Flutterby™! : China vs USA?

Next unread comment / Catchup all unread comments User Account Info | Logout | XML/Pilot/etc versions | Long version (with comments) | Weblog archives | Site Map | | Browse Topics

China vs USA?

2008-09-02 01:27:02.609263+00 by meuon 14 comments

100 Protesters "processed" - scroll down, see the "violent" protesters surrounded "2:1" a group called "Recreate 68" that supposedly even had a "permit" to do a little peaceful protesting. The close-up make me wonder what an evil violent thing peace protesting could be.

George Orwell, you were only off a few years.

comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment Re: made: 2008-09-02 05:27:57.439212+00 by: spc476

Damn those Republicans! I blame Bush.

Oh wait ... this was the Democratic Convention.

Sorry, my bad.

#Comment Re: made: 2008-09-02 13:01:33.987002+00 by: JT

I wonder if they violated any of the rules that were in the pamphlet that was passed out to the protesters before the demonstration started.

#Comment Re: made: 2008-09-02 16:50:18.990151+00 by: meuon

Note being nasty, but can you define a "lawful order to disperse"?

I assume that means a police officer saying "disperse".


Is the other side.

#Comment Re: made: 2008-09-02 17:38:11.944285+00 by: JT

I've never worked in Colorado, so I can't particularly outline what a "lawful order to disperse" means in that particular state. The states I did work in though defined that as an officer of the law acting within his duties ordering a group to disperse due to public safety concerns or acting within the law.

Acting within the law would be, for instance, blocking a sidewalk. Public safety concerns would be that an officer has reason to believe there is an impending riot which would endanger people or property or other potential for damage to property.

Also, I'm out of my league on this one since I don't know the laws or the circumstances surrounding the incident, I'm also not defending what the police did or justifying it at all, I'm just answering the question. What my original question was about though, was that I'm just wondering if everyone who showed up received a copy of the pamphlet so they would know what was expected and what was legal before they began to protest.

#Comment Re: made: 2008-09-02 19:31:21.834495+00 by: TheSHAD0W

More news about the incident:


The rampaging protesters attacked members of the Connecticut delegation, spraying them with a noxious liquid. One 80-year-old delegate needed medical treatment.
Others tossed bottles, slashed tires and shattered windows - including those of a police car. There were 56 arrests.

Check the photo gallery:


#Comment Re: made: 2008-09-02 20:07:55.097384+00 by: Dan Lyke

Shadow, the stuff you linked to was about protests at the Republican convention, the stuff Meuon linked to was about the Democratic convention.

#Comment Re: made: 2008-09-02 21:47:21.543572+00 by: m

For some really serious depredations try Glen Greewald at Salon:


Wherein he describes amongst other abuses in MN, preemptive raids against protesters without warrants, raids with refusal to show warrants, SWAT raids to enforce the local fire code (only legally enforceable by fire marshals, not police), and arrests of journalists clearly performing their legal occupations.

Both the Ds and the Rs have invested a great deal in limiting the freedom of speech and the right to air grievances. These tactics are continually pushing not just the edge of the proper interests and boundaries of law enforcement, but the very meaning of law itself. The national media has little interest in telling these stories, and is content to let the nation believe that the only people who are being subjugated are those who are actually violating laws.

#Comment Re: made: 2008-09-02 23:15:19.981145+00 by: meuon

"...the Democratic Convention" - and that's why I thought it was so interesting. I had heard about the MN ones, but could not find the links again. Thanks M.

#Comment Re: made: 2008-09-03 00:01:44.809746+00 by: m

If anyone wonders how the philosophy of law enforcement is changing in the US, then take a look at the APC with a belt fed M-2 50 caliber machine gun that was acquired by a Richland Country in SC. Unfortunately, Richland is not the only local PD to acquire one of these rolling death machines.


That weapon was originally developed as an antitank gun in WWII, and it can tear down masonry walls. It is considered a heavy automatic weapon It has a functional range of 1 mile, and a total range of about five miles. Still a favorite heavy weapon today, it is used against armored vehicles, to knock down walls, and to completely suck the life out of any area that it is fired against. It is not a particularly accurate weapon, and if fired in a civilian community, the collateral damage will be enormous.

Why in hell does any police force need a weapon like this? The next step up for the well equipped police department is going to be an A6 Warthog with a 30mm Gatling gun.

#Comment Re: made: 2008-09-03 03:36:58.896888+00 by: JT

I'd venture to say there's no reason for anyone outside of the military to ever own a .50 caliber weapon... civilian or police.

#Comment Re: made: 2008-09-03 04:05:10.997302+00 by: Larry Burton

JT, why would you need a reason?

#Comment Re: made: 2008-09-03 10:44:41.713697+00 by: meuon

The .50 is an expensive round to shoot for fun, but fun. Big bang.

#Comment Re: made: 2008-09-05 13:18:35.37512+00 by: JT

Looks like another 400 were arrested at the RNC. The usual use of pepper spray, et cetera.

#Comment Re: made: 2008-09-07 13:46:46.780487+00 by: ebradway

I was waiting in the car yesterday and scanning the AM band. Came across a right-wing talk show. A caller said:

We have been praying for the McCain campaign since the beginning and Sarah Palin is the first evidence that our prayers have been heard.

Later, the talk-show host said about some Codepink protestors at a McCain rally:

Codepink is an anarchist organization with known ties to terrorists.

I about fell out of the car laughing...