Judge: I saw police commit felonies (Miami protests)

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


Thats exactly what happened here in DC. I forget which protest it was from (we've got so many) the protesters gathered in, I think it was Freedom Plaza (ironic, eh?) and from what I hear they weren't even protesting really. They were just sitting around, beating drums, resting, etc. The police encircled the park on all sides, issues the order to dispurse that anyone remaining in the park will be arrested, then anyone trying to leave was forced back into the park. A few hundred people were arrested.

Same thing in Montreal in July 2003 at a WTO summit.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


I thought you were innocent until found guilty.

BAH -- such a frivuluous, anacrhonistic principle.

[Harry Tuttle]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/11/...sts/index.html

Police, protesters clash near Miami trade talks
Thursday, November 20, 2003 Posted: 10:20 PM EST (0320 GMT)

Miami police detain a protester Thursday near the site of talks on expanding a free-trade zone.

MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- Police used batons, pepper spray and tear gas Thursday to push back protesters near the site of international talks aimed at creating a free-trade zone spanning the Western Hemisphere.

Police said 74 people were arrested and 42 protesters were injured, including 10 who had to be hospitalized. Three police officers were also slightly injured.

Many of the protesters wore gas masks and bandannas to protect themselves from the gas. At least one canister of pepper spray was thrown back at police.

Backed by armored personnel carriers, officers in riot gear pushed demonstrators about 300 yards away from the Bayfront Park Amphitheater.

Inside, ministers from 34 countries were trying to hammer out a proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas, a free-trade zone that would stretch across the Western Hemisphere from the Arctic Circle to Tierra del Fuego.

Richard Mills, a member of the U.S. delegation, said a framework calling for a trade pact by 2005 had been reached, allowing the talks, which had been scheduled to continue Friday, to adjourn a day early.

Critics say the expansion of free trade rules would spur companies to cut U.S. jobs and move work to countries where workers are paid less and environmental and labor standards are lower.

Proponents of free trade insist that in the long term tearing down trade barriers between countries will create jobs and prosperity.

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick said the framework was a good start, but a lot of work remained to be done in several areas of the draft.

"The U.S. is very committed and our agricultural community is ... committed to eliminating export subsidies to getting significant cuts in domestic subsidies, and also obviously to get significant market access," Zoellick said in a news conference.

The talks themselves have not garnered as much interest as the protests surrounding them.

Police had several clashes with protesters and used pepper spray and tear gas against the crowds. Ten demonstrators had to be treated by hazardous materials teams, police said.

At one point, officers banging their batons against their riot shields pushed demonstrators up Biscayne Boulevard and away from the waterfront hall where the meeting was being held.

Earlier in the day, about 1,000 protesters confronted police and attempted to pull down a fence surrounding the meeting site.

Police later showed reporters materials they had confiscated from demonstrators, including rubber wrist slings used to fire debris at police, ingredients for makeshift Molotov cocktails, and containers full of urine and feces.

The protests, which did not have a city permit, drew participants from various groups opposed to an expansion of free-trade pacts.

But a larger demonstration, organized by the AFL-CIO, was held without incident Thursday afternoon. The union rally was expected to draw about 10,000 people.

Trade conferences have been surrounded by heavy security since riots in 1999 outside a World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle, Washington.

An estimated 2,500 police in full riot gear from 40 agencies were on duty around the Miami talks.

Lt. Bill Schwartz, a Miami police spokesman, said authorities were particularly wary of "a very small percent of anarchists who cause anarchy for the sake of anarchy." But he said most demonstrators were less aggressive than police expected.

"They've come forward, they've been a little aggressive at times, so we've shown them that we're trained and prepared for that and they step back," Schwartz said.





Ok, that was a post from the CNN story about the Miami riots.

Now let's all take a look at the part that says: "Earlier in the day, about 1,000 protesters confronted police and attempted to pull down a fence surrounding the meeting site."

and then the other part: "Police later showed reporters materials they had confiscated from demonstrators, including rubber wrist slings used to fire debris at police, ingredients for makeshift Molotov cocktails, and containers full of urine and feces."

and finally: "The protests, which did not have a city permit, drew participants from various groups opposed to an expansion of free-trade pacts."

Now, based on the past bunch of "rallies" that have been held around the world that are against free trade, and I'll name the November 1999 WTO riots in Seattle which caused millions in damages ( http://www.cnn.com/US/9911/30/wto.04/index.html ), don't you think the police might be a bit pissed off and extra jumpy when the fun loving, anti-globalization people come to town?

And no Boris, you are trying to insert irrelevant words into your arguments again. There was no trial on the street, only the police protecting their city.

And please, trying to compare anti-globalization protests to the civil rights marches during the 60's is a real dishonor to the meaning of the civil rights movement. In the 60's those were black children standing up and taking firehoses for the right to exist as an equal person. Today we have malcontents and anarchists who insist on acting the part of revolutionaries but then strap on their Birkenstocks and eat their McDonalds after mommy and daddy call them on their cell phone and insist they come home.

And yes, the First Amendment does require a permit. The time and place of free speech can be regulated. If it wasn't we'd have people denying others their right to protest - namely the peaceful demonstrators of the AFL CIO, who have in the past, been herded away from their mandated spots because a bunch of anarchists decided to start smashing windows.

And yes, the mounted police do use the weight of their horses for crowd control. Sometimes they do it on purpose, but most times they can't control them close to the crowd because they are riding a huge 8 foot tall animal. I know, I've been "pushed" before at parades. Just tell the cop to mind his goddamn mount.

And do the police provacate the violence we see so often at these rallies? Probably, but sometimes it's the protesters who get spooked. And remember, the police are allowed to bring batons and assorted pieces of riot gear. I don't know of any city that will allow you to carry material for molotov cocktails and human feces around with you on the street.

Also, it's kind of hard to move emergency vehicles and security details for the delegates at the talks if there are a bunch of non-sanctioned protesters blocking the street. The police have a duty to clear access.

Alright, I'm done. Flame away........

[Oncle Boris]

All right. Now that we have the CNN version, let's read this one:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20.../index_np.html

WARNING: you'll have to see some crappy communist propaganda if you want to read the article. Just don't mind it.

Now let's talk about bias.

Your posted article mentions the American spokeman talking about ending agricultural subsidies. But did you know that in the latest WTO meeting, Third World countries ended discussions half a day earlier as a protest of the American unwillingness to cease agricultural subsidies?

I'm not sure that the American stance on that one has changed much. Asking a delegate of a Latin American country about it would have been the least thing to do.

Now talk about the violence. There are no quotes from protesters, but there are some from the police.

What I can tell you is that the police does not hesitate in creating evidence in such circumstances. I have once been arrested myself. They seized my friend's flag, claiming it was a disguised weapon. Have you ever fought with a paltry flag stick? If he had had bad intentions, he would have brought something more... efficient.
And now the worse: I saw the police seize a PLASTIC bottle, claiming it could be used as a Molotov Cocktail. And yes, what did I read in the papers the next morning: Demo downtown. Protesters planned on using Molotov cocktails.

Maybe you are asking yourself why I have no trust at all in our so called democracy. This kind of things give me the urge to vomit.

If the journalist had cared for our version, she would have written: "Police lies to media" instead of "Anarchists want to destroy our country".
Still, I'm not that sure the paper's owner would have let her do this.

And what do you think happens when you read biased articles, both in its coverage of the talks and of the demo? You just feel like throwing rocks at the police next time it happens. I know many pacific people who are more and more supportive of violence because of the police abuses. And Rupert Murdoch won't give their point of view on Fox News.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
All right. Now that we have the CNN version, let's read this one:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20.../index_np.html

It'd be nice if we could read the entire article instead of just the beginning piece of some poorly written Op/Ed title. Find an article that doesn't require a subscription.

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
WARNING: you'll have to see some crappy communist propaganda if you want to read the article. Just don't mind it.

No, I will mind it. The article is tainted if it's biased.

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Now let's talk about bias.

Your posted article mentions the American spokeman talking about ending agricultural subsidies. But did you know that in the latest WTO meeting, Third World countries ended discussions half a day earlier as a protest of the American unwillingness to cease agricultural subsidies?

I'm not sure that the American stance on that one has changed much. Asking a delegate of a Latin American country about it would have been the least thing to do..

When exactly was this thread about agricultural subsidies? Stop changing the subject.

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Now talk about the violence. There are no quotes from protesters, but there are some from the police.

What I can tell you is that the police does not hesitate in creating evidence in such circumstances. I have once been arrested myself. They seized my friend's flag, claiming it was a disguised weapon. Have you ever fought with a paltry flag stick? If he had had bad intentions, he would have brought something more... efficient.
And now the worse: I saw the police seize a PLASTIC bottle, claiming it could be used as a Molotov Cocktail. And yes, what did I read in the papers the next morning: Demo downtown. Protesters planned on using Molotov cocktails.

Yes I have been stabbed by a paltry flag stick. They are made of wood. They hurt. And yeah, containers that hold liquid can hold gasoline.

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Maybe you are asking yourself why I have no trust at all in our so called democracy. This kind of things give me the urge to vomit.

If the journalist had cared for our version, she would have written: "Police lies to media" instead of "Anarchists want to destroy our country".
Still, I'm not that sure the paper's owner would have let her do this.

If your talking about my democracy you should quote an unbiased source. And the notion of democracy has nothing to do with rights or free speech. It's a system that allows for the populace to choose its leaders. Plus this is website is two shades less than a gossip magazine.

Originally posted by Oncle Boris And what do you think happens when you read biased articles, both in its coverage of the talks and of the demo? You just feel like throwing rocks at the police next time it happens. I know many pacific people who are more and more supportive of violence because of the police abuses. And Rupert Murdoch won't give their point of view on Fox News.

So you feel like committing an act of violence because some reporter didn't seek you out so you could ramble on about what you think happened... And yes, I'm sure that you know lots of people who are more supportive of violence against the police. Irrational people tend to stick together.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
more power to the police. ming and ur are loons anyhow.

[Timexwatch]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


Thats exactly what happened here in DC. I forget which protest it was from (we've got so many) the protesters gathered in, I think it was Freedom Plaza (ironic, eh?) and from what I hear they weren't even protesting really. They were just sitting around, beating drums, resting, etc. The police encircled the park on all sides, issues the order to dispurse that anyone remaining in the park will be arrested, then anyone trying to leave was forced back into the park. A few hundred people were arrested.

I haven't been checking that closely, but I believe that it has come out due to a lawsuit that Metro PD probably failed to provide adaquate warning for that particular mass arrest. I think that the Metro PD will have their asses handed to them. The AFL-CIO, the Sierra Club, and the United Steelworkers are making noise trying to get the feds to investigate

There's a couple of controversies brewing, including undercover DCPD officers infiltrating protest groups and harassment of small protest events.

At least I give credit to the Chief, for all his flaws he does get out and help calm things on occasion. I have a picture of him from about 4 feet away separating anti-war protestors from pro-war protestors.

[Az]

I just LOVE your quote, UberKrux.

[debeest]

But, Uberkrux, I wonder what you mean by your post that simply pulls Q Cubed's stupid quote?

[Ned]

I see that the responders to my post continue to insist that they have an unlimited right to protest

-- the right to protest without a permit
-- the right to protest without obeying lawful orders of the police
-- the right to attack the police during a protest
-- the right to cause property damage during a protest

In truth, this all started not with the civil rights marchers who (if my memory serves me) had permits and were attacked by the KKK and their ilk and not by the police, but by the Weather Underground who deliberately provoked violence with the police in Chicago in '69. Radical groups have been using the same methods since.

[debeest]

Ned, why are you raising the same questions that have already been answered?

When I was grabbed by the police,

1) the demonstration required no permit,
2) I was violating no law, and I was carefully following clear and explicit instructions from the police,
3) I didn't attack the police, and neither did anyone else at any point -- if anything, the police attacked me; and
4) I was not damaging any property.

I was seized and arrested simply because I was amongst others voicing opinion counter to American policy.

Of course, this didn't start with WTO or with the 1960s or with Gandhi or even with the Haymarket riots or the Whiskey Rebellion in the 1800s. It didn't start with the Boston Tea Party or the Boston Massacre in the American Revolution. People have been protesting bad government for a long time, and often suffering for it without breaking any law. The police aren't always evil and corrupt, but like any other group of people, plenty of them are. The difference is, the police get to break people's heads and get away with it.

[Ned]

debeest, there are some protests that are inherently illegal -- like those that proceed by trespassing. I remember clearly the debates on this issue when the first "sit-ins" on public property were held. The courts uniformly ruled such demonstrations illegal.

From the description of the events surrounding your arrest, you appear to have been participating in an illegal protest. Second, you were probably arrested because you did something illegal beyond just standing there and protesting with scores of others. That is why the officer chased after you to make the arrest.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ned
I see that the responders to my post continue to insist that they have an unlimited right to protest

-- the right to protest without a permit
-- the right to protest without obeying lawful orders of the police
-- the right to attack the police during a protest
-- the right to cause property damage during a protest

In truth, this all started not with the civil rights marchers who (if my memory serves me) had permits and were attacked by the KKK and their ilk and not by the police, but by the Weather Underground who deliberately provoked violence with the police in Chicago in '69. Radical groups have been using the same methods since.

You know, a country that requires people to have a permit to assemble together and express their views is at root a fascist state. I don't accept that I need ****ing permission to speak my mind with like minded people and if the police want to try to stop that, they deserve all they get. The media get so sad when a cop gets a brick in the face, but they don't seem to care when the pigs tie up pregnant women, or gas people who aren't doing anything.

And get real. The police sometimes feel they have some moral duty to beat up on left wing protesters, even when they aren't doing anything wrong.

The law is an ass. If the government needs to put up fences to keep angry mobs away from its doings, then it's probably a lousy government. Of course people like Q Cubed are quite happy to sit on their backsides while unelected mandarins subvert and remove our democratic rights.

[Q Classic]

more power to the wto protestors. the police are all loons anyhow.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
more power to the wto protestors. the police are all loons anyhow.

Doesn't Kim Dae Jung walk with a limp because he got beaten up by the pigs?

[Q Classic]

kim dae-jung == corrupt ass.

[Q Classic]

Of course people like Q Cubed are quite happy to sit on their backsides while unelected mandarins subvert and remove our democratic rights.

thanks for mentioning me. even if that's wrong.

[debeest]

Ned, it's as if you're deliberately pretending to be stupid. Didn't I already say I wasn't doing anything illegal? Why do you so confidently presume to know that I was? Do you really find it that hard to believe that the police sometimes violate the law and mistreat innocent people? Do you pay no attention whatsoever to any form of media? You can't go a month without seeing some new instance of unfounded police abuse! Like Dave Barry says, we don't make this stuff up. We don't have to.

Remember Reagan's attorney general Ed Meese? Remember his line that they wouldn't be investigating anyone if they weren't guilty? Does that sound to you like the American system of justice we all like to imagine we can depend on?

Only the most closed of minds could so mindlessly persevere in insisting that, "hey, I don't know this guy, but there's no way he could have been assaulted and arrested if he wasn't violating the law."

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Ned
debeest, there are some protests that are inherently illegal -- like those that proceed by trespassing. I remember clearly the debates on this issue when the first "sit-ins" on public property were held. The courts uniformly ruled such demonstrations illegal.

From the description of the events surrounding your arrest, you appear to have been participating in an illegal protest. Second, you were probably arrested because you did something illegal beyond just standing there and protesting with scores of others. That is why the officer chased after you to make the arrest.

Ned, if you went to a demo yourself, you would realize how wrong you are. The police DON'T give the orders. They just pretend to the media they have, and guess what? Most of the time the journalists don't check with the protesters if it is true. I've witnessed this myself on several occasions, and I totally agree with Agathon. The law is lousy, fvck the police.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Ned, if you went to a demo yourself, you would realize how wrong you are. The police DON'T give the orders. They just pretend to the media they have, and guess what? Most of the time the journalists don't check with the protesters if it is true. I've witnessed this myself on several occasions, and I totally agree with Agathon. The law is lousy, fvck the police.

of course ned is wrong... all his info comes from Fox news... what do you expect?

oh yeah, fox news is right, and first hand accounts and recordings of the ACTUAL INCIDENT are all wrong...