Which response would you characterize as more out of line?

[DFab420]

Poll question: Which response would you characterize as more out of line?

In light of recent discussions among the DU community I was wondering if maybe we needed so perspective on things like loss of life and government crackdowns.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Apples and beach balls.

I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting that because the pepper-spraying cops didn't actually kill anybody, we shouldn't be objecting - the Boston Massacre was far worse so you OWS whiners should just STFU?

I hope that's not your point. Because if it is, it's bullpucky.

[DFab420]

5. Nah my point is that the Boston massacre response was far and away worse then the PD response.

Other then that I have no sympathy for any police force and their crack downs on citizens exercising their first amendment rights.

However. To claim that we are suffering more then the 5 people who died from gunshots is a bit excessive no?

That would first belittle the lives lost

and two make us seem a bit coo coo... that is all.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

28. Well, not to make light of the Boston Massacre - and I don't think anyone is--

(even apart from the fact that it was 241 years ago and arose from vastly different circumstances) it involved 7 or 8 "foreign" troops surrounded by about 300 protesters, some of whom were throwing things at them. They fired on their own, probably out of panic, without being ordered to do so by any commanding officer. Although tragic, this was not a surprising outcome considering the situation.

At UC Davis, in contrast, a small group of unarmed students were sitting down, not threatening the officers in any way, when they were attacked. The fact that pepper spray is non-lethal does not excuse or explain the attack. At all. In fact, the non-lethal characteristics of things like pepper spray, mace, tasers, etc., seems to encourage cops to use them even when there is no justification for doing so. The cops wouldn't have shot those students, but they did not hesitate to inflict real pain on them. That was inexcusable.

[DFab420]

62. very well said. nt

[dawg]

2. If you want to believe the fairy tale version of the American Revolution, that is your perogative.

The Boston Massacre, as it was called, was a much more nuanced story than you apparently think it was. When soldiers are surrounded, being pelted with thrown objects, they will eventually fire back.

I can understand that a lot more than I understan pepperspraying and truncheoning women and old people.

[DFab420]

10. You realize the British Regular riflebutted a young boy first, before the crowd showed up right???

[sabrina 1]

3. The British soldiers were not civilian police sworn to protect

and serve the American people. They worked for the Empire. Also, airc, John Adams defended them in court because they had been attacked and he argued they were defending themselves. He won.

The Oakland Police and the rest of them who are brutalizing the American people are way more out of line, imo. Seems they have forgotten who THEY work for.

No one attacked these so-called servants of the people, did they?

[DFab420]

8. John Adams defended them because no one else would take the case and he felt it was a moral

imperative to proceed with due process.

[sabrina 1]

15. Have you read that case? If not you should, John Adams never

defended anyone he did not believe deserved defending. It was not a popular decision but it was the right one as even the people came to see as the case was presented.

[DFab420]

17. That's exactly what I just said...he defended them on moral principle.do you even read what I write?

[bemildred]

4. What metric do you think we should use? nt

[DFab420]

6. I measure it by lives lost.

[bemildred]

9. "We're not as bad as the Hessians" isn't much of a defense, but OK.

Fewer dead people so far.

[dawg]

12. Then you might have to suspend your judgment for a while ...

'cause this OWS thing isn't over, and we could lose more than five people over this easily if the brutality continues to escalate.

[sabrina 1]

21. Lives have been lost as a result of police brutality for years

and at least two lives, Scott Olsen and Kayvan Sabeghi, were nearly lost had it not been for the protesters.

If someone does not put a stop to the police brutality, lives will be lost.

And are all the lives lost in police raids, sometimes children, are justified?

I am glad that Police Brutality against the American people is finally getting attention. It never should have been acceptable. Now, maybe we can start getting some reforms and saving some innocent lives in the future.

[DFab420]

26. Don't misunderstand me. I'm in no way saying what the police are doing is acceptable.

However to use such hyperbole about the damning nature of both the present response and those in the past do nothing to help the cause except make us look a bit out the outs when it comes to reality.

Kent State
Boston Massacre
Tiananmen Square
Syria

These are all examples of the government losing it's shit completely. This has not happend here. Sure the Oakland and NYPD and Seattle have alot to answer for, but they have yet to level rifles with the chests of civilans and open live fire ammunition

[sabrina 1]

33. They have leveled guns at protesters, in Chapel Hill airc.

And watching the completely indiscriminate brutality against very vulnerable people over the past weeks, the use of military weapons, such as sound cannons eg, the outrage NEEDS to be very loud and clear, BEFORE they start shooting people, which would not be inconceivable considering their normal everyday procedures.

Should we wait until the first killing or start now to prevent it. Knowing what we know, how many people have been killed by police, it would be irresponsible NOT to be concerned enough to demand that this brutality be stopped now, before it is too late.

[The Magistrate]

39. Go Whole Hog, Doctor: 'Hitler Done Worse, So Quit Yer Bitchin'!'

[DFab420]

46. Excuse me, that is a wild mischaracterization of the discussion at hand. I simply feel the Boston

massacre was worse then the crack down by the Oakland PD.

I am not justifying EITHER

NOR am I saying the we should "quit our bitchin"

This was simply a discussion Dawg and I were having and I thought to bring it to the board.

[The Magistrate]

50. It is, Doctor, A Precise Distillation Of Your Position's Essence

You may not like having it pointed out flat and cold, but that is your look-out, not mine.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

[DFab420]

53. No again, I'm making a point with the words I am saying. You are attributing a differnent point to

what I am saying. I will tell you again as plainly as possible. THE WORDS YOU ARE USING TO DESCRIBE MY POSITION ARE INACCURATE.

No where do I say we need to be quiet. No where do I say that at all.

Just because call me doctor and think you are clever does not give you the right to tell ME what I am saying. Seriously.

If you thought that was what I was saying I have clarified my point of view to you.

If you wish to continue to push your words into my mouth and then scold me for them that is your prerogative.

If you would like to have an actual discussion like the rest of us were doing please feel free to join in.

[The Magistrate]

63. You Fool No One, Doctor

The only point to the line you are pressing is to provide grounds from which to minimize outrageous recent behavior by police in our country against demonstrators exercising their Constitutional rights.

[DFab420]

65. Whatever. You want to be that way fine. nt

[dawg]

7. This is what the Massachusetts jury thought ....

Per Wikipedia:


"The jury agreed with Adams and acquitted six of the soldiers after 2 1/2 hours deliberation. Two of the soldiers were found guilty of manslaughter because there was overwhelming evidence that they fired directly into the crowd. The jury's decisions suggest that they believed the soldiers had felt threatened by the crowd, but should have delayed firing.<59> Patrick Carr, the fifth victim, corroborated this with a deathbed testimony delivered to his doctor.<60> The convicted soldiers were granted reduced sentences by invoking Benefit of clergy, which reduced their punishment from a death sentence to branding of the thumb in open court.<61>"

[DFab420]

11. Here's the full story about the trial.

The government was determined to give the soldiers a fair trial so there could be no grounds for retaliation from the British and so that moderates would not be alienated from the Patriot cause. No lawyers in Boston were willing to defend the soldiers, as they believed it would be a significant career mistake. After several lawyers with Loyalist leanings refused to defend Preston, he sent a request to John Adams, pleading for him to work on the case. Adams, who was already a leading Patriot and who was contemplating a run for public office, agreed to help, in the interest of ensuring a fair trial.<50> Adams was joined by Josiah Quincy II after the latter was assured that the Sons of Liberty would not oppose his appointment, and by Robert Auchmuty, a Loyalist.<51> They were assisted by Sampson Salter Blowers, whose chief duty was to investigate the jury pool, and Paul Revere, who drew a detailed map of the bodies to be used in the trial of the British soldiers held responsible.<52><53> Massachusetts Solicitor General Samuel Quincy and private attorney Robert Treat Paine, hired by the town of Boston, handled the prosecution.<54> Tried separately in late October 1770, Preston was acquitted after the jury was not convinced that he had ordered the troops to fire.<55>
The trial of the eight soldiers opened on November 27, 1770.<56> Adams argued that if the soldiers were endangered by the mob, which he called "a motley rabble of saucy boys, negroes, and molattoes, Irish teagues and outlandish jack tarrs ",<57> they had the legal right to fight back, and so were innocent. If they were provoked but not endangered, he argued, they were at most guilty of manslaughter.<58> The jury agreed with Adams and acquitted six of the soldiers after 2 1/2 hours deliberation. Two of the soldiers were found guilty of manslaughter because there was overwhelming evidence that they fired directly into the crowd. The jury's decisions suggest that they believed the soldiers had felt threatened by the crowd, but should have delayed firing.<59> Patrick Carr, the fifth victim, corroborated this with a deathbed testimony delivered to his doctor.<60> The convicted soldiers were granted reduced sentences by invoking Benefit of clergy, which reduced their punishment from a death sentence to branding of the thumb in open court.<61>
The four civilians were tried on December 13.<62> The principal prosecution witness, a servant of one of the accused, made claims that were easily rebutted by the defense witnesses. In the face of this weak testimony, as well as waning public interest, the prosecution did not press its case very hard. The civilians were all acquitted, and the servant was eventually convicted of perjury, whipped, and thrown out of the province.<63>
The Boston Massacre is considered one of the most important events that turned colonial sentiment against King George III and British Parliamentary authority. John Adams wrote that the "foundation of American independence was laid" on March 5, 1770, and Samuel Adams and other Patriots used annual commemorations of the event to fulminate against British rule.<64> Later events such as the Boston Tea Party further illustrated the crumbling relationship between Britain and its colonies. Although five years passed between the massacre and outright revolution, and direct connections between the massacre and the later war are (according to historian Neil Langley York) somewhat tenuous,<65> it is widely perceived as a significant event leading to the violent rebellion that followed.<66><67>

[dawg]

16. So you bold the part that makes Adams look like a dick.

Doesn't change the fact that this crowd was attacking the soldiers.

Different from women and old people linking arms and blocking an intersection.

[DFab420]

19. Hahaha right ok. So the next time the cops use tear gas and say it was because they felt threatend

I'm sure you'll side with the police like you're siding with the red coats??

[dawg]

24. I'm not siding with the Red Coats this time. I'm making a comparison.

At least the Red Coats were actually under physical attack.

These police forces are pepper spraying people who are already sitting on the fucking ground.

A woman miscarried from that shit.

There is no justification for this.

[DFab420]

Agreed. I suppose in our discussion of life lost the miscarriage got looked over.

Such a tragedy.

[sabrina 1]

30. Here's the part you should have bolded:

Adams argued/i that they had the legal right to fight back, and so were innocent. If they were provoked but not endangered, he argued, they were at most guilty of manslaughter.<58> The jury agreed with Adams and acquitted six of the soldiers after 2 1/2 hours deliberation.

As for the part you bolded, Adams was one of the FF most opposed to 'the evils of slavery'. He condemned it as 'evil' and in the correspondence between him and his wife, Abigail there is left not doubt that both she and he abhorred the very idea of any man being enslaved. So not sure why you bolded that part, but in case anyone was not aware of his position on slavery and might take that quote to mean otherwise, I wanted to make sure that the quote does not mean anything other than describing the makeup of the crowd.

[DFab420]

31. I bolded it to show how Adams is a good defense lawyer and used the jury's prejudices to help his

clients.

[gratuitous]

37. See, that's why "due process" is so risky

(I realize I'm straying way off topic, but some of what's going on in our name pisses me off no end.)

Six soldiers were acquitted! It's so much quicker and cleaner to just take a short cut through that due process nonsense. Thank goodness for our modern sensibilities, realizing that we're in such mortal, existential danger, we just send out the drones armed with missiles, and fire them in at likely-looking targets.

[The Magistrate]

13. The Second, Doctor: The English Soldiers Had Real Reason To Fear For their Lives

The 'snowballs' tale is swill: a small party of soldiers was confrontyed at close range by an angry and belligerent crowd, that might well have done them real harm, even after the volley.

[DFab420]

14. SO does that make the Kent state shooting ok too?

[dawg]

20. Nobody said any of this was ok.

Just that the British had more of an excuse for what they did in Boston than the police have had for brutalizing non-violent protesters.

Non-violent is the key here.

No one has a right to throw hard objects at armed soldiers.

People have the right to protest.

At least, they used to.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. The soldiers at kent were not at arms reach

But I am proof positive you knew that.

[The Magistrate]

27. The Guardsmen At Kent State Were Under No Such Threat, Doctor

They fired at a distance of many yards into an unarmed crowd.

The English soldiers at Boston were engaged by persons within a few feet of them, many with clubs and knives, and were armed with single-shot weapons that took at least a quarter minute for a trained man to reload.

[sabrina 1]

41. Was the NG under attack by the Kent Students? Were they armed

or threatening them when they shot them? From what I have read, the students who were killed at Kent State were walking away from the NG and not engaged in any confrontation with them.

[Fumesucker]

18. Eh, the major difference seems to be that the British troops got tried for what they did..

But then they weren't sworn police officers who evidently can do no wrong.

[DFab420]

22. If only the police would be put on trial...

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Lemme see

I am surrounded by a belligerent crowd, some possibly armed with more than stones...

Or I am confronted by students sitting down linking arms...

Recommend you read on escalation of force protocols. For the record propper use of force at Davis would have been cuffs and physically carrying the students...

Yes, I am familiar with escalation of force protocols.

As somebody above posted...beach balls and oranges. If the students presented the same threat as the crowd in Boston did...bullets and deadly force would be understandable.

[DFab420]

29. Really? You really think if the UC Davis police had opened fire into the crowd, even if it was

overtly aggressive, then claimed they felt threatened.... we would all be saying it was justifiable??

[dawg]

32. straw man

What we are comparing is the police attacking non-violent protestors with pepperspray and truncheons, to a small group of soldiers, an ocean away from home, surrounded by an angry mob hurling shit at them.

[DFab420]

35. No straw man. I was asking if the UCDavis cops faced the same situation

how would we respond?

How is that a straw man?

[dawg]

40. It would be the same.

If a few policeman were surrounded, under violent attack, it would be wrong to fire into the crowd but it would be more understandable than these unprovoked attacks against nonviolent protesters, many of whom are women and old people.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

42. If 7 or 8 UC cops had been surrounded by 300 angry students

who were pelting them with rocks, I don't think anyone would be surprised if they responded with force. I don't think actually shooting people dead would necessarily be justified, but proportional force would be. Using pepper spray under those circumstances would be well within established protocols.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Even live ammo

At that point they are truly in a deadly force situation.

[The Magistrate]

34. If there Was A Real Threat, Sir, Many Here Would Acknowledge That fact

Your problem is that you are striving to defend the indefensible: a direct, unprovoked, and torturous assault by police, in the absence of any shadow of threat or violent resistance, against people exercising their Constitutional rights.

[freshwest]

73. +1

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. I am telling you how the use of force protocol works.

They faced a non threatening crowd that posed zero threat to their safety. British regulars were faced with a potentially deadly situation. Can you understand the difference? And I m not even going into the we have pepper spray CS gas and other tools that the regulars simply lacked. Of course if the cops were faced with that, we call it a riot. You understand the difference right?

[DFab420]

44. I do, again I'm not trying to say what the police did was right. In any way shape or form

This all stemmed from a discussion dawg and I were having about the appropriateness of response by force.

I just feel the the Boston Massacre was worse then the Oakland response. Not saying EITHER are ok. I was just curious as to everyone else's opinion was.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. Informed opinion is what you just got

And the Boston response under modern use of force protocols was adequate. UC Davis or Oakland, no, not really. There is a use of force protocol...both OPD and UCD violated those protocols.

[The Magistrate]

52. But Of Course, Ma'am, Informed Opinion And Judgement was Not Really What He was Looking For....

He is engaged in low-grade, and low-quality, apologetics for brutal repression by the police in our country.

[DFab420]

55. Dude, who the fuck are you to go around telling other people what I am talking about.

It's incredibly rude to a) talk about me as if I am not present b) speak for me as if you knew me personally and c) characterize my point of view in such a way that you know will only illicit a negative response.

I am an no way apologizing for the police tactics, which if you read any post uptopic you would see, and that I was merely trying to engage in a discussion of force as a response and what we as a community classified as over the top.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DFab420]

54. See, great position, well thought out and clear. And you didn't even have to insult the other person

Thank you nadin.

[Eric J in MN]

70. The UC Davis cops didn't need to arrest anyone.

They were sent to remove tents. They could have taken the tents and left. No arrests. No pepper spray.

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. I am just pointing out that from a use of force perspective

That was the propper use.

I am not defending them.

Oh and it would have looked almost as bad.

:-)

[dawg]

36. Change British Regulars to American Soldiers.

Change Boston to Afghanistan.

A group of soldiers, surrounded by a large angry mob throwing stuff at them, thousands of miles from home. Some of them lose their cool and fire into the crowd.

Wrong, but I can understand that more than I can understand police assaults on non-violent protestors.

Non-violent is the key here.

[sabrina 1]

43. Well said n/t

[11 Bravo]

48. I have been tear gassed and I have been shot. At least in terms of which I prefer ...

this one is pretty much a no-brainer.

[DFab420]

60. So you would want to get shot right?? j/k j/k

[dawg]

49. You've got to love DU, though.

Of all the things I could have gotten into an argument about today, I wouldv'e never expected the Boston Massacre. :P

[DFab420]

57. haha truth. I do enjoy some of the debates here.

PS sorry I called your post in the other section dim. While I may not agree with the positions you take that was no excuse.

[dawg]

59. You know I love you.

:P

[DFab420]

61. yay!

:hug: :hug:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. The Redcoats were actually under attack. The cops weren't.

[dawg]

56. Oh, and about your poll ....

my side is the blue side. Yours is red. :P

[DFab420]

58. DOH!

[DFab420]

64. Also about my poll, it's the first one I ever made! Haha what a great and strange subject

to pop the poll cherry on.

[MarkCharles]

67. Sorry, but there have been literally DOZENS of events worst than U.C. Davis...

in the course of the history of the nation we now call the USA, both BEFORE we were the USA, (dozens back then, raids on native Americans, etc. and probably hundreds AFTER we became the USA.

I do NOT mean to demean in any way the significance of the U.C. Davis incident. It is probably the most symbolic and meaningful of the last 10 years, since 9/11.

Many folks 15-30 can probably identify with this event, some more than others, perhaps.

But the symbolism of the U.C. Davis incident is probably more meaningful that the literally dozens of atrocities that have gone on beforehand.

I'm thinking Memphis, I'm thinking Birmingham, I'm thinking Little Rock, I'm thinking all those other popular movements of the 20th century to give more Americans a voice and an equal footing.

U.C. Davis, sorry for those victims, the meaning and significance of the whole OWS movement yet to be defined.

[treestar]

68. Agreed, while the pepper spraying was terrible there sure

are some OTT comparisons going on.

Nothing like what people must have gone through to fight the Revolutionary War or the events leading up to it. And it was that which gave us a rule of law, where police will be penalized for violating the Bill of Rights. We've been used to having that for 235 years and tend to forget or take it for granted.

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. American Exceptionalism at it's best

The events that led to th revolution started hatching thirty to forty years before. And I will leave it at that...what you ate living through right now...has the potential of being quite revolutionary in it's own way. And it is global too.

[Eric J in MN]

69. To say: At least the Oakland cops didn't kill any protesters that night...

...just gave one protester brain damage (by shooting a tear-gas cannister at his head), is a low-standard to hold cops to.