Police action in Oslo.

Remove all ads!

If it is the only way to teach that person something about respect for authorities, then it has to be done.

 

Ouch! Mollusken, I can't say I agree with you, but I also can't say I disagree. A lot of those protesters are nothing but troublemakers who have no respect for anyone else's property.

However, Chevalier, I see you are from Poland. I'm thinking you are thinking of the Solidarity business in the 80s. Police do need to have a great amount of oversite to ensure abuse does not occur.

 

Damn Mollusken, you are true little fascisti here. You do not learn to respect authoroties by getting a club in your head, the only thing that teaches them is to despise and fear the authorities. Even if the police is verbally abused and goaded it doesnt justify them beating up people, if they are not allowed to beat up a murderer they apprehend why should they be allowed to beat up teenage girls walking in a demostration and calling policemen pigs? In a democratic society the police must be held to higher standards than the rest of us, they can not give in to fear and anger no matter how much pressure that is on them.

One thing that I find funny though is that I have never seen the police wrestling and kicking on big strong men, or them smacking illegal nazi demostrators on the head, and I have seen nazi's toss both insults and stones at the police and they have done nothing. It is most often demonstrations dominated by 'leftist' and young people that gets the smack down, preferably people that are totally unable to resist even if they wanted to. Which hopefully is just how the media depicts it but then the picture shouldnt really be as one sided as it is.

 

And what's that authority's worth then?

If we are to beat people for disagreeing with government's policy (ekhm, foreign government's policy in this case) what point voting?

So, who disagrees with the authorities should be beaten, right?

Besides, what was the harm done on the side of that woman?

Speaking about Poland and solidarity: the terrorist red regime that held the police was illegal and criminal. Legal authorities resided in London at the time.

 

Actually, Joacqin, if you ever saw the Rodney King video, you saw the police beating on a big, strong man. What that video didn't show, though, was that he had attacked the police, been tasered twice, and was still coming at the cops! So they did everything in their power to stop him. I honestly believe they overdid it, but I also feel for them, just a little bit.

I certainly don't think that people should be beaten on for disagreeing with the government. I do think they deserve it if they either a) get violent or b) begin to destroy or trespass on the property of others. That includes unlawful use of public property. If they refuse to listen to reasoned requests to stop an unlawful act (here comes the "fascisti" as Joacqin puts it ) they need to be physically stopped, and they deserve everything they get.

Lots of demonstrators have their say peacefully; I can't help but think that most of those who have problems tend to bring it on themselves.

 

@Mollusken

Bah! Ya, you heard me. Bah! Why would you need authority beaten into you. If that's the case, we've become a communist country at heart. People should always be protesting and never accept things, cause then you've given up and they win. ANARCHY IN THE UK! (courtesy of the Sex Pistols)
We don't need your war machines (Anti-Flag)
Racist Cops and Racist Judges (Anti-Flag)
You might not think there's any wisdom in an effed up punk rock song (Bad Religion)
The War to end all wars, to begin a new war (Rancid)
I could go on, but I doubt you read the ones I wrote anyway

 

I do not see the problem here. If you follow the laws and act like a civilized and mature human being, you have absolutely nothing to fear from the police. But from the very second you show disrespect to the society in one way or another, you should be prepared to take your punishment. If you resist, well that's your stupidity and you are the only one to blame. I will not feel sorry for you.

And the police do not attack unprovoked. They're far to professional for that.

 

I could give you quite a few examples of total unprofessionalism and power abuse by the police that I have either witnessed myself, been subjected to or heards from a reliable source. So in this case, I am, even without seeing the tape liable to believe that the woman on the tape was a victim of police brutality.

(Bitter much? Hell yeah!)

 

I have heard of many cases where protesting groups such as animal rights activists all the way to feminists would be made up mostly of people who were in it for the attention. You can obviously see the potential inherent in these groups, several hundred people who all want camera time at any cost. On the original point, I think police brutality sucks but on the other hand all the peaceful protestors would have run a long time ago so it's a safe assumption that any person still around is probably waiting for an opportunity to kick ass. On this subject it amazes me that so many troublemakers are incapable of defending themselves, you'd think that someone who was preparing themselves to do battle with the police would be better prepared for hand to hand combat but Noooooo.

 

Yes Mollusken if you do break the laws you should be punished, but not by the police. The police of today isnt any Judge Dredd's who are both police and judge in one. Punishment is decided by a court of law, not by a policeofficer bearing a grudge because someone called him fascist pig.

 

Mollusken, a few questions:

1. If you remain within the laws, who defines maturity and civilised behaviour standards, especially on the spot?

2. Since when is protesting against a war uncivilised or immature (let's leave aside our views on the war, 90% of Alley is about that)?

3. In what way is expressing possibly different opinions showing disrespect?

4. Should one be prepared for carnal punishment for disrespecting the society?

5. Is lying face down resisting?

6. Since when is resisting to direct carnal assault stupidity?

7. Is stupidity punishable under any law?

8. Who has given the police the right to punish people?

9. On what do you base the assumption that police don't attack unprovoked?

10. How should facts (however more or less blurred) submit to generalisations based on opinions?

No, it's not personal

 

1. If you remain within the laws, you are mature and civilized, and you are a good example to others. Nobody has any reason to bother with what you do.

2. While my personal views are different in this case, I have to admit that there is nothing wrong against protesting against a war. But throwing rocks and disrespectful comments at the forces of law is very wrong.

3. It's a question of how you choose to do this.

4. Yes. By showing disrespect to the society (which in Norway is one of the best ones in this world to live in), you are immature and a disgrace to all of us and those who built the society.

5. You can still speak while laying on the ground.

6. It will only result in more "carnal assault".

7. It is stupidity to break the law, so the answer is yes.

8. Who has given people right to throw rocks and be rude against the police?

9. As a good citizen, I have to believe that what the authorities do is right without exceptions. If everyone were to have doubts in the police, why should we ever care to follow the laws?

10. I'm afraid I don't understand that question.

 

So you directly state that carnal punishment is due in case of disrespect towards the society and that the police has the right to exercise it with no legal reference. You also state that speaking may deserve punishment including carnal punishment and that the police has the right to beat you to silence you.

You base some of your arguments on that the protesters broke the law. Some of them certainly did - by insulting officers which is a matter for courts and doesn't necessitate any defensive action. Others resisted the police - while this is normally a breach of law it's conditional upon the police acting within the law. If the police act illegally or even unlawfully it's simply self-defence. However, this only applies to a narrow group of demonstrators. The one I'm speaking of are the men and women lying down on the street and bitten (I repeat: bitten) by police dogs and hit by officers with rubber staves and using techniques designed to inflict more pain. Even if they would normally offer some resistance, which I doubt, they weren't able to. Note also that those didn't violate any law whatsoever. If you still insist on your points you therefore believe that police officers have the right to administer carnal (I repeat: carnal) punishment regardless of the law if they consider someone rude (whether or not legally insulting) towards themselves or a part of society (I'm not sure if we may speak of majority in this case since generally only minorities and governments support the war in Europe) or the government.

Finally, if you say that breaking laws is stupidity, then the police are stupid when they act against the law - thus they deserve punishment as you say that stupidity is punishable. What's more you also state that breaking laws deserves carnal punishment and so does disrespecting the society. So when the police act outside the law (abuse their power or usurp competence) they deserve beating and they also deserve beating for beating defenceless people which is disrespect towards the morals of most societies constituting the majority of the Earth's inhabitants. Or there is some other solution: the police have the right to act outside or contrary to the law while no other person or body does.

[ April 10, 2003, 12:51: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

It is true that a thrown rock may not hurt an armored policeman. However, if the protesters get away with that, they'll start throwing bigger rocks and maybe even go for guns. The police have to take steps to stop that sort of behaviour, or else things will break down very quickly.

Here's the scenario as I see it. A protestor either verbally or physically assaults an officer. He (we'll assume the protestor is male for the sake of writing convenience) is asked to either a) withdraw or b) come along -- he is being arrested (verbal assault is a crime, folks!) He refuses. So, the police use the techniques they were trained to use. The protestor resists, so the intensity of techniqe increases. Instead of being a decent, law abiding citizen and cooperating with the police, the resistance increases. So does the level of physical force used by the officers. Does it sound reasonable for the police to let someone get away with a crime because they are resisting? Not likely. At this point the camera starts rolling, and people say "did it really take all those cops to subdue that one guy?" Well, if he was resisting arrest, then yes, it did take a few. And the camera conveniently doesn't show how the situation got this way, or the fact that the police originally used peaceful methods of dealing with this guy.

Please note that I'm not talking about demonstrating. Demonstrating is fine and dandy, but breaking the law isn't. In this scenario, which is in my opinion the most likely one, the police did not act outside the law at all -- just because someone is at a protest doesn't give them the right to break the law.

 

I simply do not understand were you get these views from. Where you there to see it? Do you choose to trust what a TV channel (commercial?) instead of the police? I believe the police knows a lot more about what they're doing than those TV reporters, you, me or any other person at these boards.

 

Of course the police know better - only I'm somehow unlikely to take any spokesman's word on anything. I'm more likely to believe what journalists say and show, but I'm a realist and I know 90% of them are leftists and some half are chronic liars.

However, verbal assault is not a crime for which one should be dragged into prison for a day until the charge is made up. It's a plain civil law suit between two private parties unless, as in several legal systems, it's prosecuted penally. In that case it's still a private accusation (generally). Perhaps obscene and continous verbal abuse could be stopped by the police preventing the person from speaking, but not beating him up afterwards! As I say - the police are under no circumstances to administer punishment apart from just levying fines. What's more, there is no carnal punishment in any democratic system.

I also specifically stress that beating already made powerless people is a criminal activity no matter in whose performance. Tell me please, how can a woman pressed down to the ground pose a threat to a bunch of armoured and trained men especially if she had not been taking violent actions. Or if she does not pose a threat, then she must have deserved beating, there's no third possibility. Tell me more about how it's possible to deserve beating legally in a democratic system.

Another thing I stress is using dogs on helpless people. Police dog's won't touch a cat if not allowed to. Someone must have let them run rampant.

Besides, there is no evidence of all protesters having committed the crimes mentioned and liability is always individual as a rule. In the case of those who haven't violated any law, there are two rules: 1) there's no crime other than specified by the law 2) there's no punishment other than prescribed by the law.

 

You have absolutely no reasons to judge who is innocent, who which does not give any resistance, who which is defenceless and who which is extremly rude towards the police, from seeing something in the news at TV. You were not there to see anything, and you critisism of the police has no solid foundation.

And when it comes to the dogs: While normal policemen may not be enough to scare people, there are extremly few who are not afraid of angry dogs. They're very effective, and as I've stated before they probably don't bite people just for fun.

How do you suggest that we are going to keep law an order in this world? When situations are extreme, such as big, criminal protests, the police has to use extreme actions to set an example. Do you believe that "everyone will be nice if the police is nice"?

 

Well, Mollusken, I wouldn't classify protests as criminal -- in most countries, they're not -- but certainly criminal activity happens during protests. If the police do not take steps, then why bother, lets just be anarchists! Every man for himself!

Ahem, sorry if I got silly there, but I just get really upset when we say to our police forces "we will underpay you and expect you to risk your life for us, and at the same time we will second guess you every step of the way and believe anything bad about you." Not the way to treat the people who strive to keep us safe.

 

What about individual liability? Are all protesters criminals because some have broken some law?

And it doesn't take a sage elf to judge that a person pressed down to the ground by a bunch of guys is not a threat to public order - especially a woman.

What I am going to say is simple: from what you say it is easily seen that you advocate carnal punishment and that you give the police more rights than they legally have.

In this case the government didn't want the trouble of the protesters being there and wanted them go home. Since they refused they are criminals. Right?

What if you went to protest against something and a guy next to you said a few rude words to a policeman for which all of you got beaten, kicked and bitten?

 

The police does not have time or resources to beat up everyone in a criminal crowd, and therefor has to take those who are worst. Their main goal is to scare and spread the criminals, because if they're gathered as a big crowd they will to much vorse things than they would do alone. And because of this confidence the crowd gives them, the only thing they will understand is violence.

As we know, protests such as this one always has a certain amount of morons in it. The police didn't start the fights, because protests are legal (in oppositions to being rude against and throwing rocks at the police). It's strange how protests against wars and stuff involving the USA often seem to end up in a mess, while serious protests against issues such as racism are much bigger and are completely without problems.