The overuse of chemical agents is really pretty strange. I can maybe see using them in extreme situations; if people are in the process of burning down a building by throwing molotov cocktails through the windows, dispersing them with tear gas might be the only real option. But using chemical agents on people sitting on a lawn seems like a pretty poor balancing of force versus danger/urgency.
One question is whether this is primarily a matter of bad policy, or of bad training. Are police officers using pepper spray, for example, in situations that policy does not call for, due to some hotheads being angry at protestors? Or are they acting properly according to the policy, so it's the policy/superiors who are at fault?
If you're in a situation where a police officer is entitled to arrest you, but he physically can't arrest you because you're sitting on the ground with your arms linked with somebody else, then the police officer is entitled to use reasonable force in order to arrest you. Pepper spray is the least dangerous way (to you) to do this -- all other possibilities run the risk of breaking your arms.
I'm really sick of this game, though. The game where protestors deliberately work as hard as they possibly can in order to provoke a police response, and then whine about the police response. This is a game the police can't possibly win, and the protestors know it; that's why they play it. If the police don't respond, then the protestors will just escalate their douchiness until they do.
I know this game, it's the game I used to play with my older brother. Harass him until he hits me, and then go whine to my parents. It was pretty douchey of me, but hey, I was a kid. These kids are supposed to be grown up, what's their excuse?
> It's called being a complete cunt to your fellow human beings
I can certainly agree that the policeman in question fits that description. But I'm sure he was "just following orders", which included the very urgent task of clearing some random sidewalk in a park. Although who is the bigger piece of shit depends in part on whether he was indeed ordered to do it, or was simply a poorly trained hothead acting without authorization (the police are sadly not empty of of power-hungry assholes who will use any excuse to "teach people a lesson", though I don't think such bad apples are quite as common as some people allege).
Frankly, I'm sick of people such as yourself cheerleading violence against people you don't like, WWF-style, because you're fighting some sort of culture war against the imagined enemy of hippiedom, and feel that you can use any means necessary to fight it, including violent ones. That sort of playground bullshit is to be expected in kids, but you're grown up, so what's your excuse for not applying some rational analysis to the pros/cons of using violence?
Actually, in the kid example, I blame the kid who punched there too. Poor impulse control isn't a justification for violence, and kids like that, if that behavior isn't fixed, often grow up to be violent adults who get "provoked" into fights, justifying it, just like the kid, by blaming someone else for "forcing" them to throw a punch in the bar.
If you don't want to see intemperate comments calling people cunts, it's in your power to stop that by not posting them. Nobody's even making you click on the story or comments at all!
After all these are submission GUIDELINES - not submission LAW.
And between startup hustle, scala and lolcats there is a wide array of possibilities. When an unwanted submission appears it is either A) Ignored or B) Upvoted.
If you don't agree with submission you can flag it and after enough members of community have done so it will go away.
There is really no need for some of us going around and act rude towards people who have different tastes/priorities.
This kind of holistic argument contributes way more noise than the stories themselves.
I don't mind the bit which calls people cunts (and I apologize for the fact that I deleted that particular bit in favour of a pithier bit while you were writing your own comment), it's everything else.
The game where protestors deliberately work as hard as they possibly can in order to provoke a police response, and then whine about the police response. This is a game the police can't possibly win, and the protestors know it; that's why they play it.
The protesters should adopt this tactic widely: sit on the ground, link arms, and force the hand of the police: "pepper spray me, I dare you". The police are entitled, indeed obligated to arrest them, after all.
The protesters should adopt this tactic widely: sit on the ground, link arms, and force the hand of the police: "pepper spray me, I dare you". The police are entitled, indeed obligated to arrest them, after all.
First off, "obligated" isn't a word. The word is "obliged".
Secondly, what do you mean "they should"? They already do. It's the number one move in the left-wing activist's playbook -- provoke the police until they use force, and then go play the victim card to the media.
Blame for the widespread nature of this tactic belongs partly with the protestors, and partly with the media who go along with it. Sensible people should reject this game, because it just makes life worse for everybody.
You got pepper-sprayed? Diddums, mate, that's exactly what you wanted to happen.
The Tea Party proved that you can have a mass protest movement that doesn't get in the way of others, and doesn't break the law. Unfortunately it also proved that a nonviolent protest needs to be ten times larger than a violent protest in order to get the same amount of media attention.
First off, "obligated" isn't a word. The word is "obliged".
Hugh --
I frequently agree with what you have to say, but have trouble with the way that you are saying it. I worry that your rhetoric gets in the way of your point. I love that you are offering a refreshing opinion, but it would be great if you could do it in a less offensive manner.
To wit, saying "First off X isn't a word" is offensive and impolite even if you are right. There are many non-English speakers in this forum, and being pedantic where the meaning is clear is counter-productive. In this case it's even worse, because you are pedantic and wrong. This makes it hard for me (and presumably others) to consider the point you are making without prejudice. I think I actually I agree with what you are saying, but now I have to worry that others will tar me with the same brush.
One question is whether this is primarily a matter of bad policy, or of bad training. Are police officers using pepper spray, for example, in situations that policy does not call for, due to some hotheads being angry at protestors? Or are they acting properly according to the policy, so it's the policy/superiors who are at fault?