Police Thugs Storm Homes In Minn.

[Rye]

Intimidated unfairly? You're talking about the use of handcuffs, and the SWAT team?

Sorry, that's an officer safety issue. They aren't telepaths, so they have no idea what people will do when their territory is intruded upon.

No, I mean when they smash their way into people's houses because they were preparing to do something as audacious and anti-public minded as film the actions of police at a protest. Or because they dared to own something that could potentially be a weapon when they were to protest at some point in the near future. If my house had been raided, they would've took a sword, hammers, lots of hazardous chemicals and rags, flammable stuff, my camera and likely a PC stocked with pornography. No doubt all of that would make it to the police press release about the raid on my house.

[Broomstick]

Gosh, it's starting to remind me of the 1960's around here... only back then it was fire houses and siccing dogs on people instead of pepper spray and tazers. At least we haven't moved on to assassinations (yet).

If you protest the government you're going to get pushback, even if you're in the right.

[sketerpot]

My personal favorite was the link Greenwald gave to a video of a woman being pepper sprayed at close range while standing on the side of the road holding a flower. I wish I were making this up.

The thing that really got me in that video is the part where the flower woman is staggering away from them, clutching her face, and then the police hit her with pepper spray again as if she was a threat to anyone.

[Big Phil]

My personal favorite was the link Greenwald gave to a video of a woman being pepper sprayed at close range while standing on the side of the road holding a flower. I wish I were making this up.

Without commenting on the legality or rightness of breaking up the demonstration, she wasn't some innocent bystander just "standing on the side of the road holding a flower." She was one of the protesters standing the way of the police line passively resisting and trying to make a point with the flower. If you're going to make a comment about police brutality, at least put it into the proper context.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Intimidated unfairly? You're talking about the use of handcuffs, and the SWAT team?

Sorry, that's an officer safety issue. They aren't telepaths, so they have no idea what people will do when their territory is intruded upon.

No, I mean when they smash their way into people's houses because they were preparing to do something as audacious and anti-public minded as film the actions of police at a protest. Or because they dared to own something that could potentially be a weapon when they were to protest at some point in the near future. If my house had been raided, they would've took a sword, hammers, lots of hazardous chemicals and rags, flammable stuff, my camera and likely a PC stocked with pornography. No doubt all of that would make it to the police press release about the raid on my house.

If that's all they were planning on doing then I agree with you.

[General Zod]

If that's all they were planning on doing then I agree with you.

Quite frankly I'd have to question the judgment of anyone that thinks it's a-okay to raid someone's homes when they haven't committed a crime without rock-solid proof. To be perfectly blunt the level of proof the police gave that something was going to happen was grossly insufficient, especially when no arrests were made and it was "intentionally" described as an intimidation tactic. That's rather damning imo.

[Keevan_Colton]

My personal favorite was the link Greenwald gave to a video of a woman being pepper sprayed at close range while standing on the side of the road holding a flower. I wish I were making this up.

Without commenting on the legality or rightness of breaking up the demonstration, she wasn't some innocent bystander just "standing on the side of the road holding a flower." She was one of the protesters standing the way of the police line passively resisting and trying to make a point with the flower. If you're going to make a comment about police brutality, at least put it into the proper context.

The context doesnt really help, it rather reinforces the point.

"Someone is passively resisting us and attempting to make a political point in a non-violent manner, quick lets mace them! Yeah, twice!"

How exactly does that context really add anything? It's much like we had in the tazer thread, there really isnt any context that can improve it in any way. Unless of course it was a flower/handgrenade.

[Big Phil]

My personal favorite was the link Greenwald gave to a video of a woman being pepper sprayed at close range while standing on the side of the road holding a flower. I wish I were making this up.

Without commenting on the legality or rightness of breaking up the demonstration, she wasn't some innocent bystander just "standing on the side of the road holding a flower." She was one of the protesters standing the way of the police line passively resisting and trying to make a point with the flower. If you're going to make a comment about police brutality, at least put it into the proper context.

The context doesnt really help, it rather reinforces the point.

"Someone is passively resisting us and attempting to make a political point in a non-violent manner, quick lets mace them! Yeah, twice!"

How exactly does that context really add anything? It's much like we had in the tazer thread, there really isnt any context that can improve it in any way. Unless of course it was a flower/handgrenade.

There's a difference between macing a protester who isn't obeying police commands, and macing someone who isn't involved. One could arguably be justified, the other cannot.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Without commenting on the legality or rightness of breaking up the demonstration, she wasn't some innocent bystander just "standing on the side of the road holding a flower." She was one of the protesters standing the way of the police line passively resisting and trying to make a point with the flower. If you're going to make a comment about police brutality, at least put it into the proper context.

The context doesnt really help, it rather reinforces the point.

"Someone is passively resisting us and attempting to make a political point in a non-violent manner, quick lets mace them! Yeah, twice!"

How exactly does that context really add anything? It's much like we had in the tazer thread, there really isnt any context that can improve it in any way. Unless of course it was a flower/handgrenade.

There's a difference between macing a protester who isn't obeying police commands, and macing someone who isn't involved. One could arguably be justified, the other cannot.

Not if the police commands consist of "Stop persisting in your as of yet legal non-violent protest"

Just tossing that out there for the sake of making the distinction.

[Thanas]

This is surreal. That might, under circumstances that are mind boggling to me - where I live you have to actually attack the police before they mace you - justify one macing. But two? When she clearly had turned away and was still dealing with the effects of the first blast?

Or how about arresting the journalists? What justification is there for that?

Like I said, surreal.

[Big Phil]

There's a difference between macing a protester who isn't obeying police commands, and macing someone who isn't involved. One could arguably be justified, the other cannot.

Not if the police commands consist of "Stop persisting in your as of yet legal non-violent protest"

Just tossing that out there for the sake of making the distinction.

Really? You don't see a difference between:

#1: Police attempt to disperse protesters, during the course of which a protester is sprayed with pepper spray to make her disperse.

#2: Police, while dispersing a protest, spot a woman standing on the side of the road watching the events but not in the way and not in any way participating. A couple of them leave the police line and pepper spray her just to be assholes.

[Keevan_Colton]

Really? You don't see a difference between:

#1: Police attempt to disperse protesters, during the course of which a protester is sprayed with pepper spray to make her disperse.

#2: Police, while dispersing a protest, spot a woman standing on the side of the road watching the events but not in the way and not in any way participating. A couple of them leave the police line and pepper spray her just to be assholes.

Did the bit about non-violent protest, and the whole constitutional thing about freedom of assembly slip right past you? Maybe they were enforcing fire regulations?

Then again, we've also had the discussion recently on the topic of how you should obey police officers even if they are overstepping their powers since their powers include the right to assault you for not listening to them.

[Pablo Sanchez]

This is surreal. That might, under circumstances that are mind boggling to me - where I live you have to actually attack the police before they mace you - justify one macing. But two? When she clearly had turned away and was still dealing with the effects of the first blast?

I think it's just a logical, if brutal, development in police crowd control techniques. In the old days a peaceful protester could passively obstruct the skirmish line and then go limp when the police tried to move them, thus obliging the police to detach several officers to carry them and making an ugly photo (cops in riot gear hauling a calm, passive young person like a sack of potatoes). Nowadays they just quickly hit the peaceful protester with mace and let them sort it out themselves, thus neutralizing them without having to expend further effort.

The girl was in their way and didn't move, so they maced the shit out of her.

This is actually an interesting operation from a technical perspective, because it probably represents a trial run on suppression of protests. In fighting eruptions of civil disobedience centering in a specific time and place (WTO protests, conventions, major appearances by unpopular officials) the police are facing new challenges with the appearance of the internet; old tactics of misinformation are getting exploded by the internet and omnipresence of recording devices like camera phones, and I think protesters themselves are becoming more savvy (like the Quebec protest in 2007 where they instantly spotted the police agents provocateur). It's no longer possible for the police to safely and effectively marginalize the protesters during the protest, so authorities in the Twin Cities are experimenting with preemptive intimidation.

The new media is all over this, and I think that it's possible that the old media will eventually come around from their traditional stance against civil disobedience and hand the police a reverse on this. Or if they avoid the story it might work after all, and then I worry it would then lead to the kind of escalation that was seen in Germany in the 1970 and 80s, where leftist youths organized into street fighting cadres.

Or how about arresting the journalists? What justification is there for that?

There frankly just isn't any at all, and if anything comes of these tactics I expect the fallout to center on the journalist issue, if only because the news community usually reacts forcefully to threats on their ability to get stories. One current that's identifiable in the coverage of this story is that the police are preferentially targeting people who ask them to justify themselves (e.g. immediately going after anybody who asks to see the warrant, arresting Amy Goodman, etc.).

[Kamakazie Sith]

If that's all they were planning on doing then I agree with you.

Quite frankly I'd have to question the judgment of anyone that thinks it's a-okay to raid someone's homes when they haven't committed a crime without rock-solid proof. To be perfectly blunt the level of proof the police gave that something was going to happen was grossly insufficient, especially when no arrests were made and it was "intentionally" described as an intimidation tactic. That's rather damning imo.

I would agree with you if we had access to what the police know. You obviously have not noticed, but we have not been given that information from police sources.

[General Zod]

I would agree with you if we had access to what the police know. You obviously have not noticed, but we have not been given that information from police sources.

Which gives us reason to believe that this raid was completely on the level. . .why? Because they're police?

[Pablo Sanchez]

I would agree with you if we had access to what the police know. You obviously have not noticed, but we have not been given that information from police sources.

I see no reason to assume good faith in this case, considering the totality of policy activity in the Twin Cities. If and when such information is released, I will be much happier if it justifies the conduct of the police (I would rather feel I can trust the police than not), but if it doesn't I won't be much surprised.

[General Zod]

I would agree with you if we had access to what the police know. You obviously have not noticed, but we have not been given that information from police sources.

I see no reason to assume good faith in this case, considering the totality of policy activity in the Twin Cities. If and when such information is released, I will be much happier if it justifies the conduct of the police (I would rather feel I can trust the police than not), but if it doesn't I won't be much surprised.

There's also this juicy little tidbit.

Nestor indicated that only 2 or 3 of the 50 individuals who were handcuffed this morning at the 2 houses were actually arrested and charged with a crime, and the crime they were charged with is "conspiracy to commit riot." Nestor, who has practiced law in Minnesota for many years, said that he had never before heard of that statute being used for anything, and that its parameters are so self-evidently vague, designed to allow pre-emeptive arrests of those who are peacefully protesting, that it is almost certainly unconstitutional, though because it had never been invoked (until now), its constitutionality had not been tested.

An intentionally vague statute is highly questionable in regards to something being legitimate, regardless of the "evidence" they acquired beforehand. Quite frankly I'm amazed the judge even allowed them to gain a warrant with such loosely-defined parameters.

[Alyrium Denryle]

There's a difference between macing a protester who isn't obeying police commands, and macing someone who isn't involved. One could arguably be justified, the other cannot.

Not if the police commands consist of "Stop persisting in your as of yet legal non-violent protest"

Just tossing that out there for the sake of making the distinction.

Really? You don't see a difference between:

#1: Police attempt to disperse protesters, during the course of which a protester is sprayed with pepper spray to make her disperse.

#2: Police, while dispersing a protest, spot a woman standing on the side of the road watching the events but not in the way and not in any way participating. A couple of them leave the police line and pepper spray her just to be assholes.

COnsidering the pesky little fact that political protests at least used to be legal in this country.... no I really dont. As far as I am concerned dispersing a peaceful protest is a violation of the rights to freedom of speech, assembly, and petition. The police have no authority to do it, provided the protest is conducted legally. If the police do try to violate the civil rights of demonstrators they have every right to non-violently resist.

Now, if the protest gets violent or is held illegally (by which I mean actively disrupts others without prior notice, under the condition that applications for permits are handled equitably, as in Pro and Anti X demonstrators have equal access in theory and practice to permits, etc) that becomes another matter. But until those conditions are violated...

[Alyrium Denryle]

If that's all they were planning on doing then I agree with you.

Quite frankly I'd have to question the judgment of anyone that thinks it's a-okay to raid someone's homes when they haven't committed a crime without rock-solid proof. To be perfectly blunt the level of proof the police gave that something was going to happen was grossly insufficient, especially when no arrests were made and it was "intentionally" described as an intimidation tactic. That's rather damning imo.

I would agree with you if we had access to what the police know. You obviously have not noticed, but we have not been given that information from police sources.

I suppose we should always defer to authority figures. After all they are all knowing and powerful and we should blindly, and meekly, trust their judgement until someone who wrongfully doesn't trust authority digs in and finds evidence that the police were acting with malice?

[Ted C]

This is surreal. That might, under circumstances that are mind boggling to me - where I live you have to actually attack the police before they mace you - justify one macing. But two? When she clearly had turned away and was still dealing with the effects of the first blast?

I think it's just a logical, if brutal, development in police crowd control techniques. In the old days a peaceful protester could passively obstruct the skirmish line and then go limp when the police tried to move them, thus obliging the police to detach several officers to carry them and making an ugly photo (cops in riot gear hauling a calm, passive young person like a sack of potatoes). Nowadays they just quickly hit the peaceful protester with mace and let them sort it out themselves, thus neutralizing them without having to expend further effort.

The girl was in their way and didn't move, so they maced the shit out of her.

Not that I want to come down on the side of police brutality, but civil disobedience inherently carries this kind of risk. Some dissident organizations actually shoot their members with mace and pepper spray to prepare them for that kind of experience, knowing that being uncooperative with police is likely to result in such tactics, even if the protestor isn't actually being violent.

In certain situations -- like the kind of anarchist protests designed to disrupt transportation and business in a city -- I would even consider it perfectly justified, although I don't know of any reason it would be justified in the case being described. If she were part of a protest deliberately blocking traffic on a major street, I would consider it far more understandable than if she were standing on a sidewalk causing no difficulties.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I would agree with you if we had access to what the police know. You obviously have not noticed, but we have not been given that information from police sources.

I see no reason to assume good faith in this case, considering the totality of policy activity in the Twin Cities. If and when such information is released, I will be much happier if it justifies the conduct of the police (I would rather feel I can trust the police than not), but if it doesn't I won't be much surprised.

There's also this juicy little tidbit.

Nestor indicated that only 2 or 3 of the 50 individuals who were handcuffed this morning at the 2 houses were actually arrested and charged with a crime, and the crime they were charged with is "conspiracy to commit riot." Nestor, who has practiced law in Minnesota for many years, said that he had never before heard of that statute being used for anything, and that its parameters are so self-evidently vague, designed to allow pre-emeptive arrests of those who are peacefully protesting, that it is almost certainly unconstitutional, though because it had never been invoked (until now), its constitutionality had not been tested.

An intentionally vague statute is highly questionable in regards to something being legitimate, regardless of the "evidence" they acquired beforehand. Quite frankly I'm amazed the judge even allowed them to gain a warrant with such loosely-defined parameters.

Funny thing... the constitutionality of the warrant cannot be challenged until after the end goal of the intimidation is achieved. All they needed was a judge willing to sign the paperwork. The judge claims to have been acting in "good faith" and unless someone with no real investigatory power can prove otherwise, there is no way an ethics committee can touch them

[Alyrium Denryle]

This is surreal. That might, under circumstances that are mind boggling to me - where I live you have to actually attack the police before they mace you - justify one macing. But two? When she clearly had turned away and was still dealing with the effects of the first blast?

I think it's just a logical, if brutal, development in police crowd control techniques. In the old days a peaceful protester could passively obstruct the skirmish line and then go limp when the police tried to move them, thus obliging the police to detach several officers to carry them and making an ugly photo (cops in riot gear hauling a calm, passive young person like a sack of potatoes). Nowadays they just quickly hit the peaceful protester with mace and let them sort it out themselves, thus neutralizing them without having to expend further effort.

The girl was in their way and didn't move, so they maced the shit out of her.

Not that I want to come down on the side of police brutality, but civil disobedience inherently carries this kind of risk. Some dissident organizations actually shoot their members with mace and pepper spray to prepare them for that kind of experience, knowing that being uncooperative with police is likely to result in such tactics, even if the protestor isn't actually being violent.

In certain situations -- like the kind of anarchist protests designed to disrupt transportation and business in a city -- I would even consider it perfectly justified, although I don't know of any reason it would be justified in the case being described. If she were part of a protest deliberately blocking traffic on a major street, I would consider it far more understandable than if she were standing on a sidewalk causing no difficulties.

It is possible to get a permit to block a street, provided those permits are handled equitably, which IIRC they usually are not, it wouldnt be a problem...

But of course certain dissident groups have to prepare their people for police brutality. Police are a (necessary) replication of the stanford prison experiment. In the end an oath to protect and uphold the constitution and serve the people means very little if you tell someone they are big, important, powerful, and suspend some of the rules of police society.

You do that, and dissident groups become a target for abuse, even if they are not breaking any laws.

[Pablo Sanchez]

But of course certain dissident groups have to prepare their people for police brutality. Police are a (necessary) replication of the stanford prison experiment. In the end an oath to protect and uphold the constitution and serve the people means very little if you tell someone they are big, important, powerful, and suspend some of the rules of police society.

I think you're going too far; I'm sure that most of the police officers involved are well-meaning and professional. It's just that any person who has the nature to become a police officer will by necessity be someone who hews to and identifies with authority, and in this case the authorities are handing down unethical directives. The police almost certainly got misguided instructions from the city to ensure that St. Paul be spared any rioting so that it will look good on the news at any cost, civil liberties be damned.

[Alyrium Denryle]

But of course certain dissident groups have to prepare their people for police brutality. Police are a (necessary) replication of the stanford prison experiment. In the end an oath to protect and uphold the constitution and serve the people means very little if you tell someone they are big, important, powerful, and suspend some of the rules of police society.

I think you're going too far; I'm sure that most of the police officers involved are well-meaning and professional. It's just that any person who has the nature to become a police officer will by necessity be someone who hews to and identifies with authority, and in this case the authorities are handing down unethical directives. The police almost certainly got misguided instructions from the city to ensure that St. Paul be spared any rioting so that it will look good on the news at any cost, civil liberties be damned.

It is probably a bit of both. Look, it is really really easy to get people to do terrible things. have some guy in a lab coat tell you to torture someone? IIRC 65% of those sampled will torture that person to death provided they dont have to see the blood or charred flesh.

Tell a group of people that they are "guards" and that the other group are "prisoners".... horrific abuse.

Now combine the two. Take a well meaning person, put them in uniform. Have an authority figure give them instructions. If the instructions are good, all is peachy, if the instructions are bad, abuse happens. Now, the cops have to deal with cognitive dissonance (even in Milgrim's studies the people doing the torturing verbally protested, they just did it anyway). So you reduce the dissonance by dehumanizing the people you abuse. People in authority saying they are criminals, or hippy scum (etc). And it becomes much easier for the rank and file to repress them.

Get a person that is not well meaning in the group, and you dont even need the power-structure to dehumanize the protesters. Now there is a mechanism by which the group itself will do it.

[Big Phil]

Really? You don't see a difference between:

#1: Police attempt to disperse protesters, during the course of which a protester is sprayed with pepper spray to make her disperse.

#2: Police, while dispersing a protest, spot a woman standing on the side of the road watching the events but not in the way and not in any way participating. A couple of them leave the police line and pepper spray her just to be assholes.

Did the bit about non-violent protest, and the whole constitutional thing about freedom of assembly slip right past you? Maybe they were enforcing fire regulations?

Then again, we've also had the discussion recently on the topic of how you should obey police officers even if they are overstepping their powers since their powers include the right to assault you for not listening to them.

Hey look, the Black/White Boy Wonder displaying his inability to read... yet again. It must be difficult to go through life unable to discuss nuances and assuming that everyone who sees things in any way, shape, or form different from you is WRONG WRONG WRONG!

Assuming you're just having a bad day, and aren't just an all around buffoon (I'm putting my bets on buffoon, however), please point out where I argued anything about freedom of assembly.

COnsidering the pesky little fact that political protests at least used to be legal in this country.... no I really dont. As far as I am concerned dispersing a peaceful protest is a violation of the rights to freedom of speech, assembly, and petition. The police have no authority to do it, provided the protest is conducted legally. If the police do try to violate the civil rights of demonstrators they have every right to non-violently resist.

The legality of this protest is a completely separate issue, and one on which you and I agree. The behavior of the police, and more importantly those who ordered the police to disperse the protest, is sufficiently heinous without making it seem as if they're running wild through the streets attacking random passersby.

Now, if the protest gets violent or is held illegally (by which I mean actively disrupts others without prior notice, under the condition that applications for permits are handled equitably, as in Pro and Anti X demonstrators have equal access in theory and practice to permits, etc) that becomes another matter. But until those conditions are violated...

No arguments here