That's not violent. That's an act of defiance that doesn't involve anyone but you and the officers that arrest you.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 17, 2012 -> 01:23 PM) It was part of the OWS protests. Police were clearing tents off the quad and a group of students formed a line on the sidewalk by interlocking arms and sitting down. You can read that report that I linked to several times that discusses the entirety of the known facts surrounding the incident, including the days leading up to it. The report found that the order to leave is not even well-established as a legal order, let alone the excessive use of force by deploying chemical weapons officers were not trained to use and didn't use correctly on non-violent protesters who posed no threat to person or property. "Not obeying a police command unquestioningly" does not justify any police response that follows. Regardless of the legal authority, your average American who reads that story thinks "so kids were sitting down on a sidewalk, arms locked, and they were told to leave repeatedly but didn't? And they got pepper sprayed to leave? Yeah, they probably deserved it." So again, the issue is completely lost and it becomes about whether that response was justified.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 17, 2012 -> 01:11 PM) Plenty of leftist and liberal protest movements have been successful, plenty have been unsuccessful. The same is true of rightist and conservative protests. Name me a single violent/disruptive protest that has led to some new progressive change.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 17, 2012 -> 01:09 PM) Underlying this is still the assumption that whatever force the police use that these protesters supposedly desire is actually justified. Even if protesters organize a sit-in fully anticipating being sprayed in the face with pepper spray and welcome the media attention it brings to whatever their cause is, it still doesn't excuse unjust use of force. Yeah, those women who were arrested in NC fully expected to be handcuffed and detained for filing for a marriage license. Yeah, the marchers in Birmingham fully expected to be beat by police and sprayed with fire hoses. That doesn't make their protest less legitimate or ineffective or legitimize injustices. Now, in the case of the NC couple or the 60's civil rights marchers, the link between their cause and the police action was direct--being removed from the court house or from the lunch counter that they're trying to gain equal access to. In a case like UC Davis, the students aren't primarily protesting for access to the quad. In that instance it is clear that they did not expect the use of chemical weapons before the protest began, but even if they had the police aren't suddenly justified. I dunno, IMO the arrests/violence aspect of it does nothing but detract from the message and embolden those people against it. Can you tell me what the UC protestors were protesting for/against? I have no clue. All I know is some people that sat down and wouldn't leave despite being told to do so were hit with pepper spray, perhaps in an excessive amount.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 17, 2012 -> 01:02 PM) "My guys do it right while their guys do it wrong!" Well, you can't deny which style ends up with the change the respective group wants.

No. Violence does nothing but draw attention away from the issues. That's my problem with the "left" protests - they want the news where people get pepper sprayed or arrested or whatever and that shows how much "the man" sucks. But it overshadows that actual issue. The "right" protests, meanwhile, generally about informing and gathering momentum to make actual changes - by vote.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 17, 2012 -> 11:44 AM) Totally! Why can't they be more peaceful looking like these folks? Yeah my issue isn't with them looking menacing. It's hiding behind a mask. Note that the people in the photo you linked are clearly visible.

QUOTE (Brian @ May 17, 2012 -> 10:06 AM) Stations keep looking for the next LOST like phenomenon. Flash forward, The Event, etc... Agree about Gus but these shows need to develop characters to get any kind of following. Not just try and play out a gimmick. This has a good start in that it's Chicago post-apocalypse so it's all over grown. If they do it right this could be a huge hit that sorta feeds on the The Walking Dead popularity (different factions in a lawless society) I also thought The Last Resort looked interesting. Crimson Tide meets Under Siege.

Anyone check out NBC's "Revolution" trailer? Looks pretty good, though I'm sure they'll screw it up like they did Terra Nova (i.e., a good long adventure/mystery story idea turns into week-to-week procedural). http://www.nbc.com/revolution/

Or even the non-violent but illegal "peaceful protest" that happened 2 days ago, when people bumrushed into the AON building towards Obama's NATO HQ. Totally peaceful. They had every right to enter the building! Look, I agree that it's unfair to paint the entire leftist protesting community as being violent. But you're being entirely dishonest by pretending like these things don't almost always end up with SOME violence. This City has spent MONTHS preparing for this weekend. That's not because of some unjustified fear for what these groups intend to do. Yes, as Balta said, this has become part of the protocol, but that's specifically because of prior events. When people sitting in a public plaza are beaten I'll agree the response is too much. Until then, it's ludicrous that people go into a protest EXPECTING to get pepper sprayed. The intent is 100% to get into the middle of a confrontation.