Announcement

**lord of the mark** · May 21, 2003, 18:17

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Notice what LotM chose not to include, "for legth."

Matt LeMieux, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri, said, "I think if the police are going to conduct searches and arrest people, it ought to be based on the conduct of what a person is doing now. But what they're doing is pre-emptively trying to arrest people. It's a bad and unconstitutional policy."

He called the housing inspections "a trick" to get in without a warrant and suggested police should have worked with protesters instead of antagonizing them.

[

yup lemieux viewpoint is presented by "corporate media" I didnt include it as you had already included a quote from him, i was trying to show a different viewpoint.

**lord of the mark** · May 21, 2003, 18:20

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

You need rocks and nails (no mention of rusty in the article) for rehabbing a building. Sling-shots are usefull for quikly disposing of tear gas canisters, since the police have had a nasty habit of attacking peaceful demonstrations for the past four years.

I live in the DC area. Every year about half the folks who work downtown cant go to work when the IMF meets, cause of harassment and obstruction by your "peaceful" protesters.

If people choose to break the law and to obstruct the uses of the streets and sidewalks by law abiding citizens trying to go about their business, the police have EVERY right to use tear gas to disperse them, and they have NO RIGHT to use slingshots to send it back at the police.

Bastards.

**Worthingtons** · May 21, 2003, 18:20

Chegitz, Still angry about the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991?

You Provide no Source, YOU PROVIDE NOTHING!, and yet you want to destroy Capitalism... you criminal!

**Imran Siddiqui** · May 21, 2003, 18:21

LOTM, thanks for the info. I don't trust the biased sites that che brings up. More mainstream news sources usually give both sides. The irony here is that the same people saying you have to trust 'democracynow' and 'indymedia' scoff if a news item is brought by 'newsmax' or 'Foxnews' and say they want a "REAL" news source.

**SlowwHand** · May 21, 2003, 18:22

Originally posted by Sava
LOTM: I apologize for my post being worded the way it was... I have a limited command of the English language. I did not mean to put words in your mouth about the assault rifle issue.

As for protests... the Contsitution grants the freedom to assemble... I don't recall the amendment that says people have the right to get to work in a timely fashion.

Ok, Poindexter. Since when did a person's right to protest supercede another person's right to not protest?
To simply go to work?

**Sava** · May 21, 2003, 18:24

I live in the DC area. Every year about half the folks who work downtown cant go to work when the IMF meets, cause of harassment and obstruction by your "peaceful" protesters.

If people choose to break the law and to obstruct the uses of the streets and sidewalks by law abiding citizens trying to go about their business, the police have EVERY right to use tear gas to disperse them, and they have NO RIGHT to use slingshots to send it back at the police.

Bastards.

I wonder if you think the shooters at Kent State were justified.

**chequita guevara** · May 21, 2003, 18:24

Originally posted by lord of the mark
As far as i can tell the police were merely enforcing housing law. Maybe they were using a technicality. you want to go around doing radical things, it behooves you to stay on the right side of technicalities.

Given that the building was condemned ony that morning, it is rather suspicious. If the building wasn't fit for habitation, why did St. Louis sell the building to them? Why did they comdemn the building the weekend a demonstration was to take place?

Chicago has a long history of using housing codes to get rid of institutions they don't want. Several years ago, as a certain neighborhood gentrified, the new neighbors became increasing disgruntled with a homeless shelter. Although the shelter had been there "forever," the new neighbors had money. So they city came in and comdemned the space and closed the shelter at the behest of my alderwoman.

And given the record of use of such things at anti-globalization protests, (at which they have been used to violate the civil rights of people trying to go to work) the fact that a group of people was gathering them in anticipation of such a protest seems a legitimate concern for law enforcement.

Given the record of police attacking peaceful demonstrations and "proactively" arresting activists during and befoer anti-globalization protests, it seems rather suspicious that the police chose that morning to enforce a condemnation that had only been issued hours before. If you are at all familiar with condemned buildings, it often takes years for the city to do anything about them, and yet within hours, the police invade. Hmmmm.

you guys seem to think that freedom means giving the revolution a fighting chance. This liberal says Uh-uh.

No, I don't expect you to give the revolution a fighting chance. I do expect you to obey your Consitution when it comes to legitimate public protest!

**lord of the mark** · May 21, 2003, 18:25

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

You need rocks and nails (no mention of rusty in the article) for rehabbing a building. Sling-shots are usefull for quikly disposing of tear gas canisters, since the police have had a nasty habit of attacking peaceful demonstrations for the past four years.

you use rocks for rehabbing a building???? How exactly? Do these guys not believe in hammers (now theres a sinister capitalist invention)

We all know what rocks are good for, that hammers are not. Can you say "uprising of stones"????

**Sava** · May 21, 2003, 18:25

Originally posted by SlowwHand

Ok, Poindexter. Since when did a person's right to protest supercede another person's right to not protest?
To simply go to work?

Since the Constitution was written.

**lord of the mark** · May 21, 2003, 18:27

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by lord of the mark
As far as i can tell the police were merely enforcing housing law. Maybe they were using a technicality. you want to go around doing radical things, it behooves you to stay on the right side of technicalities.

Given that the building was condemned ony that morning, it is rather suspicious. If the building wasn't fit for habitation, why did St. Louis sell the building to them?

Baltimore had a program like that - they sell you the building cheap, you have like a year to bring it up to code.

**Imran Siddiqui** · May 21, 2003, 18:27

Since the Constitution was written.

Um no... the right to protest cannot override someone's right to go about their work.

**SlowwHand** · May 21, 2003, 18:27

You're on drugs or drink or both, Sava.
One person's rights don't step all over another person's.

There is your main problem, along with Che's and several other people here.

**lord of the mark** · May 21, 2003, 18:29

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by lord of the mark
As far as i can tell the police were merely enforcing housing law. Maybe they were using a technicality. you want to go around doing radical things, it behooves you to stay on the right side of technicalities.

Given that the building was condemned ony that morning, it is rather suspicious. If the building wasn't fit for habitation, why did St. Louis sell the building to them? Why did they comdemn the building the weekend a demonstration was to take place?

Chicago has a long history of using housing codes to get rid of institutions they don't want. Several years ago, as a certain neighborhood gentrified, the new neighbors became increasing disgruntled with a homeless shelter. Although the shelter had been there "forever," the new neighbors had money. So they city came in and comdemned the space and closed the shelter at the behest of my alderwoman.

And given the record of use of such things at anti-globalization protests, (at which they have been used to violate the civil rights of people trying to go to work) the fact that a group of people was gathering them in anticipation of such a protest seems a legitimate concern for law enforcement.

Given the record of police attacking peaceful demonstrations and "proactively" arresting activists during and befoer anti-globalization protests, it seems rather suspicious that the police chose that morning to enforce a condemnation that had only been issued hours before. If you are at all familiar with condemned buildings, it often takes years for the city to do anything about them, and yet within hours, the police invade. Hmmmm.

you guys seem to think that freedom means giving the revolution a fighting chance. This liberal says Uh-uh.

No, I don't expect you to give the revolution a fighting chance. I do expect you to obey your Consitution when it comes to legitimate public protest!

So suppose the police decided to speed up the priocess cause they suspected these people were about to engage in violent or otherwise unlawful activities. Sneaky, huh. Unconstitutional, no.

**Sava** · May 21, 2003, 18:30

I've read the constitution guys... sorry, but I didn't read the amendment that guaranteed a speedy trip to work. I did, however, read that little, insignificant amendment that allows the right to assemble.

EDIT:

One person's rights don't step all over another person's.

You are correct... but a speedy trip to work isn't a right guaranteed in the Constitution.

**Lefty Scaevola** · May 21, 2003, 18:31

"Police attacking the left across Midwest"
Tell me when we get to the public torture and mutilation phase; it has been a dull month.

Announcement

Police attacking the left across Midwest

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment