18 ms·

He missed the core point that the freedom to protest is important in and of itself. Whether you agree with the topic being protested or not, we should all supp

by sfeng 12y ago

He missed the core point that the freedom to protest is important in and of itself. Whether you agree with the topic being protested or not, we should all support our right to protest in a peaceful way without fear of a disproportionate response by law enforcement. I can say that I am never more proud of our police forces than when I see them maintain their control and treat people with respect in the face of provocation. That ability to say in command of oneself even when provoked is a core part of maturity and something to be lauded. As he said, it's a sign of a professional. The role of the police is to prevent violence. That's what makes a community safe. It sounds like the letter-writer, on the other hand, is looking for an agent of his or her frustration. Someone to lash out at the protestors because he or she legally can't. A community where the police can attack people with impunity is about as far from safe as one can get. It seems somewhat obvious, but a safe community is one where no one is attacking anyone.

dubfan 12y ago
The right to peaceably assemble shouldn't supersede the right for citizens to go about their business. The protests crossed that line when they started shutting down freeways and transit. The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric.
- sfeng 12y ago
  > The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric. they also weren't killing people or 'inciting terror'.
- rtpg 12y ago
  so rights only exist until it becomes slightly inconvenient to people? There's a pretty easy slippery slope argument there. Are train drivers allowed to strike? Can the NYT publish articles revealing how terribly a company is run? Protesters are encouraged to coordinate with city officials so that people won't be "too inconvenienced", but last I checked it isn't a constitutional requirement.
  - dubfan 12y ago
    Yeah, being late to my job because my bus can't get through a protest and getting fired as a result is just a slight inconvenience.
    - GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
      Now you got some time to agitate for better labor rights so your now-ex-boss can't do that.
    - cdcarter 12y ago
      So, to use the examples you're replying to here, do you also believed that organized labor doesn't have the right to strike if it might make you late to work, and that the NYT isn't allowed to run an article outing you as a major criminal if that might cause you to be terminateD?
    - rtpg 12y ago
      The fact that being late one day can get you fired speaks to the state of labor rights in the US. Think of all of the things that could make you late. Protests, sure, but a broken down car, a car accident (yours or somebody else). Hell, if the President comes around they shut down a bunch of lanes of traffic.
- wbronitsky 12y ago
  I should think that the difference between blocking traffic for a short period of time and terrorism is death and suffering. I would say the only similarity between the two is that they both seek to advance political agendas. This is like saying the only difference between a filibuster and terrorism is rhetoric.
- thaumaturgy 12y ago
  Conversely, the right for citizens to go about their business shouldn't supersede the right for citizens to peaceably assemble. Protesting, marching, and occasionally inconveniencing other people is an integral part of a free society. I'm not fond of the protesters' decision to block freeways (I'm thinking specifically of the incident in southern California, I wasn't aware of one in Tennessee). I wouldn't do that, and I would discourage other people from doing that. I might support making the obstruction of major highways into a ticketable offense and gently but firmly removing any protesters there. But, there's no way I would qualify that as "terrorism", and anybody that argued that it was would move me further towards supporting protests on highways. The social pendulum in the U.S. has swung far too far towards an authoritarian police state. Let's not push it farther by declaring acts of peaceful protest to be "terrorism", no matter how inconvenient they are.
  - vacri 12y ago
    Clarifying further, 'terrorism' means using fear (the 'terror' part) to achieve political goals (the 'ism' part). Peacefully blocking a highway might be civil disobedience, but it's nowhere near terrifying.
    - click170 12y ago
      To clarify further, I could call my landlord a terrorist because he'll come banging on my door if I don't pay him on time. That induces fear, yet I think we can all agree my landlord is not a terrorist for wanting to collect his rent. "Terrorism" is a laughably flexible term that could be used to fit just about anything given the right wording. If you have to resort to calling someone a terrorist in order to get me on your side, you've failed to state why I should agree with you without resorting to FUD.
      - vacri 12y ago
        You've really got to stretch the definition of 'political goal' to include 'collecting rent from a contract that you both agreed to'. :)
- click170 12y ago
  Um, yes, it very much should. This isn't about blocking roads or stopping transit. Its about being heard. Unfortunately it takes more than a sternly worded letter to voice their frustration and outrage, and here you are trying to take one of their few remaining outlets away from them. You don't honestly believe that do you?
  - dubfan 12y ago
    They have as much of a right to speak as I have to ignore them. When my right to ignore them is taken away, I have a problem with that.
    - mhluongo 12y ago
      Put on some headphones. There, your rights are no longer being infringed! One citizen doesn't have a greater "right" over a public space than another. The frequent abuse of the term kills me.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      "Ignore" is just not paying attention. You are free to do so. No one is taking that right away.
      - waterlesscloud 12y ago
        When protesters block the freeway he's on, he no longer has the ability to not pay attention to them. They have, in fact, taken that away from him. I even think that's precisely why the protesters do it.
    - click170 12y ago
      We agree that people do not have a right to not be offended, right?
- IanDrake 12y ago
  You're absolutely right. Freedom isn't the ability "to do" something or anything, it is simply the absence of coercion. Blocking someone's ability to navigate on public property is coercion, it is not a right, it certainly is not freedom. We are not more free if people can block your path because they're unhappy...which is what some here are arguing.
  - dubfan 12y ago
    > Freedom isn't the ability "to do" something or anything, it is simply the absence of coercion. A profound point apparently lost on so-called intellectuals. Thank you for understanding.
    - themartorana 12y ago
      The "to do" part is the active preservation of and action against coercion. If the denial of a right is present, only action against that threat is likely to remove it. Further, a freedom is likely to disappear without continued active exercise - which makes that freedom an action, contrary to your argument. The idea that freedom is absent action or protection is absurd. Using the term "so called intellectuals" makes you sound obtuse.
      - ldlework 12y ago
        Thank you. My mouth was literally agape.
  - vacri 12y ago
    Blocking someone's ability to navigate on public property is coercion, it is not a right What magic gives you as an individual more right to a given parcel of public property than any other individual (or collection thereof)? You want to use the road. They want to use the road. Seems to me like a classic first-come-first-served sort of freedom. If you want them to stop using the public property they're on so that you can use it, you'll be appealing to authorities to coerce them off it. That doesn't sound like freedom either.
- Thrymr 12y ago
  > The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric. Also, the terror.
- SwellJoe 12y ago
  "The protests crossed that line when they started shutting down freeways and transit. The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric." Are you serious? You see no difference between beheading someone and sending out a video of it, and peacefully stopping traffic for a few minutes, other than the way they talk about it? Flying airplanes into buildings, and disrupting a train schedule for a little while by peacefully locking arms, are the same thing to you? Suicide bombers, and a (simulated, and peaceful) "die-in" in a shopping mall, those are morally no different? That's such an unreasonable, and inflammatory, position to take that I'm genuinely not even sure how to communicate with you.
- veidr 12y ago
  > The protests crossed that line when they started shutting down freeways and transit. The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric. Yeah, that and the dead children, schoolteachers with their legs blown off, orphans left behind after their parents were shredded or burned to death, etc that results from actual terrorism. That's basically the only difference.
- beedogs 12y ago
  I'm sorry, but whether or not you're inconvenienced is of absolutely no consequence and should have no bearing whatsoever on the right of the people to protest. If a bit of a delay on the roads is all you've got to complain about, you've got it pretty damn good.
- rokhayakebe 12y ago
  Upvoted, but your comment sounds a bit self centered. "Anybody who enjoys social freedom because others have toiled, and some are still toiling, for it should give up his freedom when the state needs it." You enjoy many benefits because the "citizens" you speak of contribute to the state and make it so you live there happily and safely. Now when these people, together as citizens, feel like their "social contract" is being abused, they have a right, through the government, to put an immediate and sharp hold on your freedom to have the matter resolved. Now in this case, if the police did not act, you can consider it as an approval. If you disagree with this method, you also have the right to protest in the same manner. Edit: Also a protest is a nuisance, terrorism is an actual threat to your freedom.
  - eropple 12y ago
    > Edit: Also a protest is a nuisance, terrorism is an actual threat to your freedom. Eh. My freedoms are a lot less threatened by terrorism than by the people responding to terrorism.
bjornsing 12y ago
> He missed the core point that the freedom to protest is important in and of itself. I agree wholeheartedly. Also, I was a bit surprised that he didn't refute the claim that you need a permit to peacefully assemble in the US. Is that really so? Where I am (Sweden) you can "apply for a permit weeks and months in advance", but you don't have to. There's nothing illegal about the peaceful assembly of a large number of people, in fact it's a right ensured by "basic law" (similar to a constitution).
- Thrymr 12y ago
  "The right of the people peaceably to assemble" is protected in the Bill of Rights (1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). The letter writer seems to be referring to the shutting down a public street, which indeed could subject to a permit by a local government (for a protest or a parade).
  - rquantz 12y ago
    You've misquoted the amendment. It is "the right to peaceably assemble." The Constitution was written before the invention of grammar nazis, and before Victorian snobs decided you couldn't split an infinitive verb.
    - graycat 12y ago
      The excuse I heard was that an infinitive in English is two words but corresponds to a single word in Latin, and, of course, as all good Latin experts know, English grammar should be as much like Latin as possible! So, since can't split a single word infinitive in Latin, we shouldn't in English! So, "to be" is okay but "to not be" would be bad. "To an infinitive split" would be awful! So, string me up if I were to badly split an infinitive!
      - jcrites 12y ago
        Sometimes it just sounds better. Why it does is an interesting question for linguists. "To boldly go where no man has gone before" "We are determined to completely and utterly eradicate the disease." "She wants to gradually get rid of her teddy bears." "Writers should learn to not split infinitives." It's also not always possible to eliminate the split infinitive, or the infinitive, without changing the direct or implied meaning of the sentence. "She wants to get rid of her teddy bears gradually" works fairly well. "Boldly going where no man has gone before" is close, but doesn't capture the same challenge, summons, call to action as the original. Nor does it sound as pleasing.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- adamclayman 12y ago
  Not quite true, but thought-provoking. "The role of the police is to preserve a range of disorder that is enshrined in law, and thereby prevent violence against and stagnation of persons, properties, and cultures," would, I venture, be a nearer approximation of the truth.
  - innguest 12y ago
    But the police have no duty to protect anyone: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=...
ibejoeb 12y ago
If I had the power to change only one thing this year, it would be toward the prohibition of active incitement by police, to include: - the tactic of first-move provocation, e.g., manhandling and other physical intimidation during routine encounters - the playing of provocateurs during public demonstration - shows of force and the deployment of light weapons and armored vehicles These things are the antithesis of peacekeeping.
- couchand 12y ago
  the playing of provocateurs during public demonstration Far too many people dismiss this too readily, but it may be the most dangerous and anti-democratic aspect of police response to protest.
- dclowd9901 12y ago
  I've tried making this point before, but you've made it in a way I've always failed to. When police approach a situation fulfilling the role of the individual ready to respond to an incident, it almost seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
  - wpietri 12y ago
    Yes. I've seen this happen myself. In college, after some sportsball event, everybody poured out into the streets, milling around, chatting, celebrating. As soon as the police started to try to make everybody go home, suddenly there was a focus. They created an oppositional dynamic all by themselves, and from there it escalated. The next day, the papers were of course full of reports of badly behaved crowds and near-rioting stopped only by dedicated law enforcement officers. That's definitely not what I saw.
- xanderjanz 12y ago
  > shows of force and the deployment of light weapons and armored vehicles In your ideal world, when exactly should the police gear up to disperse a crowd? While it's actively rioting?
  - 12y ago
noonespecial 12y ago
I always thought we asked two simple things from the police as they carry out their duties. Professionalism, which as you said is the ability to withstand provocation to anger without acting violently. And courage, which is the ability to endure fear also without acting violently. I think they are still doing a pretty good job on the whole as far as the former goes. Its the latter I find them slipping on as of late.
GICodeWarrior 12y ago
"freedom to protest is important in and of itself" That is your opinion, and while I agree with it, police exist to enforce laws (with discretion), not to promote or otherwise engage in discussions regarding civil liberties. I think he did an excellent job making his points without taking sides.
- maaku 12y ago
  Tow of our laws are the rights of assembly, and freedom of speech. They are written into the constitution. If that's not reasonably interpreted as a right to (peaceful) protest, I don't know what to say.
  - GICodeWarrior 12y ago
    What are the boundaries of those rights? Is it OK for your neighborhood to protest by sitting in your house? What about in supermarket checkout aisles? or on the interstate? These are just random examples, but in all these cases, they are breaking laws. I think it was smart of him to discuss general discretion rather than civil liberties.
    - logicallee 12y ago
      your examples weren't 'random' enough. How about between the President and the first lady as they are trying to get some sleep? etc.
    - eternalban 12y ago
      There are no boundaries to our "rights". These are not affordances, nor privileges provided by the state. These are all our "inalienable rights" as a free people. We the People further reserve the right to struggle for life, freedom, and happiness should any subset of the people get funny ideas that they are 'above the law'.
      - jamesaguilar 12y ago
        > There are no boundaries to our "rights". I propose you test this claim by one of the methods the grandparent suggested. The protest-by-occupying-a-random-person's-house idea seems like a good one to pick.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
V7Theory 12y ago
The role of the police is to enforce the law. It seems somewhat obvious that citizens were breaking the law and little or no enforcement action was taken. Once a citizen has broken the law, especially one that interferes with another person's freedom, there's no clear picture as to what degree they will continue breaking the law - which instills concern. Illegal acts that are removing other citizens' freedom are not being halted by the people who's job it is to do so - this also instills concern. The citizen's concern for safety were valid and if you believe that any action on the police force's part to enforce the law would provoke the protesters to violence then you further validate this assertion and the concern of the writer. The chief would have been more in his place to apologize for not enforcing the law and explaining why he chose not to, rather than attempt to demean the character of the writer by making assumptions and painting them as socially handicapped.

by sfeng 12y ago

dubfan 12y ago

The right to peaceably assemble shouldn't supersede the right for citizens to go about their business. The protests crossed that line when they started shutting down freeways and transit. The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric.

sfeng 12y ago
> The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric. they also weren't killing people or 'inciting terror'.
rtpg 12y ago
so rights only exist until it becomes slightly inconvenient to people? There's a pretty easy slippery slope argument there. Are train drivers allowed to strike? Can the NYT publish articles revealing how terribly a company is run? Protesters are encouraged to coordinate with city officials so that people won't be "too inconvenienced", but last I checked it isn't a constitutional requirement.
- dubfan 12y ago
  Yeah, being late to my job because my bus can't get through a protest and getting fired as a result is just a slight inconvenience.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
    Now you got some time to agitate for better labor rights so your now-ex-boss can't do that.
  - cdcarter 12y ago
    So, to use the examples you're replying to here, do you also believed that organized labor doesn't have the right to strike if it might make you late to work, and that the NYT isn't allowed to run an article outing you as a major criminal if that might cause you to be terminateD?
  - rtpg 12y ago
    The fact that being late one day can get you fired speaks to the state of labor rights in the US. Think of all of the things that could make you late. Protests, sure, but a broken down car, a car accident (yours or somebody else). Hell, if the President comes around they shut down a bunch of lanes of traffic.
wbronitsky 12y ago
I should think that the difference between blocking traffic for a short period of time and terrorism is death and suffering. I would say the only similarity between the two is that they both seek to advance political agendas. This is like saying the only difference between a filibuster and terrorism is rhetoric.
thaumaturgy 12y ago
Conversely, the right for citizens to go about their business shouldn't supersede the right for citizens to peaceably assemble. Protesting, marching, and occasionally inconveniencing other people is an integral part of a free society. I'm not fond of the protesters' decision to block freeways (I'm thinking specifically of the incident in southern California, I wasn't aware of one in Tennessee). I wouldn't do that, and I would discourage other people from doing that. I might support making the obstruction of major highways into a ticketable offense and gently but firmly removing any protesters there. But, there's no way I would qualify that as "terrorism", and anybody that argued that it was would move me further towards supporting protests on highways. The social pendulum in the U.S. has swung far too far towards an authoritarian police state. Let's not push it farther by declaring acts of peaceful protest to be "terrorism", no matter how inconvenient they are.
- vacri 12y ago
  Clarifying further, 'terrorism' means using fear (the 'terror' part) to achieve political goals (the 'ism' part). Peacefully blocking a highway might be civil disobedience, but it's nowhere near terrifying.
  - click170 12y ago
    To clarify further, I could call my landlord a terrorist because he'll come banging on my door if I don't pay him on time. That induces fear, yet I think we can all agree my landlord is not a terrorist for wanting to collect his rent. "Terrorism" is a laughably flexible term that could be used to fit just about anything given the right wording. If you have to resort to calling someone a terrorist in order to get me on your side, you've failed to state why I should agree with you without resorting to FUD.
    - vacri 12y ago
      You've really got to stretch the definition of 'political goal' to include 'collecting rent from a contract that you both agreed to'. :)
click170 12y ago
Um, yes, it very much should. This isn't about blocking roads or stopping transit. Its about being heard. Unfortunately it takes more than a sternly worded letter to voice their frustration and outrage, and here you are trying to take one of their few remaining outlets away from them. You don't honestly believe that do you?
- dubfan 12y ago
  They have as much of a right to speak as I have to ignore them. When my right to ignore them is taken away, I have a problem with that.
  - mhluongo 12y ago
    Put on some headphones. There, your rights are no longer being infringed! One citizen doesn't have a greater "right" over a public space than another. The frequent abuse of the term kills me.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    "Ignore" is just not paying attention. You are free to do so. No one is taking that right away.
    - waterlesscloud 12y ago
      When protesters block the freeway he's on, he no longer has the ability to not pay attention to them. They have, in fact, taken that away from him. I even think that's precisely why the protesters do it.
  - click170 12y ago
    We agree that people do not have a right to not be offended, right?
IanDrake 12y ago
You're absolutely right. Freedom isn't the ability "to do" something or anything, it is simply the absence of coercion. Blocking someone's ability to navigate on public property is coercion, it is not a right, it certainly is not freedom. We are not more free if people can block your path because they're unhappy...which is what some here are arguing.
- dubfan 12y ago
  > Freedom isn't the ability "to do" something or anything, it is simply the absence of coercion. A profound point apparently lost on so-called intellectuals. Thank you for understanding.
  - themartorana 12y ago
    The "to do" part is the active preservation of and action against coercion. If the denial of a right is present, only action against that threat is likely to remove it. Further, a freedom is likely to disappear without continued active exercise - which makes that freedom an action, contrary to your argument. The idea that freedom is absent action or protection is absurd. Using the term "so called intellectuals" makes you sound obtuse.
    - ldlework 12y ago
      Thank you. My mouth was literally agape.
- vacri 12y ago
  Blocking someone's ability to navigate on public property is coercion, it is not a right What magic gives you as an individual more right to a given parcel of public property than any other individual (or collection thereof)? You want to use the road. They want to use the road. Seems to me like a classic first-come-first-served sort of freedom. If you want them to stop using the public property they're on so that you can use it, you'll be appealing to authorities to coerce them off it. That doesn't sound like freedom either.
Thrymr 12y ago
> The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric. Also, the terror.
SwellJoe 12y ago
"The protests crossed that line when they started shutting down freeways and transit. The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric." Are you serious? You see no difference between beheading someone and sending out a video of it, and peacefully stopping traffic for a few minutes, other than the way they talk about it? Flying airplanes into buildings, and disrupting a train schedule for a little while by peacefully locking arms, are the same thing to you? Suicide bombers, and a (simulated, and peaceful) "die-in" in a shopping mall, those are morally no different? That's such an unreasonable, and inflammatory, position to take that I'm genuinely not even sure how to communicate with you.
veidr 12y ago
> The protests crossed that line when they started shutting down freeways and transit. The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric. Yeah, that and the dead children, schoolteachers with their legs blown off, orphans left behind after their parents were shredded or burned to death, etc that results from actual terrorism. That's basically the only difference.
beedogs 12y ago
I'm sorry, but whether or not you're inconvenienced is of absolutely no consequence and should have no bearing whatsoever on the right of the people to protest. If a bit of a delay on the roads is all you've got to complain about, you've got it pretty damn good.
rokhayakebe 12y ago
Upvoted, but your comment sounds a bit self centered. "Anybody who enjoys social freedom because others have toiled, and some are still toiling, for it should give up his freedom when the state needs it." You enjoy many benefits because the "citizens" you speak of contribute to the state and make it so you live there happily and safely. Now when these people, together as citizens, feel like their "social contract" is being abused, they have a right, through the government, to put an immediate and sharp hold on your freedom to have the matter resolved. Now in this case, if the police did not act, you can consider it as an approval. If you disagree with this method, you also have the right to protest in the same manner. Edit: Also a protest is a nuisance, terrorism is an actual threat to your freedom.
- eropple 12y ago
  > Edit: Also a protest is a nuisance, terrorism is an actual threat to your freedom. Eh. My freedoms are a lot less threatened by terrorism than by the people responding to terrorism.

bjornsing 12y ago

> He missed the core point that the freedom to protest is important in and of itself. I agree wholeheartedly. Also, I was a bit surprised that he didn't refute the claim that you need a permit to peacefully assemble in the US. Is that really so? Where I am (Sweden) you can "apply for a permit weeks and months in advance", but you don't have to. There's nothing illegal about the peaceful assembly of a large number of people, in fact it's a right ensured by "basic law" (similar to a constitution).

Thrymr 12y ago
"The right of the people peaceably to assemble" is protected in the Bill of Rights (1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). The letter writer seems to be referring to the shutting down a public street, which indeed could subject to a permit by a local government (for a protest or a parade).
- rquantz 12y ago
  You've misquoted the amendment. It is "the right to peaceably assemble." The Constitution was written before the invention of grammar nazis, and before Victorian snobs decided you couldn't split an infinitive verb.
  - graycat 12y ago
    The excuse I heard was that an infinitive in English is two words but corresponds to a single word in Latin, and, of course, as all good Latin experts know, English grammar should be as much like Latin as possible! So, since can't split a single word infinitive in Latin, we shouldn't in English! So, "to be" is okay but "to not be" would be bad. "To an infinitive split" would be awful! So, string me up if I were to badly split an infinitive!
    - jcrites 12y ago
      Sometimes it just sounds better. Why it does is an interesting question for linguists. "To boldly go where no man has gone before" "We are determined to completely and utterly eradicate the disease." "She wants to gradually get rid of her teddy bears." "Writers should learn to not split infinitives." It's also not always possible to eliminate the split infinitive, or the infinitive, without changing the direct or implied meaning of the sentence. "She wants to get rid of her teddy bears gradually" works fairly well. "Boldly going where no man has gone before" is close, but doesn't capture the same challenge, summons, call to action as the original. Nor does it sound as pleasing.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

adamclayman 12y ago
Not quite true, but thought-provoking. "The role of the police is to preserve a range of disorder that is enshrined in law, and thereby prevent violence against and stagnation of persons, properties, and cultures," would, I venture, be a nearer approximation of the truth.
- innguest 12y ago
  But the police have no duty to protect anyone: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=...

ibejoeb 12y ago

If I had the power to change only one thing this year, it would be toward the prohibition of active incitement by police, to include: - the tactic of first-move provocation, e.g., manhandling and other physical intimidation during routine encounters - the playing of provocateurs during public demonstration - shows of force and the deployment of light weapons and armored vehicles These things are the antithesis of peacekeeping.

couchand 12y ago
the playing of provocateurs during public demonstration Far too many people dismiss this too readily, but it may be the most dangerous and anti-democratic aspect of police response to protest.
dclowd9901 12y ago
I've tried making this point before, but you've made it in a way I've always failed to. When police approach a situation fulfilling the role of the individual ready to respond to an incident, it almost seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
- wpietri 12y ago
  Yes. I've seen this happen myself. In college, after some sportsball event, everybody poured out into the streets, milling around, chatting, celebrating. As soon as the police started to try to make everybody go home, suddenly there was a focus. They created an oppositional dynamic all by themselves, and from there it escalated. The next day, the papers were of course full of reports of badly behaved crowds and near-rioting stopped only by dedicated law enforcement officers. That's definitely not what I saw.
xanderjanz 12y ago
> shows of force and the deployment of light weapons and armored vehicles In your ideal world, when exactly should the police gear up to disperse a crowd? While it's actively rioting?
- 12y ago

noonespecial 12y ago

I always thought we asked two simple things from the police as they carry out their duties. Professionalism, which as you said is the ability to withstand provocation to anger without acting violently. And courage, which is the ability to endure fear also without acting violently. I think they are still doing a pretty good job on the whole as far as the former goes. Its the latter I find them slipping on as of late.

GICodeWarrior 12y ago

"freedom to protest is important in and of itself" That is your opinion, and while I agree with it, police exist to enforce laws (with discretion), not to promote or otherwise engage in discussions regarding civil liberties. I think he did an excellent job making his points without taking sides.

maaku 12y ago
Tow of our laws are the rights of assembly, and freedom of speech. They are written into the constitution. If that's not reasonably interpreted as a right to (peaceful) protest, I don't know what to say.
- GICodeWarrior 12y ago
  What are the boundaries of those rights? Is it OK for your neighborhood to protest by sitting in your house? What about in supermarket checkout aisles? or on the interstate? These are just random examples, but in all these cases, they are breaking laws. I think it was smart of him to discuss general discretion rather than civil liberties.
  - logicallee 12y ago
    your examples weren't 'random' enough. How about between the President and the first lady as they are trying to get some sleep? etc.
  - eternalban 12y ago
    There are no boundaries to our "rights". These are not affordances, nor privileges provided by the state. These are all our "inalienable rights" as a free people. We the People further reserve the right to struggle for life, freedom, and happiness should any subset of the people get funny ideas that they are 'above the law'.
    - jamesaguilar 12y ago
      > There are no boundaries to our "rights". I propose you test this claim by one of the methods the grandparent suggested. The protest-by-occupying-a-random-person's-house idea seems like a good one to pick.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

V7Theory 12y ago

The role of the police is to enforce the law. It seems somewhat obvious that citizens were breaking the law and little or no enforcement action was taken. Once a citizen has broken the law, especially one that interferes with another person's freedom, there's no clear picture as to what degree they will continue breaking the law - which instills concern. Illegal acts that are removing other citizens' freedom are not being halted by the people who's job it is to do so - this also instills concern. The citizen's concern for safety were valid and if you believe that any action on the police force's part to enforce the law would provoke the protesters to violence then you further validate this assertion and the concern of the writer. The chief would have been more in his place to apologize for not enforcing the law and explaining why he chose not to, rather than attempt to demean the character of the writer by making assumptions and painting them as socially handicapped.