Feds execute "pre-emptive raid" on RNC protestors
- Thread starter FireMax
- Start date
Not "disruption" - VIOLENCE. CHEMICAL ATTACKS. VANDALISM. ASSAULT.
If people can't see the difference between "speaking out for something you believe in," and the above, then I doubt there's anything I can say here that would make it clear.
The Constitution guarantees the right to PEACEABLY assemble.
PEACEABLY.
In other words, the OPPOSITE of what these people were planning.
Evan Thomas
New member
Without getting into quibbles about the meaning of "preemptive," raiding the RNC Welcoming Committee (the group of so-called anarchists) may well have been justified.
But how does videotaping the protests constitute "major civil disruption?" The preemptive raid on I-Witness Video, which included confiscating their equipment, was a clear attempt to intimidate a group whose sole objective was to document the behavior of police.
And arresting journalists who are attempting to cover the protests?
This is chilling stuff, if you think the protections in the Bill of Rights actually mean something.
And if anyone were to suggest that those rights are somehow less applicable to those with whose political positions they disagree... the quote from Martin Niemoller would definitely be a suitable response.
(Thank you, Darren007 -- I was trying to recall the source just the other day, for some reason...)
toybox99615
New member
Some might have been but were all
the raids fully justified? That is most likely one of the questions to be asking at this point. A guy with Molotov cocktails probably needed some looking into. A group who wanted to make a video getting locked up seems a bit more like unnecessary action by the police.
There is a tendency these days to find justification using every immaginable reason to investigate and /or incarcerate people who seem to disagree with political figures. One of the real classic is to look at where those who might wish to protest against the president's motorcade are banned to. The protesters are allowed to voice thier opposition in a designated area away from the motorcade and completely out of sight by the motorcade. Meanwhile the few with a pro Bush sign are welcome to stand on the side of the road and be filmed waving their banner. Who really knows which of the two might be planning a dastardly deed? Surly holding a protest sign can not reasonable classify a person as being a threat. But such actions as investigation and apprehension of those protesting is now an acceptable practice.
Just remember the Patriot Act and alll these other approved actions are to protect us from them. Now if I just knew who is us and who is them.
the raids fully justified? That is most likely one of the questions to be asking at this point. A guy with Molotov cocktails probably needed some looking into. A group who wanted to make a video getting locked up seems a bit more like unnecessary action by the police.
There is a tendency these days to find justification using every immaginable reason to investigate and /or incarcerate people who seem to disagree with political figures. One of the real classic is to look at where those who might wish to protest against the president's motorcade are banned to. The protesters are allowed to voice thier opposition in a designated area away from the motorcade and completely out of sight by the motorcade. Meanwhile the few with a pro Bush sign are welcome to stand on the side of the road and be filmed waving their banner. Who really knows which of the two might be planning a dastardly deed? Surly holding a protest sign can not reasonable classify a person as being a threat. But such actions as investigation and apprehension of those protesting is now an acceptable practice.
Just remember the Patriot Act and alll these other approved actions are to protect us from them. Now if I just knew who is us and who is them.
It shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone that police often exceed their authority. Four hundred arrests were overturned by I-Witness Video's footage which contradicted sworn statements by cops, as they said.
It's small wonder they had to wait so long for a search warrant as a preemptive cover-up of their abuse of authority, and then got it wrong, executed it anyway, and left with no charges and nothing to show for it. It's raw intimidation, and it's an outrage. "Kafkaesqe" doesn't even begin to describe it.
From the looks of it, they just "swore out" a boilerplate search warrant against anyone even peripherally associated with the violent protesters, even in the complete absence of any real evidence that violence was planned.
But it's in an entirely different ballpark than the raid and arrest of violent criminals planning violent crimes.
Cop view? Pennies (dollars) from heaven...
Try to view it from a police officer perspective. These major events are like money falling out of the sky, massive overtime $$, I bet the pre-event training has lasted weeks or months. Pay for a nice Christmas or Caribbean vacation? You get to network with other departments, probably get to keep the full on Judge Dredd riot kit after its over. Its a good item to have on a resume, for future promotions.
The individual officers are granted immunity from most actions, that they would not have in their normal everyday jobs. Some of the seemingly unjustified mass arrests appear to be more of a training op, than an actual response to unlawful actions. From a riot squad commander's point of view, you've got all these resources out there, let's just do a dry run for practice. They know that the arrests are bogus, and charges will be dismissed in a few days, that's not the point. You get practice under actual real-life conditions.
Senior staff will thoroughly review afterward in the classroom (again overtime $$), and the incidents will be picked apart...how can we do it better next time? This includes the PIO propaganda statements to the press, analyzed for effectiveness (not necessarily truthiness
). Legal analysis - constitutional issues? The emphasis is how best to cut off any possible litigation; not necessarily to obey the constitution and laws. The ends justify the means; how to stay one step ahead of the scruffy anarchists.
That is what the public expects.
Try to view it from a police officer perspective. These major events are like money falling out of the sky, massive overtime $$, I bet the pre-event training has lasted weeks or months. Pay for a nice Christmas or Caribbean vacation? You get to network with other departments, probably get to keep the full on Judge Dredd riot kit after its over. Its a good item to have on a resume, for future promotions.
The individual officers are granted immunity from most actions, that they would not have in their normal everyday jobs. Some of the seemingly unjustified mass arrests appear to be more of a training op, than an actual response to unlawful actions. From a riot squad commander's point of view, you've got all these resources out there, let's just do a dry run for practice. They know that the arrests are bogus, and charges will be dismissed in a few days, that's not the point. You get practice under actual real-life conditions.
Senior staff will thoroughly review afterward in the classroom (again overtime $$), and the incidents will be picked apart...how can we do it better next time? This includes the PIO propaganda statements to the press, analyzed for effectiveness (not necessarily truthiness
). Legal analysis - constitutional issues? The emphasis is how best to cut off any possible litigation; not necessarily to obey the constitution and laws. The ends justify the means; how to stay one step ahead of the scruffy anarchists.That is what the public expects.
Very
I'm sensing a little bit of a double standard here...Erik, would you be comfortable with the statement that all officers are JBT thugs (or, at best, their close associates) because of the abusive actions of a few?
That seems to be what you're saying with your "these people", broad brush condescension. I saw videos of whole groups of people being rounded up like cattle between advancing skirmish lines and hard objects, trying to leave but having no physical option to do so.
Or maybe you might want to explain yourself?
I'm sensing a little bit of a double standard here...Erik, would you be comfortable with the statement that all officers are JBT thugs (or, at best, their close associates) because of the abusive actions of a few?
That seems to be what you're saying with your "these people", broad brush condescension. I saw videos of whole groups of people being rounded up like cattle between advancing skirmish lines and hard objects, trying to leave but having no physical option to do so.
Or maybe you might want to explain yourself?
You would think, then, that they could have their sh-- together well enough to swear out a proper warrant that was actually supported by probable cause based on actual evidence for the actual address of a place they had surrounded, and then know enough that a landlord's consent is insufficient basis for a "consent search" - Chapman v. US, 365 U.S. 610 (1961).
They're going to have their pants sued off by I-Witness Video.
No double standard, Hammer. If you cannot see the difference between painting a group of violent conspirators, terrorists, caught on the act and your bad cop versus all cops analogy, then I doubt there's much use in debating the finer points.
Folks whose preparation involved procuring bullhorns, signs, and the exchange of ideas of how to best express themselves should be outraged at the problem, namely "those people" whose preparation involved procuring weapons, caltrops, chains, marbles, rocks, sling shots, chemical and biological agents, bomb making materials, etc and the exchange of ideas of how to best kidnap, fire bomb, commit aggravated assault, vandalize (to put it mildly), etc and deprive people of their First Amendment rights.
Maybe you can sway me, though...
Given the failure of "circa Seattle 1999 tactics," and the destruction and lawlessness that ensued, why should local, state, and federal law enforcement be restricted to using them?
Or if that's not what you are advocating... what would you have them do?
Folks whose preparation involved procuring bullhorns, signs, and the exchange of ideas of how to best express themselves should be outraged at the problem, namely "those people" whose preparation involved procuring weapons, caltrops, chains, marbles, rocks, sling shots, chemical and biological agents, bomb making materials, etc and the exchange of ideas of how to best kidnap, fire bomb, commit aggravated assault, vandalize (to put it mildly), etc and deprive people of their First Amendment rights.
Maybe you can sway me, though...
Given the failure of "circa Seattle 1999 tactics," and the destruction and lawlessness that ensued, why should local, state, and federal law enforcement be restricted to using them?
Or if that's not what you are advocating... what would you have them do?
Last edited:
mountainclmbr
New member
Double Standard?
Raids prior to the DNC just coming out. I hear no protests. Silence about abuse. OK it was the DNC and abuses are OK there:
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_10382440
Raids prior to the DNC just coming out. I hear no protests. Silence about abuse. OK it was the DNC and abuses are OK there:
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_10382440