700? O.o;;
Regardless of what anyone thinks about whether or not this was a trap laid by police, I have to say they are certainly digging themselves into a bigger and bigger hole, regardless of whether or not they were right or wrong.
It's VERY hard for the public to justify 700 arrests, even if they were justified, especially when the police made no attempt to block the bridge in the first place. They seriously need to be discussing their actions with a PR person ahead of time...
I think that's the one thing we can all agree on. If they don't change their act quickly, the protest is just going to grow bigger and bigger.
I'm finding this whole protest fascinating. I know people planning to go who I would never have imagined to be the type to protests before now.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- NYPD Police Brutality
NYPD Police BrutalityFollow
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Wait, what?
People who were staying off the roadway and sticking to the walkway were left alone and allowed to cross without issue. People who blocked the road and traffic were arrested to the tune of 700+.
So yet again protesters were creating a disturbance and ignoring police requests/orders to get off the road, and this somehow makes the police look bad?
Police aren't required to block the bridge, people are required to grow a ******* brain and realize that just because they're protesting, they still have to follow the law. And if they don't, they're going to be arrested.
The disturbing part is how people can spin this into something that makes the police look bad, when not only were they completely justified in the arrests, but showed a hell of a lot of restraint. 700+ people could have easily justified more aggressive means, but the police kept calm and did their jobs.
People who were staying off the roadway and sticking to the walkway were left alone and allowed to cross without issue. People who blocked the road and traffic were arrested to the tune of 700+.
So yet again protesters were creating a disturbance and ignoring police requests/orders to get off the road, and this somehow makes the police look bad?
Police aren't required to block the bridge, people are required to grow a ******* brain and realize that just because they're protesting, they still have to follow the law. And if they don't, they're going to be arrested.
The disturbing part is how people can spin this into something that makes the police look bad, when not only were they completely justified in the arrests, but showed a hell of a lot of restraint. 700+ people could have easily justified more aggressive means, but the police kept calm and did their jobs.
Public image, quite often, has nothing to do with right vs. wrong. That's a LOT of people, and most people would hear that number and think it was absurd. Since there wasn't any actual violence involved, people are predisposed to think in favor of the protesters even if the police were justified.
This is very likely going to bite the police in the ***--it would have been better for them if they had just let the protesters cross.
The fact that intentionally painting the protesters in a good light will be more profitable for news companies isn't going to help matters.
This is very likely going to bite the police in the ***--it would have been better for them if they had just let the protesters cross.
The fact that intentionally painting the protesters in a good light will be more profitable for news companies isn't going to help matters.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Quote:
That's a LOT of people, and most people would hear that number and think it was absurd. Since there wasn't any actual violence involved, people are predisposed to think in favor of the protesters even if the police were justified.
Or people can assume that people were blocking traffic, like every report I've seen has stated, and assume they were arrested because they were creating a disturbance. Believing there are 700+ idiots in a protest where a good chunk of the protesters don't even know why they're there isn't much of a stretch.
Quote:
This is very likely going to bite the police in the ***--it would have been better for them if they had just let the protesters cross.
Allowing protestors to shut down traffic and disturb the lives of people living in the city would have made the police look good? And when some drunk idiot plowed through a dozen or so people standing in the middle of the bridge, nobody would have blamed the police for not protecting the protestors, right?
Quote:
The fact that intentionally painting the protesters in a good light will be more profitable for news companies isn't going to help matters.
At this point every major media outlet I've seen cover the protests has stayed pretty much in the middle, other than to point out that very few people there actually have any idea as to why they're there.
I don't mean to be a prick, but every time I've seen you rally behind one cause or another, you seem to show a complete lack of life experience. Go to the protest, see how things really work, then make a decision.
Right, and the 70 arrests and pepper spray could have been fully appropriate based on the situation. Doesn't change the fact that the police had already recieved a record number of complaints about that situation before 2 days had even passed.
This isn't about whether or not the police are doing what they should or should not do with reference to their duties, it's about what is or is not going to garner them support from the people. Right now, they are losing support from the public, fast. Because even if they are doing the right thing, the impression people are getting is that they aren't. If you think that most people are going to take the time to really look into issues, you're sadly mistaken. From the tones of the articles out there right now, this march is made out to be one the protesters had permission to undertake but then were arrested after being trapped on the bridge. Did they have permission? Of course not. But media companies are going to do all they can to minimalize that fact, because it makes the story more inflammatory.
At the end of the 1960s, police raided a bar in the Village for tax evasion, laundering, etc (it being owned by the mob). It also just happened to be a gay bar, since all gay bars at the time were run by the mob, since they were illegal. There were 2 or 3 "arrests" of transsexuals made, but overall that wasn't why they were there and they didn't really care. There was also no brutality or anything reported on their part.
Funny thing is that it sparked a 2 day riot that caused the gay rights movement to surge forward. The perception of the police after this event was AWFUL, despite the fact that they didn't do anything outside of their jurisdiction.
That's not really any different than this. Just because they are doing their jobs (even if it's perfecly by the book), the impressions of events can vary wildly in the public eye. The protest has more than tripled in size since the reports of police actions began circulating--this is just going to boost it more.
If the police want the protest to end, they need for it to quietly fizzle out. The more they push, the more the population of protesters will swell, and the more determined they'll be.
Have I been to the protest? No. Probably won't either. But I have a roommate going next weekend--I'll happily find out her account of events. If you are interested, I can report back.
[EDIT]
And most news stories covering the event go out of their way to mention the pepper spray account, along with some protester testimonies, without really attempting to justify the police side of things. That's hardly staying in the middle.
Edited, Oct 2nd 2011 8:08pm by idiggory
This isn't about whether or not the police are doing what they should or should not do with reference to their duties, it's about what is or is not going to garner them support from the people. Right now, they are losing support from the public, fast. Because even if they are doing the right thing, the impression people are getting is that they aren't. If you think that most people are going to take the time to really look into issues, you're sadly mistaken. From the tones of the articles out there right now, this march is made out to be one the protesters had permission to undertake but then were arrested after being trapped on the bridge. Did they have permission? Of course not. But media companies are going to do all they can to minimalize that fact, because it makes the story more inflammatory.
At the end of the 1960s, police raided a bar in the Village for tax evasion, laundering, etc (it being owned by the mob). It also just happened to be a gay bar, since all gay bars at the time were run by the mob, since they were illegal. There were 2 or 3 "arrests" of transsexuals made, but overall that wasn't why they were there and they didn't really care. There was also no brutality or anything reported on their part.
Funny thing is that it sparked a 2 day riot that caused the gay rights movement to surge forward. The perception of the police after this event was AWFUL, despite the fact that they didn't do anything outside of their jurisdiction.
That's not really any different than this. Just because they are doing their jobs (even if it's perfecly by the book), the impressions of events can vary wildly in the public eye. The protest has more than tripled in size since the reports of police actions began circulating--this is just going to boost it more.
If the police want the protest to end, they need for it to quietly fizzle out. The more they push, the more the population of protesters will swell, and the more determined they'll be.
Have I been to the protest? No. Probably won't either. But I have a roommate going next weekend--I'll happily find out her account of events. If you are interested, I can report back.
[EDIT]
And most news stories covering the event go out of their way to mention the pepper spray account, along with some protester testimonies, without really attempting to justify the police side of things. That's hardly staying in the middle.
Edited, Oct 2nd 2011 8:08pm by idiggory
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
700 arrests, but how many are actually being charged with anything?
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
700 arrests, but how many are actually being charged with anything?
As of right now, it seems like all of them are being charged with disorderly conduct and/or impeding traffic. At least, I haven't heard of a single person getting released without a charge.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Just as Planned.
The numbers he reports have to be low. I mean, 705 people were arrested on the bridge, out of an estimated 1500. And that's just the population that was involved with the march itself.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Quote:
This isn't about whether or not the police are doing what they should or should not do with reference to their duties, it's about what is or is not going to garner them support from the people. Right now, they are losing support from the public, fast. Because even if they are doing the right thing, the impression people are getting is that they aren't. If you think that most people are going to take the time to really look into issues, you're sadly mistaken. From the tones of the articles out there right now, this march is made out to be one the protesters had permission to undertake but then were arrested after being trapped on the bridge. Did they have permission? Of course not. But media companies are going to do all they can to minimalize that fact, because it makes the story more inflammatory.
Actually, most of the articles I've read offer both sides without dredging up the "big bad lawman" angle. And the public image of the police isn't all that relevant here since the cops aren't even one of the things being protested against. Also, the type of people who are going to read the headline and immediately blame the police are the same people that are going to forget all about it when the next "shiny" comes along, or the people who are going to run down there with a full head of steam and give the cops a reason to smash them into a wall. The only people who have any chance of organizing this thing and giving it any momentum are not the same people who are going to take a biased article at face value.
Quote:
At the end of the 1960s, police raided a bar in the Village for tax evasion, laundering, etc (it being owned by the mob). It also just happened to be a gay bar, since all gay bars at the time were run by the mob, since they were illegal. There were 2 or 3 "arrests" of transsexuals made, but overall that wasn't why they were there and they didn't really care. There was also no brutality or anything reported on their part.
Funny thing is that it sparked a 2 day riot that caused the gay rights movement to surge forward. The perception of the police after this event was AWFUL, despite the fact that they didn't do anything outside of their jurisdiction
Funny thing is that it sparked a 2 day riot that caused the gay rights movement to surge forward. The perception of the police after this event was AWFUL, despite the fact that they didn't do anything outside of their jurisdiction
Quote:
That's not really any different than this
How the hell do you draw a connection between transsexuals being arrested, sparking a gay rights movement, and idiots being arrested for blocking traffic?
Quote:
Just because they are doing their jobs (even if it's perfecly by the book), the impressions of events can vary wildly in the public eye. The protest has more than tripled in size since the reports of police actions began circulating--this is just going to boost it more.
And this information is being verified how? From what I've been hearing the numbers have been stagnant since last weekend. Most of the remaining supporters are basically people with nothing better to do all day.
Quote:
If the police want the protest to end, they need for it to quietly fizzle out. The more they push, the more the population of protesters will swell, and the more determined they'll be.
Again, you think the police have some hidden agenda meant to stop the uprising. All they're doing is their job, nothing else. There is no hidden conspiracy because there doesn't need to be one. The protesters aren't even capable of organizing themselves.
Quote:
Have I been to the protest? No. Probably won't either. But I have a roommate going next weekend--I'll happily find out her account of events. If you are interested, I can report back.
Goes back to the experience thing. If you aren't going yourself and don't have experience gauging these types of things, you have nothing to gauge what you're being told. Again, not being a prick, but you're jumping on the bandwagon to rally behind something that doesn't exist.
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
700 arrests, but how many are actually being charged with anything?
As of right now, it seems like all of them are being charged with disorderly conduct and/or impeding traffic. At least, I haven't heard of a single person getting released without a charge.
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
700 arrests, but how many are actually being charged with anything?
As of right now, it seems like all of them are being charged with disorderly conduct and/or impeding traffic. At least, I haven't heard of a single person getting released without a charge.
I'm sure that crossed more than a few people's minds. Chicago, Honolulu, Austin, Dallas, and San Antonio (Texas traffic is its own special little hell) are bad enough. I couldn't imagine New York.
Fun stuff to note: a friend of mine got arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge (so did her brother, but I don't know him) and ended up on the front page of the New York Times, and a former girlfriend of mine narrowly avoided arrest. I also managed to convince my sister (who lives in Brooklyn) to not go out; turned out to be a good idea, as several hundred people were arrested.
Also I think it's fair to note that protesting is bull as a protected right. Trying to get a job in this economy with a criminal record is incredibly hard. This effectively means that people would rather sit down and shut up than risk protesting because their chance of arrest is quite high and the repercussions are incredibly damaging. Interestingly this also means that those with records because of protests are more likely to protest again, because they can't get jobs now anyway
Also I think it's fair to note that protesting is bull as a protected right. Trying to get a job in this economy with a criminal record is incredibly hard. This effectively means that people would rather sit down and shut up than risk protesting because their chance of arrest is quite high and the repercussions are incredibly damaging. Interestingly this also means that those with records because of protests are more likely to protest again, because they can't get jobs now anyway
You know, there's a lot of people who attend protests and don't get arrested. Like over half the people on the bridge (assuming the 700 and 1500 numbers thrown out earlier are accurate). You know, the ones on the side walk, sticking to the legal activities. Protesting is protected, so long as you don't break other laws while doing so. It isn't a magic shield that protects you while doing otherwise, illegal things.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Why not protest Wall St. on um... Wall St?
Uglysasquatch wrote:
You know, there's a lot of people who attend protests and don't get arrested. Like over half the people on the bridge (assuming the 700 and 1500 numbers thrown out earlier are accurate). You know, the ones on the side walk, sticking to the legal activities. Protesting is protected, so long as you don't break other laws while doing so. It isn't a magic shield that protects you while doing otherwise, illegal things.
Which means of course that if you were on the Brooklyn Bridge that day you had about a 50% chance to get arrested. Which was sort of my point. Following the rules definitely helps, but if you're out and protesting at all, odds heavily favor you being arrested. I'm sure most of those arrested were breaking some law of some kind; but I bet plenty of people not breaking the law ended up in cuffs as well. The "innocent" protesters who are now arrested wouldn't be in jail if they stayed home and made a sandwich or something.
How is 50% of anything 'heavily in favor'?
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
How is 50% of anything 'heavily in favor'?
Compared to not protesting.
The goal of that protest, regardless of whether or not the individual protesters were aware of it, was to rack up arrests. Otherwise, there would be little to zero media attention. On a side note, I'd be willing to be that charges will be dropped on the vast majority on all of the arrestees.
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
The goal of that protest, regardless of whether or not the individual protesters were aware of it, was to rack up arrests. Otherwise, there would be little to zero media attention. On a side note, I'd be willing to be that charges will be dropped on the vast majority on all of the arrestees.
Honestly I have no idea what the protesters are trying to accomplish; they're the left-wing version of the Tea Party: pissed off and not really sure what to do about it (but blaming capitalism instead of socialism, or rich people instead of poor people, or whites instead of minorities, or... something). Maybe the goal was to get arrested; seemed to me it was more like a vocal and public way to show off their anger and frustration at a society and government that has made their lives worse and which they don't have an active role in handling.
Still don't think it's effective, but hey, that's why I wouldn't be protesting with them
At least they had the decency to obstruct traffic on a non toll bridge. But then again, if they pulled that **** on the Verrazano ($13 toll) they'd probably just get run over.
Honestly, what the bridge sounds like to me is a case in which one group of protesters DID intend to be arrested, but was followed by a much larger group who didn't hear the police warnings (which weren't delivered via bullhorn) and thought that they were actually being allowed to cross because of the way the police were walking with them.
And, to be fair, most protesters wouldn't have any clue if they had a permit to march or not.
I imagine that the people at the front of the march in the car lanes were in perfect understanding with the police that they would be arrested. I just doubt that most others in back had the same.
I honestly don't understand the idea that you can warn a group of 1500 people not to do something by just telling the people at the front of the line, especially when you know those are the people determined to disobey. They should have used a horn--I bet a lot more people would have gone onto the walkways if they knew that they weren't sanctioned to be in the car lane.
And, to be fair, most protesters wouldn't have any clue if they had a permit to march or not.
I imagine that the people at the front of the march in the car lanes were in perfect understanding with the police that they would be arrested. I just doubt that most others in back had the same.
I honestly don't understand the idea that you can warn a group of 1500 people not to do something by just telling the people at the front of the line, especially when you know those are the people determined to disobey. They should have used a horn--I bet a lot more people would have gone onto the walkways if they knew that they weren't sanctioned to be in the car lane.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
idiggory wrote:
Honestly, what the bridge sounds like to me is a case in which one group of protesters DID intend to be arrested, but was followed by a much larger group who didn't hear the police warnings (which weren't delivered via bullhorn) [...] They should have used a horn--I bet a lot more people would have gone onto the walkways if they knew that they weren't sanctioned to be in the car lane.
article wrote:
They were met by a handful of high-level police supervisors, who blocked the way and announced repeatedly through bullhorns that the marchers were blocking the roadway and that if they continued to do so, they would be subject to arrest.
Edited, Oct 3rd 2011 9:32am by lolgaxe
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
All the testimonies I had seen said they didn't, but I suppose they were just from people who were still too far back to hear. The pictures do show that the group was massive, so I suppose that's possible. But you are correct, looking at videos I can see they did use them.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Hey cool, I found a picture of that girl I know getting arrested!
The Flickr page for the entire thing is amazing. It's like a festival wrapped up with marching and music. Also, beware, there are some topless saggy old women in the pictures from time-to-time.
The Flickr page for the entire thing is amazing. It's like a festival wrapped up with marching and music. Also, beware, there are some topless saggy old women in the pictures from time-to-time.
Recent Visitors: 394
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (394)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- NYPD Police Brutality
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC