Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → So a pregnant teenager, an elderly woman, and a priest...
So a pregnant teenager, an elderly woman, and a priest are walking down the street in Seattle...
And the cops pepper spray 'em.
Bet you didn't expect that one coming.
http://cdn.theatlanticwire.com/img/upload/2011/11/16/seattle/large.jpg
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/11/84-year-old-woman-becomes-pepper-sprayed-face-occupy-seattle/45035/
The [...] is a pregnant teenager, an elderly woman and a priest doing at a riot?
Pregnant teen got lost looking for her friends drunken party so she can get knocked up again (...don't ask me how that works)
The elderly woman was telling the punk kids to get off her lawn
And the priest...well he was called in to perform an exorcism on the "evil" corporations...
> ~Wornstrum~ wrote:
> Pregnant teen got lost looking for her friends drunken party so she can get knocked up again (...don't ask me how that works)
The elderly woman was telling the punk kids to get off her lawn
And the priest...well he heard the protests were approved for 8 year olds and up...
Wow. Wornstrum, this is not funny. Poor taste.
The legal system and law enforcement is seen to have primarily worked for the interests of the corporate elite rather than ensuring the public good; the pursuit of justice has become increasingly out-of-reach for the majority, and increasingly afforded only those with enough money to pay the outlandish costs associated with the pursuit of justice; the public has become increasingly disillusioned with and disenfranchised from the justice system and the political process; the notion that government and the justice system should be accountable to the public and work to ensure the public good has been eroded as government has become increasingly complacent to the whims of the corporate elite; and, therefore, when the establishment is so very close to breaking its social contract with the public; in a time when there is thus anti-establishment sentiment rising around the world, the last thing police should be doing is over-stepping the limits imposed on their power under the law, unless, of course, it is their aim to exacerbate the situation.
When police brutality / violence abuse of police powers becomes the norm; when it becomes expected, well, let's just say that, legally, those members of the public who have come to expect such brutality have every right under the law to take extraordinary measures to defend themselves.
And in the event that abuse of power against the public becomes the norm, class-action lawsuits suing the government for taxes paid would be justified, in my opinion, under grounds that paying taxes to a government (be it municipal, state / province, or federal) which is in violation of its social contract is unethical.
> xeno syndicated wrote:
> Wow. Wornstrum, this is not funny. Poor taste.
I make only one apology and that is for the priest comment, it was low. My attempt at humour was to point out the obserdity of the media. By referencing these 3 people specifically, they are making a plea to the emotional heart of the readers. Anyone at that protest should not complain if they cop pepper spray in the face, it's as simple as that. It is media hype to ellicit emotional rage and hype up police brutality (which I question existed since she was carried away with pepper spray in her face, so not arrested, and they also commented on her political interests, so maybe she was yelling at the police to get off her lawn, who knows?). We do not know what these people were doing, nor why they were there, hence the humour...I will change the priest comment (that could be upsetting to some people)
While the establishment / corporate elite have the resources and the inclination to use the most severe and the most inciting measure available to them under the law to oppress / brutalize or otherwise tax / profit from the public / customer, the public / customer usually have only those resources and inclination to use the mildest, least inciting measures available to them under the law to protect themselves.
Why is this?
> xeno syndicated wrote:
> While the establishment / corporate elite have the resources and the inclination to use the most severe and the most inciting measure available to them under the law to oppress / brutalize or otherwise tax / profit from the public / customer, the public / customer usually have only those resources and inclination to use the mildest, least inciting measures available to them under the law to protect themselves.
Why is this?
And at what point did I disagree with that? Money is power unfortunately, but thankfully Australia I feel is less like this actually. There are many government agencies setup in order to protect the public/consumer. The ACCC governs pricing in the market to ensure corporations are fair. The TIO charges any company when ever a complaint is received, so the establishment of ombudsman in Australia actually shifts any cost of complaints onto the corporation, whether right or wrong. So actually I might even say that there are methods in which people can seek protection against certain practices without any cost to themselves.
But this gets away from anything this forum was actually about. Some people got pepper sprayed when protesting, it happens...consider it "occupational" risk (get it, because it is the "Occupy movement"?)
> ~Wornstrum~ wrote:
> > xeno syndicated wrote:
> >While the establishment / corporate elite have the resources and the inclination to use the most severe and the most inciting measure available to them under the law to oppress / brutalize or otherwise tax / profit from the public / customer, the public / customer usually have only those resources and inclination to use the mildest, least inciting measures available to them under the law to protect themselves.
Why is this?
>And at what point did I disagree with that?
I didn't mean to accuse you of not agreeing with it. I was simply stating a point of fact as a sub-topic of relevance and interest to the current main topic.
>Money is power unfortunately, but thankfully Australia I feel is less like this actually. There are many government agencies setup in order to protect the public/consumer.
Some governments are better than others, and I do admit the Australian government seems alright, although they do pander and compromise to the Chinese a bit more than I would say is respectable.
>The ACCC governs pricing in the market to ensure corporations are fair. The TIO charges any company when ever a complaint is received, so the establishment of ombudsman in Australia actually shifts any cost of complaints onto the corporation, whether right or wrong.
Interesting. Do they do so proportionate to that corporation's overall profits, I wonder?
>So actually I might even say that there are methods in which people can seek protection against certain practices without any cost to themselves.
Great. I honestly wish more countries would do such. However, they don't. Australia is the exception in this regard as far as I know.
>But this gets away from anything this forum was actually about. Some people got pepper sprayed when protesting, it happens...consider it "occupational" risk (get it, because it is the "Occupy movement"?)
To the contrary, I believe it is relevant, because it is the perceived sentiments of superiority, unaccountability or the sentiment of being above the law, sentiments of entitlement above and beyond that which is fiscally responsible, tendencies of abuse of power and manipulation of the legal system, and, ultimately, the tendency for the establishment to bend or otherwise outright break their social contract with the majority that the occupy movement is protesting.
"Some governments are better than others, and I do admit the Australian government seems alright, although they do pander and compromise to the Chinese a bit more than I would say is respectable."
The Chinese are recently upset by the agreement for Australia to host US troops. Australia has very much been aligned to the US politically for the last 60 years, and even though recent trends of economic cooperation with China can even be blamed on US policy 
. It was the early 2000's (I can dig up the date if you like) Australia and the US agreed on a free-trade agreement, with Australia looking to gain only 1 thing, more open markets on argiculture (Australia's second largest export). This part of the agreement was scrapped, and dispite the warnings by economists, the Australian government (well mostly the chummy good friend of George Bush, Australia's very own PM John Howard) overruled any objection and signed it in order to display Australia's commitment to the relationship between Australia and the US. So with protected markets in the US, Australian farmers needed to look elsewhere, and that happened to be China's eagerness to gain resources. Even so, alot of produce still goes to SE Asia, with Indonesia being a perfect example.
However alot of Australians are also unhappy with some of the deals with China, with many deals selling resources at exceptionally low prices (LPG was one such resource). This upset many Australians as they feel wealth is being shifted offshore, and such deals are made in order to make jobs quickly available.
"Interesting. Do they do so proportionate to that corporation's overall profits, I wonder?"
I believe it is done based on individual products/services, based on manufactoring costs etc. If it was done on overall profit, then I feel it would move away from a free-market (if 2 companies providing the same product sell at the same price, why would the company that has majority share of the market be "punished" by lowering price to decrease profits?)
"I do admit the Australian government seems alright"
Australia does not have a Bill of Rights, nor are many human rights protected under the constitution. Freedom of speech/expression (is the main one that people complain about), is not protected in Australia. Australia is very lenient with this sorts of things though, and with the Occupy Movement in Australia they allowed people to protest during the day, but forced people home at night. During the recent CHOGM in Perth, the Federal Police monitored the Internet for anything that could suggest troublemakers on the day. One person who threatened to throw red paint on the Queen of England was visited and questioned to make sure he did not follow through. The public are protected in a way, but not in others.
(My opinion however, is that certain rights should not be unconditionally given. Freedom of expression is often used to defend ones aggressive actions, ie. making a racist comment, "well I have the freedom of speech". In regards to the red paint, he was conspiring to commit a crime, so he had no right to complain and should consider himself lucky that he wasn't arrested. People are able to express their political opinion, and everyone over 18 is forced to vote, however freedom of expression is not protected, just noone ever cracks down on it. People often protest, usually about something small, ie. GM foods, and do so without hinderane from the police or the government. The only exception is when the protest begins to break certain other laws, ie. squatting on public land, thus why the Occupy Movement were told to go home at night, they could still protest during the day.)
"Australia has very much been aligned to the US politically for the last 60 years, and even though recent trends of economic cooperation with China can even be blamed on US policy tongue."
The US has been a little more pandering and compromising, too.
> Morbo the Annihilator wrote:
> The [...] is a pregnant teenager, an elderly woman and a priest doing at a riot?
I grew up in Seattle, have seen riots, and really have no problems with the police doing what is necessary to stop rioters from committing violence against the police or innocent bystanders.
Does this look like a riot to you?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v641/twotimes/occupy_seattle_police_pepper_spray_111116_620x350.jpg
I see a bunch of protestors standing there. I see a bunch of cops with relaxed postures and expressions holding pepper spray canisters and blasting the crowd. I'm assuming that in about two seconds the crowd probably starts reeling, but they don't appear to have reacted to the pepper spray yet. Not in that image.
And do we see a riot? No. We see protestors standing around, a couple foot gap, and then a line of relaxed-looking cops using pepper spray. I'm all for staying the heck out of riots, but look at what was happening. Does that look like a riot to you?
I saw it in the videos of what happened in Berkeley too. The protestors had linked arms and were standing in a line about 5-deep in front of the police (who were about one deep). There's a pretty steady gap of about 2-3 feet the whole way down between the protestors and the police. Then, all of the sudden, across the entire line the police suddenly start hacking into the protestors with their billy clubs. I understand that if some dipsnot decides to assault the cops, they have every right to go after him, but that's not what happened. Across the entire front the cops started swinging their sticks at any protestor within reach. It had the sort of coordination that you'd expect from a good offensive line on a football team. It wasn't a defensive, the cops protecting themselves against rioters, maneuver. It was an attack. The cops suddenly committing violence against non-violent protestors.
And we've seen this happen again, and again, and again over the past couple months.
"(if 2 companies providing the same product sell at the same price, why would the company that has majority share of the market be "punished" by lowering price to decrease profits?)"
To the contrary, it would ensure competition and stimulate the free market. If a flat fee were charged per complaint or the fee would be calculated according tot he severity of the infraction and not that company's capacity to pay the fee, then what would stop a huge company with more profit per-capita from simply paying out the fees / fines according to a cost ratio, like car companies used to do (for instance, if the cost of a recall was calculated to be more than the estimated costs of the lawsuits that they would have to settle, they would choose the latter, simply because they were big enough to be able to afford it). A small company on the other hand, could be bankrupted if having to settle a single lawsuit. Therefore, to allow for competition, taxes, fees, fines, etc., must be proportionate to the capacity of the individual or corporation to pay.
Besides, if taxes charged are proportionate to the company's net income or profit, why, then, shouldn't the costs associated with consumer protection be charged companies proportionate to their net profits? In my opinion, its the only fair way to do things and ensures proper competition under free market capitalism. What you suggest actually results in monopolies and less competition.
" The cops suddenly committing violence against non-violent protestors."
Yes. Unfortunately this is not surprising.
> xeno syndicated wrote:
> "(if 2 companies providing the same product sell at the same price, why would
>the company that has majority share of the market be "punished" by lowering
>price to decrease profits?)"
>To the contrary, it would ensure competition and stimulate the free market. If a
>flat fee were charged per complaint or the fee would be calculated according to
>the severity of the infraction and not that company's capacity to pay the fee, then
>what would stop a huge company with more profit per-capita from simply paying
>out the fees / fines according to a cost ratio, like car companies used to do (for
>instance, if the cost of a recall was calculated to be more than the estimated costs
>of the lawsuits that they would have to settle, they would choose the latter, simply
>because they were big enough to be able to afford it. A small company on the
>other hand, could be bankrupted if having to settle a single lawsuit. Therefore, to
>allow for competition, taxes, fees, fines, etc., must be proportionate to the capacity
>of the individual or corporation to pay.
You're correct in stating that many companies have decided that it's cheaper to do the wrong thing and pay the fines than to make sure their customers are getting a good, safe, properly-functioning product. Happens all the time. It's also common with environmental pollution. Often cheaper to simply break the law, get caught, and pay the maximum fine than to actually do the right thing and dispose of industrial waste properly.
However, your solution is terrible. Who exactly do you think *gets* the money that's won in a civil lawsuit (and this specifically is the sort of lawsuit that companies are generally afraid of because dollar sums tend to be high if they lose)? The victims of the company's negligence. If we decide to limit the company's liability based on some 'capacity to pay' variable, we're simply screwing over victims who've had their lives' ruined by the owner's greed.
It's not particularly economical either. Your proposal creates an insane incentive to create shell companies so as to mitigate liability. You probably would see a heck of a lot more 'small businesses', but are they really small businesses if they same fat cat owns 5000 of them all operating with the exact same business model? That's not competition, that's a liability shelter. Good for rich people, terrible for the rest of us.
> xeno syndicated wrote:
> " The cops suddenly committing violence against non-violent protestors."
Yes. Unfortunately this is not surprising.
Surprised me.
The videos of what happened at Berkeley were really revealing. All of the other moments of videotaped or photographed violence there's still the question left in the air: what didn't get caught on the camera. Quite a few videos show enough that it's really doubtful that the police violence was merited, but you're always missing a couple details. The tape of what happened at Berkeley doesn't leave that question. There's no problematic interaction between the police and the protestors (except for the protestor's refusal to leave) before the police assault the civilians. Still trying to grapple with what I learned watching that. Really changes the perspective a little bit to have doubts about what's going on confirmed.
Here's another "riot" for you. This one in Davis. Just look at all those molotov cocktails. The police are barely holding their own:
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i191/hissyspit/Hissyspit%20-%202/OccupyUCD3.jpg
"If we decide to limit the company's liability based on some 'capacity to pay' variable, we're simply screwing over victims who've had their lives' ruined by the owner's greed."
Good point. However, I wasn't talking about settlements persay, rather the cost companies should pay for insurance, or the consumer protection 'tax', or whatever they are doing in Australia. ;P
Over-reaction and brutality by law enforcement is common. I wouldn't say it is usual, just commonplace. It thus didn't surprise me. Such has been going on in many places in the world. Budapest October 23rd, 2006, for example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6080188.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_protests_in_Hungary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSlfJKtT79E&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL11AE3267F140F04E
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19570107,00.html
A molotov was thrown at a wells fargo in Salt Lakes area.
Bombs were found in a vehicle with three occupy Portland people.
Peaceful demonstration huh Obama? They just cost him the election, hurrah!
> xeno syndicated wrote:
> "(if 2 companies providing the same product sell at the same price, why would the company that has majority share of the market be "punished" by lowering price to decrease profits?)"
To the contrary, it would ensure competition and stimulate the free market. If a flat fee were charged per complaint or the fee would be calculated according tot he severity of the infraction and not that company's capacity to pay the fee, then what would stop a huge company with more profit per-capita from simply paying out the fees / fines according to a cost ratio, like car companies used to do (for instance, if the cost of a recall was calculated to be more than the estimated costs of the lawsuits that they would have to settle, they would choose the latter, simply because they were big enough to be able to afford it). A small company on the other hand, could be bankrupted if having to settle a single lawsuit. Therefore, to allow for competition, taxes, fees, fines, etc., must be proportionate to the capacity of the individual or corporation to pay.
Besides, if taxes charged are proportionate to the company's net income or profit, why, then, shouldn't the costs associated with consumer protection be charged companies proportionate to their net profits? In my opinion, its the only fair way to do things and ensures proper competition under free market capitalism. What you suggest actually results in monopolies and less competition.
Ah I understand now, my understanding was completely wrong. I am not sure what the penalties the ACCC does dish out, but I know the TIO (telecommunications ombudsman) is a set price that goes up whenever the problem escalates, so Tier one is like $40, but that is for any complaint received, not just the ones that have a case, so you can just call up and say that the ISP is cheating you and the ISP gets charged. Tier 1 complaints still involve only the complaintant and the company, but if there is no solution satisfactory to the customer, then it is escalated and the TIO step in and then it starts to cost $1000's, and there is still a Tier 3 (and even the 2nd largest ISP [I used to work for them] feels the pinch of their fines, so much so that they have a dedicated team to solve TIO complaints before they get escalated costing the company more money. Like your car example, they often just throw money at complaining customers, some even in the wrong, just to shut them up and make them go away as it is more cost effective).
"Over-reaction and brutality by law enforcement is common."
Whenever I think of harsh law enforcement, I think of Singapore...seriously one of the safest places I have ever been to, yet heavily policed, with harsh punishments. I don't hear people in Singapore complaining about it either. (I seriously love Singapore though, so I might be biased, but it is a beautiful city void of public nuisance. Was never bothered by buskers on the street, never saw a homeless person, never saw any crime, never heard of a protest in Singapore [wonder if the Occupy Movement ever hit Singapore], and it has a one party system, yet runs perfectly well).
Also on police brutality, police in Australia do have the right to issue a "Move on notice" which basically means that the person has to leave the premises/area. If not, they are allowed to arrest that person, using force I believe). Also, violence against Police in Australia is rising. One police officer who obeyed the law, used his taser to subdue an aggressive man. The man's son saw this happen, and used a lead pipe to assault the police officer. The police officer now has brain damage, yet the man is now sueing the police officer for using a taser on his dad (the dad was resisting, and he was warned that he would be tasered, and the police officer gave the final warning before tasering). Similar incident with 2 other men bashing a police officer and escaping jail time.
There was a different incidence that involved a man in a police station who was repeatedly tasers by police, and those police were forced to face disciplinary hearings. Police are punished if they use unlawful force, yet those who use force on police officers are unpunished. Police are forced to deal with nasty people all day, everyday. When a large group of protesters disobey orders, what are they supposed to do? Look at the riots in London, teens just tore up the streets, setting fires, and the police were powerless to stop it. In Australia at least, I find excessive force is uncommon, and often police are restricted in action in dangerous situations.
For the good of everyone, I think both law enforcement and occupy movement protesters should study very carefully the September - November, 2006 Hungarian protests / riots / insurrection. Such should be studied so as to avoid escalation of the current protest to full-on, sustained insurrection.
How did the 2006 Hungarian insurrection (an insurrection is exactly what it became ultimately at certain points) happen? It started because of a leak to the media of the then Hungarian Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany's comments which, among other admissions, admitted he and many of his party members had lied about and falsified economic indicator and budgeting data in order to get re-elected. The equivalent would be something like Obama admitting the bail-outs were given out to the banks under false pretenses.
Public outrage against the Prime Minister around this time happened to coincide with the upcoming 50th anniversary of the October - November 1956 insurrection against the Soviets (for which the "Hungarian Revolutionary" was named Time Magazine's "Man of the Year"). Celebratory, festive public events were thus organized to be held in the streets around the parliament to celebrate the anniversary. Many of the people there were simply there to celebrate their relatively newly-bestowed liberty (since the fall of the Soviet Union), a sense of liberty, which we should remember, is still relatively new and slowly burgeoning for the Hungarian people. However, outrage against the Prime Minister and his party at this time was pretty much a universally held sentiment by the vast majority of Hungarian people, and, as such, it did not take much for the celebrations shift towards protests calling for the resignation of Ferenc Gyurcsany and his party.
It is unclear what led a group of protesters, and I quote Wikipedia here, to "get into the Magyar Telev
Check this out. Dozens of violent and destructive rioters in Davis, California get their just dessert: a faceful of pepper spray.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4
When the protestors are acting with greater restraint and discipline than the police are, I just have to ask. Who's doing the actual rioting here? The protestors or the police? 'Cause the protestors sure as hell don't look like they're the ones committing acts of violence against other people.
Here's some Koreans counter-demonstrating in 1992
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L5ttIHV12s
you don't want police? Fine by me.
> Demotivator wrote:
>you don't want police? Fine by me.
Brilliant strawman! Whoever said I don't want police? I just want police who do their jobs, rather than attacking non-violent protestors. I'm perfectly okay with police breaking up riots and stopping violence, but when the only violence happening is what the police are doing I have a problem.
The problem here is that there is so much significant evidence the protesters have planned, are implementing, and will plan severe acts of violence that the police cannot use standard force protocols.
Every police officer fears permament injury. Your protesters are trying to do such. This creates issues. And while the leftist controlled media does not report such, the police share intel on such extremely well.
A man is seen throwing a bomb. Once the bomb is thrown no ond can shoot him. The window to identify the threat, initiate lethal force, verify no innocents in the way, and so forth is very low.
Then there are protesters who will block access to said lethal attacker.
Every story has several sides. Some truth may be gleaned by examining it all.
The Occupy crowd started with a minor criminal pretext, and crimes have been perpetuated by them, and they have repeatedly sought a violent confrontation.
The standoff system keeps officers from getting hurt.
Go home fleabaggers.
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L5ttIHV12s"
Looks more like local gangsters of a redlight-district having a shootout with another gang.
Why, Balz, are you trying to pass that off as anything to do with public protest? Or do you, like a lot of poorly trained and poorly educated police officers, it seems, have trouble distinguishing between upstanding citizens whom the police are sworn to protect and serve and criminals? Or do you, like a lot of poorly trained and uneducated police officers, tend to lump the whole public into one basket and maintain an us vs. them mentality?
Imperial Forum → Politics → So a pregnant teenager, an elderly woman, and a priest...
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.