5 ms·

It was an illegal act, funded by public money. Had the government not acted, it would have set a bad precedent: that constitution doesn't hold weight in real li

It was an illegal act, funded by public money. Had the government not acted, it would have set a bad precedent: that constitution doesn't hold weight in real life.

Y7ZCQtNo39 9y ago
Maybe a court should be deciding whether or not it is illegal, not the police. Again, my comment was about using the proper response to a given situation. I don't think the use of public money for the illegal act necessarily sets a bad precedent. The constitution didn't say to go out there and spray rubber bullets at civilians. So how a government can respond to this illegal act is a subjective choice. Spain could have chosen to use less authoritarian methods to deal with the consequences of this ballot without setting any precedents. It could have been declared unenforceable by a court, which is a more appropriate venue.
- kgwgk 9y ago
  Police was instructed by courts to prevent the (illegal) vote from taking place.
RandVal30142 9y ago
I dare beating firemen for voting is more illegal than holding a vote itself, let alone attending/partaking in it. The use of violence by the state forfeits such claims and opens up an avenue for reciprocation by others, which is a terrible thing to enable all due to a vote. >that constitution doesn't hold weight in real life We will see what carries more weight, violence or paper.
- pako_crack 9y ago
  Beware of fake news here too. That picture of firemen fighting back is from years ago, when they were protesting against local police (Catalan one).
  - RandVal30142 9y ago
    Oh. Seems I completely failed my part at reversing the images I browsed. That is my bad.
justin66 9y ago
> Had the government not acted, it would have set a bad precedent: that constitution doesn't hold weight in real life. Nobody expected them not to react to the referendum. Using cops with clubs instead of lawyers was disappointing.

It was an illegal act, funded by public money. Had the government not acted, it would have set a bad precedent: that constitution doesn't hold weight in real life.

Y7ZCQtNo39 9y ago

Maybe a court should be deciding whether or not it is illegal, not the police. Again, my comment was about using the proper response to a given situation. I don't think the use of public money for the illegal act necessarily sets a bad precedent. The constitution didn't say to go out there and spray rubber bullets at civilians. So how a government can respond to this illegal act is a subjective choice. Spain could have chosen to use less authoritarian methods to deal with the consequences of this ballot without setting any precedents. It could have been declared unenforceable by a court, which is a more appropriate venue.

kgwgk 9y ago
Police was instructed by courts to prevent the (illegal) vote from taking place.

RandVal30142 9y ago

I dare beating firemen for voting is more illegal than holding a vote itself, let alone attending/partaking in it. The use of violence by the state forfeits such claims and opens up an avenue for reciprocation by others, which is a terrible thing to enable all due to a vote. >that constitution doesn't hold weight in real life We will see what carries more weight, violence or paper.

pako_crack 9y ago
Beware of fake news here too. That picture of firemen fighting back is from years ago, when they were protesting against local police (Catalan one).
- RandVal30142 9y ago
  Oh. Seems I completely failed my part at reversing the images I browsed. That is my bad.

justin66 9y ago

> Had the government not acted, it would have set a bad precedent: that constitution doesn't hold weight in real life. Nobody expected them not to react to the referendum. Using cops with clubs instead of lawyers was disappointing.