This is Not America

[Dis]

Originally posted by Donegeal

Originally posted by Dissident


It's called privacy. Cops always say we don't know how it feels to be a cop. Well, cops don't know how it feels to be an innocent citizen and being harrassed by the cops.

Cops are citizens as well and know fully what it is like to be one.

It's real ****ing simple. You see someone break the law you arrest them. You see someone walking down the street, you leave them alone.

I wish it were that simple. My job also includes trying to prevent laws from being broken.

I will not back down. I don't care what cop sees this, anyone who harrasses innocent civilians walking down the streets are ****ing *******s who need to lose their jobs.

And I agree with you, however, your appearent definition of harrassment and that of the state seem to differ.

yes cops are citizens too, but they are usually clean cut guys who don't look scruffy looking. And they don't look like anarchists.

[chequita guevara]

I just sent a letter to the editor of my local paper in response to the following.

Police averted a repeat of Seattle

T.M. Roland Jr.
Cooper City
Posted June 15 2005

Re Michael Mayo's June 7 commentary, "OAS security makes locals feel uneasy," and the accompanying article, "Shops bemoan their losses": In his commentary, Mr. Mayo reports on the efforts of law enforcement that made "Southeast 17th Street look like something out of a police state playbook." And shop owners from 17th Street complained about a loss of revenue during the recent Organization of American States meetings.

To these individuals, I offer two words: Remember Seattle.

In December 1999, during the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle, hundreds of anarchists hid behind our First Amendment rights to cause millions of dollars in property damage to the city of Seattle.

Do we want a Seattle battlefield in our own hometown?

To the law enforcement organizations that spent hundreds of man-hours preparing for this event and to the hundreds of professional law enforcement officers, including the South Florida Customs & Border Protection officers whom I work with every day, who sacrificed time with their families in weather when the heat index approached 100 degrees daily, to protect our city, I offer two more words: Thank you.

I would like to reply to the Letter to the Editors by T.M.Roland, "Police averted a repeat of Seattle." I live in the neighborhood that was decended upon by scores of police and a few dozen protestors. I made the mistake of putting on a black t-shirt before I knew there was a protest and went to the local Publix to buy a kitty litter pan. Upon leaving, I was accosted by police who demanded to know where I was coming from, where I lived, to see my I.D., know what was in my backpack, and then to search my backpack. While they were professional and polite, they were nonetheless violating my 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

The greatest irony of that days is that at the moment while the police were violating my Constitutional Rights, Condoleza Rice was a couple blocks away saying, "Wherever a free society is in retreat, a fear society is on the offensive. And the weapon of choice for every authoritarian regime is the organized cruelty of the police state."

Furthermore, I do remember Seattle. In Seattle, the police assaulted the protestors, who were peacably assembled. Later in the week, the police surrounded the neighborhood of Capital Hill (the alternative district) and proceded to go berserk, even tough there was *no protest* going on there. At each demonstration that week, it was police who instigated the violence. Yes, six anarchists did break into and bust up a Starbucks. That hardly excuses the police for beating hundreds and deploying chemical weapons on a city.

[Agathon]

Nice, but you could have spelled "descended" properly.

[chequita guevara]

I should spelled several things correctly, but I didn't.

[Agathon]

Never mind, we can attribute it to your angry zeal.

[BlackCat]

Is it only a personal letter to junior or are it to be published in the paper ?

[Donegeal]

Like I have said, don't be upset at the police, be upset with whoever made the choice regarding the security level in this situation. Whoever it was obviously has a different interuptation of the 5th amendment.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I would like to reply to the Letter to the Editors by T.M.Roland, "Police averted a repeat of Seattle." I live in the neighborhood that was decended upon by scores of police and a few dozen protestors. I made the mistake of putting on a black t-shirt before I knew there was a protest and went to the local Publix to buy a kitty litter pan. Upon leaving, I was accosted by police who demanded to know where I was coming from, where I lived, to see my I.D., know what was in my backpack, and then to search my backpack. While they were professional and polite, they were nonetheless violating my 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

Once again, you just have a different opinion on what was "unreasonable search and seizure". Rest assured that the police will have a very strict policy regarding this action.

Furthermore, I do remember Seattle. In Seattle, the police assaulted the protestors, who were peacably assembled. Later in the week, the police surrounded the neighborhood of Capital Hill (the alternative district) and proceded to go berserk, even tough there was *no protest* going on there. At each demonstration that week, it was police who instigated the violence. Yes, six anarchists did break into and bust up a Starbucks. That hardly excuses the police for beating hundreds and deploying chemical weapons on a city.

I remember Seatle also, yet I seem to have gotten quite the different impression from you. Actually, it would seem that a vast majority of people I know got a different impression of the situation.

Lets look at the OAS protest from a hypothetical situation: How would the protest have gone if the police were not there?
Number one, the gathering would have been MUCH larger. More people, more potential for trouble.
Number two, the type of people who gathered there are appearently anarchist (to some varying degree). Not sure if you realize this, but a large gathering of people of this sort tend to be rather unruly. Combine that with a lack of police presense and you'd have been lucky to even get out of their with your backpack in one piece.
Number three, mob rule. Look at how easy it is for "victory" riots to occure. Someone wins a spoting event and the people go nuts. In their enthusiasm a car gets flipped over and started on fire. Now this is just people who are happy about their sports team. Imagine if it was a group of anarchists who were not happy about something, but already upset about something. The thing would have quickly devolved into an all out riot.

Now on top of all this, you complain about ploice presense when it is clearly needed, them you complain that they wern't there (or atleast summond) at the exact instant you wanted them when there was no pre-existing reason for them to be there (I am refering to your other thread about the McDs (of which, thought you handled yourself in an exemplary manor)). You can't have it both ways.

It seems to me that no matter what the cops do, in your mind, they are wrong.

[chequita guevara]

The paper called and they are considering publishing it.

Donegal, 4th Amendment, not 5th.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I am not complaining about the police presence, per se, but rather the overboard response towards people who were not engaged in criminal behavior. I expect a heavy police presence because there will be a gathering of foreign ministers and the POTUS will be arriving. Given the absolute attractiveness of the potential target for terrorism, anything less would be negligence. The convention center, btw, is right next to (and I mean seperated by a fence) from a fuel depot / refinery. Granted I didn't investigate the depot, but there were less police in that part of my neighborhood than in the part with all the shops.

As for what happened at to me at McDonalds, it's hardly the police's fault for not being there. No one called them. I blame McDonalds management, not the police.

Now, I expect to see police at a demonstration. In the past, they were even quite friendly with me personally. I don't see any reason to deliberately anatagonize cops, and being a decent human being towards them might save my ass from a skull cracking down the line.

Now here, there were two groups protesting, leftists and rightists. I think a police presence was necessary to stop them from fighting, since pro and anti Chavez forces aren't really friends, and those trying to block the extradition of the right-wing terrorist Posada-Carriles aren't terribly friendly towards socialists.

But I had nothing to do with the protests. I was just going to the store.

[chequita guevara]

Woot!

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/letters/sfl-brmail868jun18,0,1254756.story?coll=sfla-news-letters

[Ming]

Congrats on getting your letter in...

[chequita guevara]

I wonder if I should get a copy of the paper . . . assuming I can find it (probably could at a gas station or supermarket).

[Ming]

A copy of the paper would be nice to have... but worse case, just print a copy from the net. You should have something to keep

[Agathon]

[Che's funny name]



You should change your name to "Super Duper McSocialist" for the added class.

[chequita guevara]

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Agathon


Well, when your job description seems to be "beat up on and hassle left-wing protest groups, whilst allowing establishment gatherings to proceed unmolested (like the tory protest in Britain a few years back), some of us might be a bit less than convinced of the neutrality of the police.

Why shouldn't the "establishment" be able to meet "unmolested"??

How would you feel if the rightists decided to storm your meetings?? I'd be willing to bet if there was a big communist meeting that was going to be protested by rabid righties, these same police would be there to protect your meeting places and keep the righties out


I saw a lot of protests and police responses when the G-8 met in Calgary and Kananskis. I thought that generally the Canadian police were very very restrained in their response. Essentially what I witnessed was protestors given pretty free rein except when they attempted to storm a building. . . Various parades were permitted to block streets-- all the police did was block certain streets to attempt to minimize the impact on traffic ( they had a groups that would leapfrog the parade to create blockades to protect the protestors from traffic etc plus the police had spoken with the leaders about the planned route agian for their protection and so they could ensure security)