My God, you are an idiot.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

The park in Detroit isn't something most people would care to use, it was full of homeless anyway, so no one cares (although they did have to lose the tents and did so w/o incident). Ann Arbor is a park that is used, but both the park and "movement" are too small for anyone to care.

Is the location in Oakland something that was used before being turned into a camp out? How about Zuccatti?

By the way the whole question of whether protesters can camp out in a park was answered long ago in DC during Reagan and at Lafayette. Lafayette in the 80s looked like these occupy places, then the law was clarified that you can't camp out there- god bless to "protesting"- but you can't camp out.

Zucotti seemed lightly used and barely a park (old firm my office was right next to it).

Of course there have been people camping out in lafeyette since then with "no nukes" protest. Just not many.

That the city can tell them to disperse does not mean its wise to do so.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

In Houston, the will of the guy who gave the park in front of City Hall says specifically that people can sleep there over night and that it is a free speech space. The city made a deal with the Occupy folk that they could move over one park so the park in front of city hall could be used for stuff like press confrences, the weekly farmers market, etc.

The current debate with the city and the Occupy folk is the definition of "tent". Up until a few days ago a tent was a tent. Now a tent is a tarp. The cops swooped in a few days ago to confiscate tarps when it started raining. Including a tarp on someones backpack while the guy was wearing the backpack.

There were 12 arrests yesterday for blocking traffic. I don't think anyone has problems with those arrests.

Not at all. Some were arrested here for continuing to block after being told that they would be arrested of they didn't move. That's fine.

In Berkeley a woman asked to be arrested an was billy clubbed instead.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

so you see greys, you just deny they exist, and don't let them change anything you post?

I didn't deny they exist. I asked, so? And why are you choosing to dwell on the conceptual possibility that somehow who was hurt might have been a bad actor, instead of the actual facts we do have?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Have you seen the video from Berkeley?

Or from Oakland? The use of tear gas on non-violent protesters marching in the street? The guy who was shot by police (with a non-lethal projectile) because he was filming them?

I was overseas when the first thing happened, and I was embarrassed to watch it with foreign nationals and to try to explain what was happening in my country.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I didn't deny they exist. I asked, so? And why are you choosing to dwell on the conceptual possibility that somehow who was hurt might have been a bad actor, instead of the actual facts we do have?

what actual facts? someone was hurt? cops are given guns and clubs to imply the threat, and sometimes the reality of hurting people. the main question to me is whether the people they use them had deserved getting hurt and whether the "hurt" was out of line given the behavior. since all we know is someone was hurt a reasonable person can't comment on that photo.

the film of the cops acting out is another story. there we can see they behaved wrong. can you understand this? are you lying when you say a company trusts you to handle legal matters?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Paterno has lung cancer.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

what actual facts? someone was hurt? cops are given guns and clubs to imply the threat, and sometimes the reality of hurting people. the main question to me is whether the people they use them had deserved getting hurt and whether the "hurt" was out of line given the behavior.

OK, fair enough.

since all we know is someone was hurt a reasonable person can't comment on that photo.

Sorry, but that's horseshit.

Can you comment on this photo?



Of course you can.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

what actual facts? someone was hurt? cops are given guns and clubs to imply the threat, and sometimes the reality of hurting people. the main question to me is whether the people they use them had deserved getting hurt and whether the "hurt" was out of line given the behavior. since all we know is someone was hurt a reasonable person can't comment on that photo.

We know (or, at least, have heard) that he threw a AAA battery at police and that he grabbed a police officer's hat.

What your call -- was the beating he got deserved?

the film of the cops acting out is another story. there we can see they behaved wrong. can you understand this? are you lying when you say a company trusts you to handle legal matters?

Chill out, Hank. You're a trial lawyer, or claim to be. What does the fact that there are photos and videos of cops acting out and using excessive force, but none that you can point to of protestors doing things to "deserve" it? It's not as if the police, the media who are watching the Occupy protests (much of which is conservative), or all the people who would like to discredit the Occupy people don't have access to cameras and iPhones.

And why is your stridency reserved for the misconduct of protestors that you think -- but don't know -- may have happened, instead of for the misconduct of police that you acknowledge did happen?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

OK, fair enough.



Sorry, but that's horseshit.

Can you comment on this photo?



Of course you can.

I actually heard someone take a Hank-like approach to that photo once -- in essence, talking about how the prisoner was berating and threatening his captors for a long time before he was shot.

Leaving aside that he's handcuffed, in captivity, and completely neutralized, the longer video sequence that shows the minute or so before his shooting doesn't support that interpretation.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Can you comment on this photo?



Of course you can.

or the one we've never seen of a seal shooting Osama in front of his daughter, right? unnecessary and abusive use of force. that's war. ugly shit happens, and things are allowed that police shouldn't do.

and be careful. Sidd is saying we aren't trial lawyers today if we ignore inferences that he feels reasonable.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

We know (or, at least, have heard) that he threw a AAA battery at police and that he grabbed a police officer's hat.

What your call -- was the beating he got deserved?

of course not. you're slipping towards ggg-land here btw.

Chill out, Hank. You're a trial lawyer, or claim to be. What does the fact that there are photos and videos of cops acting out and using excessive force, but none that you can point to of protestors doing things to "deserve" it?

I ain't a big city lawyer like you, but I don't think that is a question. But I'll answer what i think you're asking- there are several films of cops that should be punished. there is no evidence of why the bleeding kid got bloody. excuse me if i choose not to jump to conclusions.

And why is your stridency reserved for the misconduct of protestors that you think -- but don't know -- may have happened, instead of for the misconduct of police that you acknowledge did happen?

I was being strident? i merely asked your dear leader why he felt the photo proved improper police behavior.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

what actual facts? someone was hurt? cops are given guns and clubs to imply the threat, and sometimes the reality of hurting people. the main question to me is whether the people they use them had deserved getting hurt and whether the "hurt" was out of line given the behavior. since all we know is someone was hurt a reasonable person can't comment on that photo.

the film of the cops acting out is another story. there we can see they behaved wrong. can you understand this? are you lying when you say a company trusts you to handle legal matters?

I linked the Oakland video of a vet shot in the head. Go find the berkeley video. Stop feigning ignorance.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

or the one we've never seen of a seal shooting Osama in front of his daughter, right? unnecessary and abusive use of force. that's war. ugly shit happens, and things are allowed that police shouldn't do.

and be careful. Sidd is saying we aren't trial lawyers today if we ignore inferences that he feels reasonable.

Really? NY and CA are a war?

Are u on drugs?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

I linked the Oakland video of a vet shot in the head. Go find the berkeley video. Stop feigning ignorance.

you can't be this stupid, can you? I said the film where the police did shit wrong is wrong. No question. this thread grew from a photo of a guy bleeding. how did he come to be bleeding? the film from oakland probably doesn't explain how this guy is bleeding. or do you think the guy in NYC is bleeding because of what happened in the film you posted from oakland?

now, let me ask you this, abu gharib had our soldiers overacting. when you heard osama was killed did the abu crimes make you think osama was killed without justification, or did you think that maybe situations should be looked at individually?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Really? NY and CA are a war?

Are u on drugs?

does your computer show images? Ty linked a picture from a war before you were born. you should ask someone to read your posts before you post them. you are really stupid sometimes.

edit: i suppose the picture ty posted could have been oakland police executing a protester and taking the artistic liberty of recreating the Saigon image. if so, i apologize. that oakland police man is out of bounds for shooting the man with his hands tied behind his back.