Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Police State Video
Options
-
13-02-2008 11:56am#1Another example of the police state. I think this is a disgrace.
http://www.infowars.com/?p=196
http://www.infowars.com/?p=174
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOHJfY2hQ2c
I don't see any biased reporting here.
So who is going to be the first to defend these practices?0
Comments
-
Shock horror people can be assholes - even the Police, what's the world coming to.0
-
I particularly like the "non-biased" narrator for the youtube video.0
-
Shock horror people can be assholes - even the Police, what's the world coming to.
The first videos showed sustained attacks on peaceful protesters, by hundreds of police. This can hardly be referred to as individual "bad eggs", so to speak.
These videos were taken from police cameras? So I assume the bias is on their part. I would hate to see what they have not released.0 -
-
The first is about a woman (one woman) who was hit with rubber bullets. It then showed some police laughing about it, which was in bad taste on their part. The woman was an agitator and was dealt with severely and with a hell of an over-reaction. It should of been dealt with a lot better. This does not show a Police State, though.
The second video is more of a Police State. But considering that 20-30 years ago, any protesters and their families would have simply disappeared, then this is an improvement. The Georgian police definitely have to learn to handle these things differently.
And the third video shows a woman refusing an officers request for identification, which, if I was an officer, would make me very wary of someone. What didn't help was the horrifically overly dramatic and viciously biased narrator claiming that this is proof of a totalitarian state.
As Meglome said, people can be assholes. It doesn't mean we live in a police state.0 -
Advertisement
-
rigormortis wrote: »The first videos showed sustained attacks on peaceful protesters, by hundreds of police. This can hardly be referred to as individual "bad eggs", so to speak.
These videos were taken from police cameras? So I assume the bias is on their part. I would hate to see what they have not released.
The first video showed police approaching demonstrators and one woman being hit by two rubber bullets. So we know that potentially two of these 'hundreds' of police officers fired off a rubber bullet.0 -
The first is about a woman (one woman) who was hit with rubber bullets. It then showed some police laughing about it, which was in bad taste on their part. The woman was an agitator and was dealt with severely and with a hell of an over-reaction. It should of been dealt with a lot better. This does not show a Police State, though.
So peaceful protest is not allowed. Those who protest are attacked by mobs of police. Of course of you do what you are told you will not get attacked. But why would you do as you are told? I am constantly hearing people proclaiming freedom, clearly they do not understand the term. "freedom to do as you are told" That is todays freedom.The second video is more of a Police State. But considering that 20-30 years ago, any protesters and their families would have simply disappeared, then this is an improvement. The Georgian police definitely have to learn to handle these things differently.
So squads of balaclavaed thugs can attacks innocents, spray tear gas and use electronic weapons. As for the comparisons to 30 years ago? What has that got to do with anything. It was wrong then, it is wrong now and it always will be wrong.And the third video shows a woman refusing an officers request for identification, which, if I was an officer, would make me very wary of someone. What didn't help was the horrifically overly dramatic and viciously biased narrator claiming that this is proof of a totalitarian state.
As Meglome said, people can be assholes. It doesn't mean we live in a police state.
You have every right to refuse to identify yourself. As for your of their waryness of someone, I could not give a dam. You need evidence of wrongdoing before a "peace officer" should interfere.
As for police state, your interpretation of the term is a long way off from mine. I like to live as I chose, so long as I dont affect the life liberty and property of others.0 -
The first video showed police approaching demonstrators and one woman being hit by two rubber bullets. So we know that potentially two of these 'hundreds' of police officers fired off a rubber bullet.
Well were they all not armed. The man said that they did not know who fired, this would indicate that it was a free for all.0 -
rigormortis wrote: »So peaceful protest is not allowed. Those who protest are attacked by mobs of police. Of course of you do what you are told you will not get attacked. But why would you do as you are told? I am constantly hearing people proclaiming freedom, clearly they do not understand the term. "freedom to do as you are told" That is todays freedom.
1) How do you know it was peaceful, we only got to see a glimpse of it (unless, you're telling us now that we should believe what we see in the media?). It may well have been, but all we have is a bit of video footage.
2) Was everyone who protested attacked? And by mobs? Or was one woman fired upon by between 1 and 3 people (or does 3 people constitute a mob to you?).
Nobody has ever had freedom, otherwise we would have anarchy. You claim we have totalitariansim. There is a middle ground that we live in. That is our freedom. How do you propose that we become more free?
The police were wrong to fire on the woman. But this doesn't mean that freedom doesn't exist. It means someone got pissed off with a woman waving a placard and shouting abuse at him.
I never said it was a good thing. I pointed out that it's an improvement on what used to happen. Did you honestly expect that with the fall of the Berlin Wall all the members of the soviet union would run through sunny meadows holding hands?rigormortis wrote: »So squads of balaclavaed thugs can attacks innocents, spray tear gas and use electronic weapons. As for the comparisons to 30 years ago? What has that got to do with anything. It was wrong then, it is wrong now and it always will be wrong.
Also, it's not like those ex-soviet countries have never made mistakes in their policing methods.rigormortis wrote: »You have every right to refuse to identify yourself. As for your of their waryness of someone, I could not give a dam. You need evidence of wrongdoing before a "peace officer" should interfere.
All was well in the Us until someone flew planes into several buildings. Now paranoia rears it's ugly head and everyone is suspicious of everyone. The funny thing is, if the woman had simply told her name to the cops then she's go off on her way. But she decided to be a crusader and just pissed off the cops. So they arrested her. It happens all the time in any country. It doesn't mean it's a totalitarian state, it means people are assholes!
And you don't actually need evidence of wrongdoing, you need suspicion of wrongdoing. It's not fair by any stretch of the imagination, but it's the way it is.rigormortis wrote: »As for police state, your interpretation of the term is a long way off from mine. I like to live as I chose, so long as I dont affect the life liberty and property of others.
So you like to live as you choose? so how far should this stretch? I don't want to work, and I'm sure many others feel the same. Civilisation would collapse if everyone took this attidude and sat on their asses all day.
And should everyone live the way you want to? Who are you to infringe on someone elses choice to affect other peoples liberties and properties? Should your views be forced onto others? It's a double edged sword. You can't have it your way, but that's no reason to assume you have no freedom because of it.rigormortis wrote: »Well were they all not armed. The man said that they did not know who fired, this would indicate that it was a free for all.
No, this would indicate that the person who fired knew they would get in trouble and so kept quiet.0 -
1) How do you know it was peaceful, we only got to see a glimpse of it (unless, you're telling us now that we should believe what we see in the media?). It may well have been, but all we have is a bit of video footage.
2) Was everyone who protested attacked? And by mobs? Or was one woman fired upon by between 1 and 3 people (or does 3 people constitute a mob to you?).
Was the attack predicated by a visible event. No. For example if I hit someone a box, would they debate the thing or get stuck in? The woman appeared to be at least 70 feet from the "police" when they fired.Nobody has ever had freedom, otherwise we would have anarchy. You claim we have totalitariansim. There is a middle ground that we live in. That is our freedom. How do you propose that we become more free?
I agree with this, however that middle ground you refer to is nowhere near the middle.The police were wrong to fire on the woman. But this doesn't mean that freedom doesn't exist. It means someone got pissed off with a woman waving a placard and shouting abuse at him.
Thats their job, they are supposed to be trained professionals.All was well in the Us until someone flew planes into several buildings. Now paranoia rears it's ugly head and everyone is suspicious of everyone. The funny thing is, if the woman had simply told her name to the cops then she's go off on her way. But she decided to be a crusader and just pissed off the cops. So they arrested her. It happens all the time in any country. It doesn't mean it's a totalitarian state, it means people are assholes!
The woman done nothing wrong, I only seen one asshole in the video, it was not her. Standing up for your rights is not crusading.
"Your papers please". Thats whats coming.No, this would indicate that the person who fired knew they would get in trouble and so kept quiet.
Did the man not say that he would love to find out who done it? Was the atmosphere not jovial. He probably would have been promoted.0 -
Advertisement
-
rigormortis wrote: »Was the attack predicated by a visible event. No. For example if I hit someone a box, would they debate the thing or get stuck in? The woman appeared to be at least 70 feet from the "police" when they fired.
But she wasn't for the whole thing. She was continually protesting and a cop(s) lost the rag and fired on her. I can understand why the cop(s) would fire, but I don't condone it at all.
But again, this doesn't prove a police state, it just proves that there are people with no discipline in the police force. There are people like this in every aspect of life. That's no reason to paint everyone in that light.rigormortis wrote: »That's their job, they are supposed to be trained professionals.
But they're human. They're not machines who obey every order without question. They are as fallible the rest of us.rigormortis wrote: »The woman done nothing wrong, I only seen one asshole in the video, it was not her. Standing up for your rights is not crusading.
Ignoring the fact that we don't know what happened before the video clip, or the reasons she was pulled over, why was she refusing to ID herself? There was no reason for her not to, other than her wanting to make a statement that she had the right to. As a result of this, she exasperated the situation that ended in her arrest.rigormortis wrote: »Did the man not say that he would love to find out who done it? Was the atmosphere not jovial. He probably would have been promoted.
I seriously doubt that. It was a scene of guys blowing off steam after a tense situation and making light of it. It's good for moral. It's not in good taste, but that's humans for you.0 -
Ignoring the fact that we don't know what happened before the video clip, or the reasons she was pulled over, why was she refusing to ID herself? There was no reason for her not to, other than her wanting to make a statement that she had the right to. As a result of this, she exasberated the situation that ended in her arrest. .
The officer could not provide a reason as to why she was pulled over, when asked. She was exercising her right to refuse. I thought police were supposed to enforce laws, not break them.
He then reached inside the car, she told him to stop. He ignored this request, he then forcibly removed here from the car and arrested her. Maybe you overlooked this. It was a disgrace. What had the woman done wrong? What right had he to arrest her? What was she arrested for in your opinion?0 -
As I said before, we don't know why he stopped her. She could be a murder suspect for all we know. She was told to get out of the car, she refused and he pulled her out. Not very professional at all, but it happened. I don't know why she was arrested, because I wasn't there, I've no idea what happened before the clip and I've no idea what happened after.
I'm not saying that it was right, I'm saying that it was unnecessarily brought to a head by both parties. And it still doesn't prove it's a police state.0 -
As I said before, we don't know why he stopped her. She could be a murder suspect for all we know. She was told to get out of the car, she refused and he pulled her out. Not very professional at all, but it happened. I don't know why she was arrested, because I wasn't there, I've no idea what happened before the clip and I've no idea what happened after.
I'm not saying that it was right, I'm saying that it was unnecessarily brought to a head by both parties. And it still doesn't prove it's a police state.
Here are a few facts for you. There are no terrorists and secondly murder rates are incredibly low. Sure you hear of so called "gang land hits", let them at it as far as I'm concerned.
Anybody could be anything, and I don't have to justify myself to any jumped up cop. As for what happened before or after, deal with things as you see them. Was the woman aggressive, rude, no, she merely refused to give a name. She asked why she was pulled over, the copper could not respond. Those are the facts.
As for the US, it is a police state, no question.0 -
How are there no terrorists? What happened on 9/11? You think the government were behind this? Well, then they are the terrorists. Murder rates are low, compared to what?
There's no point dealing with what's shown in the video as it's edited to point out the agenda of the editor. And the cop didn't give a reason for pulling her over. That's different to not having a reason.
And as for it being a police state, that's your opinion and that of a few others on the internet. God forbid you ever get put into an actual one.0 -
How are there no terrorists? What happened on 9/11? You think the government were behind this? Well, then they are the terrorists. Murder rates are low, compared to what?.
There are planned terrorist attacks, false flag operations. Look at the sinking of the lusitania, pearl harbour, Reichstag fire, Gulf of tonkin. As for people in caves, I dont think so. Murder rates are low, compared to anything you choose. You would think it was the wild west according to the media.There's no point dealing with what's shown in the video as it's edited to point out the agenda of the editor. And the cop didn't give a reason for pulling her over. That's different to not having a reason..
I think if you are arrested you have the right to know why. Is this asking to much? The officer is hardly going to say "because I'm jumped up on my supposed power"And as for it being a police state, that's your opinion and that of a few others on the internet. God forbid you ever get put into an actual one.
Unfortunately that looks like a greater reality with every day that passes. Do you not feel in any way harassed by the excessive security measures at every turn?
Unfortunately with all this crying wolf, eventually other incidents have to be brought into existance as justification for these totalitarian measures.0 -
As I understand it, you are required to produce ID when asked to do so by a police officer in the US. You have no right to refuse. Feel free to prove me wrong.rigormortis wrote: »The officer could not provide a reason as to why she was pulled over, when asked. She was exercising her right to refuse. I thought police were supposed to enforce laws, not break them.
I bet you wouldn't have the balls to say that to the face of a victim of terrorism.rigormortis wrote: »There are no terrorists...
And yet, you expect the police to act professionally towards you.rigormortis wrote: »Anybody could be anything, and I don't have to justify myself to any jumped up cop.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »As I understand it, you are required to produce ID when asked to do so by a police officer in the US.
As far as I am aware this is not the case. Maybe GW signed another house resolution? Seems to be signing away a lot of rights lately.
I know all about terrorism and I know plenty of victims. As for balls, stating things as they are should not offend anyone.oscarBravo wrote: »You have no right to refuse. Feel free to prove me wrong. I bet you wouldn't have the balls to say that to the face of a victim of terrorism.
As for rights you have fundamental rights as a human being. You need to research the difference between rights and privileges.
Your dam right they should. I personally keep as far away as possible.oscarBravo wrote: »And yet, you expect the police to act professionally towards you.0 -
When I spent several weeks in the US in 1997 I was required to carry ID with me at all times when driving. I don't think Dubya had anything to do with that.rigormortis wrote: »As far as I am aware this is not the case. Maybe GW signed another house resolution? Seems to be signing away a lot of rights lately.
But that's beside the point: you've asserted that someone driving in the US has a right to refuse to identify herself to the police. Please back up that assertion.
You know all about terrorism, but there are no terrorists, and telling a family member of someone murdered in the Omagh bombing that there are no terrorists shouldn't offend them?rigormortis wrote: »I know all about terrorism and I know plenty of victims. As for balls, stating things as they are should not offend anyone.
Forgive me for disagreeing.
Oh look, another vintage casey212 throwaway remark masquerading as a contribution to the discussion.rigormortis wrote: »As for rights you have fundamental rights as a human being. You need to research the difference between rights and privileges.
Respect is earned. If you don't have respect for the police (which you should, considering their role in society), you shouldn't be too surprised if they have no respect for you.rigormortis wrote: »Your dam right they should. I personally keep as far away as possible.0 -
That assertion comes after the copper stopped her in the first place, for no reason that he was willing to provide. As for the law, there are different states with different laws.oscarBravo wrote: »When I spent several weeks in the US in 1997 I was required to carry ID with me at all times when driving. I don't think Dubya had anything to do with that.But that's beside the point: you've asserted that someone driving in the US has a right to refuse to identify herself to the police. Please back up that assertion.oscarBravo wrote: »You know all about terrorism, but there are no terrorists, and telling a family member of someone murdered in the Omagh bombing that there are no terrorists shouldn't offend them?
There are no terrorists. There are government operations. As for the families involved, i know one personally and they are in no way pleased with the subsequent investigation.
? You could not have been further from the mark. I dont live my life to please anyone. I dont live to satisfy the rules and be a good boy. As for respect anyone coming at me without justification better look out.oscarBravo wrote: »Respect is earned.oscarBravo wrote: »If you don't have respect for the police (which you should, considering their role in society), you shouldn't be too surprised if they have no respect for you.
Revenue generation is applaudable? As for me, I have no dealing with the boys in blue, and I intend to keep it that way.0 -
Advertisement
-
Cool, we're getting somewhere. Now all you have to do is demonstrate that this happened in a state where you are not required to produce ID on demand.rigormortis wrote: »That assertion comes after the copper stopped her in the first place, for no reason that he was willing to provide. As for the law, there are different states with different laws.
Which government committed mass murder in Omagh?rigormortis wrote: »There are no terrorists. There are government operations.
Have you told them it was a government operation?rigormortis wrote: »As for the families involved, i know one personally and they are in no way pleased with the subsequent investigation.
Do you think there should be police? If so, do you think they should have to actually wait until a crime has been committed before they can act at all?rigormortis wrote: »? You could not have been further from the mark. I dont live my life to please anyone. I dont live to satisfy the rules and be a good boy. As for respect anyone coming at me without justification better look out.
I am sometimes tempted to think that there should be a register of people with your attitude, so that if you're ever the victim of a crime, the police will know not to get involved and to leave you to your own devices.rigormortis wrote: »Revenue generation is applaudable? As for me, I have no dealing with the boys in blue, and I intend to keep it that way.0 -
Look at all the goons sitting around having a laugh.
Shooting a woman in the back, big men alright.0 -
No, again look at the sequence of events. Why was she stopped in the first place?oscarBravo wrote: »Cool, we're getting somewhere. Now all you have to do is demonstrate that this happened in a state where you are not required to produce ID on demand.
The britishoscarBravo wrote: »Which government committed mass murder in Omagh?
They know my opinions.oscarBravo wrote: »Have you told them it was a government operation?
Of course there should be "peace officers".oscarBravo wrote: »Do you think there should be police?oscarBravo wrote: »I am sometimes tempted to think that there should be a register of people with your attitude, so that if you're ever the victim of a crime, the police will know not to get involved and to leave you to your own devices.
I do not have any attitude. I have a will that forces me to stand up for my rights and the rights of others who have had injustice forced upon them.
How you can carry on defending these actions seems incredible.0 -
Irrelevant; you claimed the police officer broke the law, and now you're refusing to back up that assertion.rigormortis wrote: »No, again look at the sequence of events. Why was she stopped in the first place?
I'd be tempted to laugh this off, but it's disgusting and despicable to excuse the actions of the scum that actually did perpetrate this atrocity by deflecting the blame elsewhere.rigormortis wrote: »The british
But, let's play it your way. What evidence do you have that the British Government were behind the Omagh bombing? Straight answer, please.
Do they agree?rigormortis wrote: »They know my opinions.
You neatly skipped the rest of the question.rigormortis wrote: »Of course there should be "peace officers".
I'm not defending anything; I'm asking you to justify your assertions. You seem remarkably reluctant to do so, for such a hero of the people.rigormortis wrote: »I do not have any attitude. I have a will that forces me to stand up for my rights and the rights of others who have had injustice forced upon them.
How you can carry on defending these actions seems incredible.0 -
Its not irrelevant, its the basis of the whole case.oscarBravo wrote: »Irrelevant; you claimed the police officer broke the law, and now you're refusing to back up that assertion..oscarBravo wrote: »I'd be tempted to laugh this off, but it's disgusting and despicable to excuse the actions of the scum that actually did perpetrate this atrocity by deflecting the blame elsewhere.
I'm no defender of the IRA. A pack of filth. Look into the allegations of Martin IngramoscarBravo wrote: »Do they agree?
Some of the outer circle are in agreement. They convinced me.oscarBravo wrote: ». I'm not defending anything; I'm asking you to justify your assertions. You seem remarkably reluctant to do so, for such a hero of the people.
Thats right, you never gave you opinion at all. What are your opinions on the overall situation?0 -
What law did the policeman break?rigormortis wrote: »Its not irrelevant, its the basis of the whole case.
To lay blame for Omagh at the British government's door is effectively to absolve the scum who perpetrated it.rigormortis wrote: »I'm no defender of the IRA. A pack of filth. Look into the allegations of Martin Ingram
On what basis do you believe Ingram (not his real name, btw)?
Who did?rigormortis wrote: »Some of the outer circle are in agreement. They convinced me.
My opinion is that you're throwing accusations around that you're not prepared to back up.rigormortis wrote: »Thats right, you never gave you opinion at all. What are your opinions on the overall situation?0 -
Assault, unlawful arrest, unwarranted obstruction of a citizen.oscarBravo wrote: »What law did the policeman break?oscarBravo wrote: »To lay blame for Omagh at the British government's door is effectively to absolve the scum who perpetrated it.
Not its not. The bombing was carried out by the IRA with the go ahead of MI5.
Its not his real name. There have also been many informants raising their heads. Also I have a good knowledge of the intelligence gathering process. Spycatcher by Wright was a good book explaining the process as well as Inside the KGB by [SIZE=-1]Vladimir Kuzichkin. You cannot have any sort of organisation without getting infiltrated. A lot of hard core republicans now realise that they were useful idiots, puppets for a larger plan.[/SIZE]oscarBravo wrote: »On what basis do you believe Ingram (not his real name, btw)?
One of the family members involved.oscarBravo wrote: »Who did?oscarBravo wrote: »My opinion is that you're throwing accusations around that you're not prepared to back up.
Easy to say for someone who does not have the neck to at least acknowledge an obvious abuse of power.0 -
How do you know it was an unlawful arrest? Straight answer, now. I've repeatedly asked you to demonstrate that the woman in question was legally entitled to refuse to show her ID, and you've repeatedly scurried away from the question.rigormortis wrote: »Assault, unlawful arrest, unwarranted obstruction of a citizen.
Bullshit.rigormortis wrote: »Not its not. The bombing was carried out by the IRA with the go ahead of MI5.
Do they teach that as part of an International Finance PhD?rigormortis wrote: »Its not his real name. There have also been many informants raising their heads. Also I have a good knowledge of the intelligence gathering process.
Which one?rigormortis wrote: »One of the family members involved.
"Obvious" because you desperately want to believe it? Heaven forbid you'd actually produce any evidence.rigormortis wrote: »Easy to say for someone who does not have the neck to at least acknowledge an obvious abuse of power.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »How do you know it was an unlawful arrest? Straight answer, now. I've repeatedly asked you to demonstrate that the woman in question was legally entitled to refuse to show her ID, and you've repeatedly scurried away from the question.
You have repeatedly refused to answer whether the police officer has any right to stop the woman n the first place. I am no lawyer. How could a person possibly know even 1% of the laws in this country, never mind all the laws of the U.S
Lets throw away all laws here. Was what he done morally right?
Time will prove me right.oscarBravo wrote: »Bullshit.
They dont teach much in any Phd, masters or degree course. I am a big believer in self unregulated education. Read the Undergroun history of education by Gatto. I believe you can get it free online.oscarBravo wrote: »Do they teach that as part of an International Finance PhD?oscarBravo wrote: »"Obvious" because you desperately want to believe it? Heaven forbid you'd actually produce any evidence.
The evidence is there in the form of a video. You seem to be all questions and no answers.I have no problem with people making a wrong evaluation, so long as they at least make some decision.
From a moral viewpoint I believe that this case was a disgrace. You will not even defend what happened, you are reduced to attacking someone who makes a stand. You know yourself that the arrest was totally out of order and yet you will not admit it.0 -
Advertisement
-
oscarbravo wrote:Do you think there should be police? If so, do you think they should have to actually wait until a crime has been committed before they can act at all?
I'm gonna have to pull you up on this one, Hell yeah they have to wait till there is an actual crime being comitted before they act.
what would you suggest, 'that fella looks dodgy, lets arest him and lock him up in case he might do something wrong'?
there is still something out there called due process aint there?
as for the ID thing, if you're drivin a car then you have to have a drivin licence, the cops are entitled to ask to see this, if yer walkin down the street mindin yer own business then they cant stop you and ask you to identify yerself without first givin clear and valid reasns for doing so.0
Advertisement