Video

[Omicron]

http://youtu.be/GCVljaIHyKg?t=7m44s

Scary

[oogaBooga]

I was there that night. Oakland is poppin' off for sure.

[vinylrake]

the end part of that guys video is more interesting... those claims of the government trying to pass a rogue internet bill to blacklist 'bad' sites is being voted on 'soon' (it had enough sponsors to get to the floor for a vote).

once that's in place if you say something the gov doesn't like they can make your site pretty much unreachable - at least in the US. no trial, no appeal. welcome to the land of the free.

[punkUser]

Meh, I have no sympathy whatsoever for rioters. It's always the same... if they dispersed when asked or didn't start crap in the first place there never would have been an issue. All arguments to the effect of "omg the police totally could have used 15.3% less force" in such riot situations strike me as pathetic attempts to bait public support.

[vinylrake]

while i don't generally have any sympathy for "rioters" , I think the relevant question is whether the people were "rioting" or were "protesting peacefully". Claims have been made that the person in question was not rioting or even demonstrating when he was shot, that he was just standing on the street/sidewalk. Regardless of how much one supports the police and/or dislikes hooligans I think it's pretty hard to justify the police shooting an unarmed non-hostile man who is just standing in the street.

I am not saying that is necessarily what happened, just saying that IF that is the case then I don't care if the people were told to leave the street or not or if the guy who was shot heard the warningn and consciously decided to protest by standing in the street - while he would probably have been breaking some civil law about interfering with police or disobeying police, last I knew refusing to leave an area when ordered to by the police and instead standing in the street - was not a crime that warranted being shot in the head (or anywhere for that matter).

[punkUser]

Agreed in principal of course, but the issue is that once something becomes a "riot", mere presence is harmful. i.e. you can't just stand around "watching" a riot after the police ask the crowd to disperse (which they *always* do first) and claim later that you weren't doing anything wrong individually. To put it another way, even if it's only a half dozen people actually burning and breaking stuff, the thousands standing around watching and filming are just as much of a problem. If all the so-called "peaceful" people left when asked to there would be no issue, so like I said I have little sympathy for anyone who chooses to stay and thus be counted as part of the mob. There is no place for "casual observers/protesters" once these situations develop.

So people can argue all they want about "do I deserve to be hurt/shot/whatever for refusing to leave when the police ask me to" but it doesn't change the fact that the situation could have been entirely avoided by simply doing what the police asked. i.e. it's not true to claim that anyone there did nothing wrong. Mob situations are complicated and volatile, and it's unrealistic to expect that everything can be handled smoothly by anyone, no matter what intentions there are.

That said, human nature basically guarantees that people will ignore this and continue to push the line until they step over it, then cry for sympathy. The fact that these things are so predictable (and completely unrelated to who or what is being protested) is probably a lot of the reason why I simply can't bring myself to care anymore. It's just going to be tiresome anti-establishment vs individual liberties bickering probably until the end of time.

In any case as you stated the questions surrounding communications and internet neutrality are far more interesting.

[Jon God]

Agreed in principal of course, but the issue is that once something becomes a "riot", mere presence is harmful. i.e. you can't just stand around "watching" a riot after the police ask the crowd to disperse (which they *always* do first) and claim later that you weren't doing anything wrong individually. To put it another way, even if it's only a half dozen people actually burning and breaking stuff, the thousands standing around watching and filming are just as much of a problem. If all the so-called "peaceful" people left when asked to there would be no issue, so like I said I have little sympathy for anyone who chooses to stay and thus be counted as part of the mob. There is no place for "casual observers/protesters" once these situations develop.

So people can argue all they want about "do I deserve to be hurt/shot/whatever for refusing to leave when the police ask me to" but it doesn't change the fact that the situation could have been entirely avoided by simply doing what the police asked. i.e. it's not true to claim that anyone there did nothing wrong. Mob situations are complicated and volatile, and it's unrealistic to expect that everything can be handled smoothly by anyone, no matter what intentions there are.

That said, human nature basically guarantees that people will ignore this and continue to push the line until they step over it, then cry for sympathy. The fact that these things are so predictable (and completely unrelated to who or what is being protested) is probably a lot of the reason why I simply can't bring myself to care anymore. It's just going to be tiresome anti-establishment vs individual liberties bickering probably until the end of time.

In any case as you stated the questions surrounding communications and internet neutrality are far more interesting.

One flaw with your thought process here. These are American cops. I know you are Canadian, and I am willing to bet the cops up there are much better at their job, and at being rational people. In America there's a statistically higher amount of really awful power trip cops. In fact, in many states, you aren't allowed to bring a cop onto the force it their IQ is too high.

In the end, the cops often turn out to be "look at me show off my power" as soon as they have an excuse.

[punkUser]

I'm not defending all police officers or saying there aren't bad ones at all. I'm saying I have little sympathy for someone who intentionally gets themselves into a stupid and completely avoidable scenario. Regardless of whether it was cops or gang members or whomever, if you go out and provoke trouble you're not entirely blameless for the consequences.

Pro tip: being part of or near a rioting mob - whether you yourself are doing anything "wrong" or not - is provoking trouble. Leave or avoid the situation in the first place and you will have zero issues.

[vinylrake]

I think the issue is (again) whether what was going on was "rioting" or "peaceful protesting". there is a huge difference.

and one could easily have decided to participate in what has been billed as a "peaceful protest" and have absolutely no interest or intention whatsoever in 'causing trouble' or 'rioting' or 'provoking police' or doing anything illegal. people participate in demonstrations/protests for a number of reasons, you seem to be lumping them all into the 'troublemakers who deserve whatever happens to them' - which even if all the people WERE intentionally troublemakers, we do live in countries with laws - I seriously doubt you are advocating giving the police a free hand to do whatever they want with no regard to the severity of a person's behavior - which sounds like what you are ok with. shoot a violent crime suspect - in some circumstances justified. shoot an unarmed person merely because he is in the vicinity of people clashing with the police? i can't see how that is ever justified.

i think my biggest objection is to what seems like a blanket generalization on your part of anyone in the area of the Oakland protest/riot as either intentionally out to cause trouble or so stupid for being there in the first place that they deserve whatever happens to them.

i don't think that's a fair generalization. i also don't think your categorization of anyone being 'near a rioting mob' as someone who is 'provoking trouble' is fair either. if i were a block away from the protests leaving my favorite coffee shop and suddenly started hearing crowd noises or sirens or commotion i would walk in that direction to see what was going on. that's human nature. if a crowd suddenly runs by me chased by police or turns down the street I am walking on am I suddenly "provoking trouble" because of my proximity?

i don't think so.

[punkUser]

I think the issue is (again) whether what was going on was "rioting" or "peaceful protesting". there is a huge difference.

Certainly. Let me make my position more clear: as long as everything continues to be "peaceful", definitely continue to protest. But when it is deemed a riot by the police and you are asked to disperse, here's a concept... do it! Even if it's just a few people who "ruin it for the rest" as it pretty much always is, if you stay you are now part of the problem, even if you're just standing around. A mob/riot dies pretty quickly if everyone leaves and only the troublemakers remain...

people participate in demonstrations/protests for a number of reasons, you seem to be lumping them all into the 'troublemakers who deserve whatever happens to them'

Not initially, no. If you go with good intentions I am fully supportive of that. But when you join the group you're now part of a larger mob and your individual intentions are overwhelmed by the will of the mob itself. Thus if the mob turns nasty, it's your responsibility to physically remove yourself from the mob. Otherwise you're supporting it by your very presence.

shoot an unarmed person merely because he is in the vicinity of people clashing with the police? i can't see how that is ever justified.

Like I said, your presence is a problem in a riot situation, no matter what you are doing or not doing. That's why there is a riot act in most countries with special rules. Individual choice and liberties simply do not apply in these situations due to basic human psychology.

... or so stupid for being there in the first place that they deserve whatever happens to them.

Not for being there in the first place, for *not leaving when told to by the police*, almost certainly several times over many hours.

if i were a block away from the protests leaving my favorite coffee shop and suddenly started hearing crowd noises or sirens or commotion i would walk in that direction to see what was going on. that's human nature. if a crowd suddenly runs by me chased by police or turns down the street I am walking on am I suddenly "provoking trouble" because of my proximity?

Yes precisely! In that situation you are indeed part of the problem. Yes, that is human nature to go snoop on what's happening, but it's actively harmful in a riot situation. Even if you're just standing around, the people who are doing more serious stuff draw their confidence from the crowd. They aren't career criminals in most cases - it's simply that they feel that there is "safety in numbers" and as long as everyone else is around, they can do whatever they want.

The reason police ask people to disperse and leave the area many, many times is because that's precisely what needs to happen. They would not be asking this if they wanted to have some fun shooting people up.

Anyways I'm not defending the actions of anyone here, I'm just saying that the situation is completely avoidable. You have to realize when there's a potential for a riot situation and in those cases, do everyone a favour and suspend your curiosity and go home. You may well literally save lives by doing that. The power of the mob is in its size, even when the vast majority of people are just there to spectate.

That's all I really have to say on the topic. I apologize for my tone, but it makes me unhappy that the vast majority of these situations are completely avoidable, but yet human psychology compels us as a group to these sorts of mobs

PS: There's *tons* of psychology literature on this topic. The news media isn't always the best, but here's and example article that at least touches on some of these points. For further reading I'd recommend a more directly psychology-related website. Another good overview is here.

[vinylrake]

thanks for the clarification punkuser, as further explained i don't have any major disagreement with anything you said other than your categorization of someone who just happened to be in the area, who didn't hear any police warnings to leave who wasn't there to cause problems or even to protest as being 'part of the problem'.

to take it one step further, instead of my curiousity making me intentionally choose to walk a block to see what the noise i am hearing is about and getting caught up in events i had no intention of being involved in (which i think you still have little if any sympathy for because I was in that place of my own volition - even though i didn't know what was going on which i think absolves me of most of the responsibility you want to attribute to me) - what if I were working in or was a tourist staying in a building down the street from the protest and being in my hermetically sealed modern office/hotel i didn't know what was going on just down the street. i have a dinner engagement or a flight to catch and as I step out of my hotel I am swept up in a frenzied crowd running from the police. am I still part of the problem? it is it my fault i am there in the midst of the protesters? or when i got knocked over by the fleeing crowd and got to my feet unsteadily once they had passed find myself in the no-mans-land between pollice and protesters? is that my fault? was i somehow stupid for leaving my hotel room when i did? if i get shot in the head because i am an easy target standing all alone where i just got up from being trampled am i somehow to blame?

rhetorical questions by and large, and it might just be semantics but your generalization of everyone being responsible for being in that place at that time doesn't cover all the possibilities and _sounds_ like you are placing _blame_ on everyone who was there simply for being there.

[Jon God]

... or so stupid for being there in the first place that they deserve whatever happens to them.

Not for being there in the first place, for *not leaving when told to by the police*, almost certainly several times over many hours.

If people left as soon as asked, demonstrations would have no results. Not everyone will change their mind if you ask them. Looking at history, unions, blacks and many other groups have to be disobedient to finally have the laws changed, and I am not talking about rioting.

Sure they could have left as soon as a policeman said something, but that wouldn't have changed things in the long run, which is what the purpose of such a movement is, no?

[Pyro]

Sure they could have left as soon as a policeman said something, but that wouldn't have changed things in the long run, which is what the purpose of such a movement is, no?

No. They could always disperse and regroup. Movements don't end when the initial group goes away. There are peaceful ways of doing things. Things were harder in the past, relatively speaking. Society keeps getting more open minded and educated through the years. Some of the movements of the past would have stood no chance if done a decade or more earlier then when they took place.

While its likely nearly impossible to get mobs of people to be completely peaceful, it is always best to stay as close as possible. Some of those movements of the past would have turned out a lot differently if the demonstrators had not stayed at least some what peaceful.

[punkUser]

to take it one step further, instead of my curiousity making me intentionally choose to walk a block to see what the noise i am hearing is about and getting caught up in events i had no intention of being involved in (which i think you still have little if any sympathy for because I was in that place of my own volition - even though i didn't know what was going on which i think absolves me of most of the responsibility you want to attribute to me) - what if I were working in or was a tourist staying in a building down the street from the protest and being in my hermetically sealed modern office/hotel i didn't know what was going on just down the street.

If you're ignorant of the fact that it is a mob/riot situation, there's obviously no fault or responsibility assigned. All I am asking is that once someone knows the situation that they obey the police and disperse peacefully as soon as possible.

Jon I'm not (yet) cynical enough to believe that change requires violent protest. There have been just as many/large changes made peacefully in the past. I won't claim that it's always possible or that there's no time for physical action, but I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of riots/physical confrontations are avoidable and furthermore that the vast majority of them have nothing to do with what is being protested or actually causing change. Normally it's just a few people who want to do something 'exciting' + lots of spectators = loss of individual sense of responsibility and ethics.

I also think it's a huge stretch to claim that the police ask people to go home who are being completely peaceful just because "the man" wants to keep protest down. That just sounds like paranoid conspiracy thinking unless significant evidence is shown to the contrary.

I happened to be in Portland for one of the peaceful protests and as far as I know there we zero incidents. The police were present but did not interfere at all since the protesters were passive. I fully support that sort of protest and I'm pretty sure the police and government do too.

I agree with Pyro that times have changed a lot too. Communication is ubiquitous and largely uncensored. Governments simply do not have the same power that they used to to completely restrict the flow of information, so there's really no compelling reason why any violent action has to be taken to get your points out.

[oogaBooga]

Meh, I have no sympathy whatsoever for rioters. It's always the same... if they dispersed when asked or didn't start crap in the first place there never would have been an issue. All arguments to the effect of "omg the police totally could have used 15.3% less force" in such riot situations strike me as pathetic attempts to bait public support.

They werent rioters. There was no rioting. It was a combination of overzealous cops and a few bad apples (anarchist fuckwads and radicals) who did something dumb enough to trigger the cops and their poor judgement. The mass majority of protesters were nonviolent and I myself witnessed the start of it.