-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Portland Police tackle protestors blocking traffic
- Thread starter superdeluxe
- Start date
- Status
Generalpsyduck
Banned
Glad to hear that you did not mind getting tacked for no reason. I also know what being tackeld feels like (i played football for a couple years) and from my experience getting tackled fucking hurts and should never be done unless absolutely necessary.
superdeluxe
Member
basically what you are saying is..I support your right to block traffic, but I also support the right for the Police to enforce the law. I can agree with that.
Apparently they all have to get to work
pirateluigi
Member
I'm kind of shocked at the number of people here that seem to think the kinds of protests led by Dr King and James Bevel were bad, because they inconvenienced and disrupted people that weren't directly responsible for their oppression. Do they even teach about the Civil Rights Movement anymore?
GurgleBot20
Member
Don't you know? All Dr. King did was give the "I have a dream" speech and then all racism was cured.
yup.
crustchump
Member
i'm glad that you weren't hurt that much from being attacked by a government employee, but just a question: would you be upset if instead of being thrown to the ground for something you weren't involved in, you were instead peacefully protesting, got tackled, arrested, criminally charged, and forced to listen to hundreds of people who claim to be on your side say "well i agree that protesting is good, but i'm happy that Heavy_D was thrown in jail for it and attacked for it and since he did technically break the law i will no longer defend him or the merits of his protest." would you consider that to be too much force and authority exerted on someone for standing up for themselves?
Jacksinthe
Banned
I mean, cops shouldn't be physically aggressive with passive protesters. I don't think being tackled for standing requires context.
Captainbojanglesiii
Banned
You're very dense if you think inconviniencing people on their way to work is going to make them hear your point and not just further resent you imo.
That being said, the force reall wasn't necessary
That being said, the force reall wasn't necessary
Puppet Shadow
Member
lol, what's funny is I first thought:
Wasn't there a thread on plowing through protesters? Naw, that can't be right... that's insane! Wait, wasn't there something about going through red lights? Ya, that must of been it.
That is just so fucked up. I can see those dudes in their wifebeaters that spew black smoke from their trucks attaching cow catchers to their front bumpers.
Generalpsyduck
Banned
if you care about the law so much then you should listen to the Constitution.
Gordon Shumway
Banned
MLK was a fucking buffoon..agreed.
Getting tackled is not the same as beat up. I would've been with you if the cops started beating people up.
Yeah, maybe they were a bit overzealous, but I don't blame them. Anarchists caused a lot of problems in DC.
Systemically protesting a bus system that's enforcing legalized segregation is far different than running in front of a bus on a whim because you want to.
Secret Fawful
Member
Ah, so that's why they used so much force. To try to make examples of protesters.
Why are people acting like this post didn't happen
I am not trying the provide context on why force was used, just context on what the protest was about.
The slam was way out of hand.
Generalpsyduck
Banned
How is it any different? Its a physical action against a peaceful protester that could cause serious injury or death.
who did what now?
That's quite vague. Courts could easily go anywhere they want with that sentence.
Perhaps people have the right to "peacefully assemble" in your house?
Perhaps they don't have the right to assemble anywhere except one specially designated "peaceful assembly" zone under constant government surveillance?
Gordon Shumway
Banned
No. It was because anarchist in DC..😐
Getting public approval often isn't the goal of protesting, so whether the public approves of your protest is irrelevant.
Why are you so willfully ignorant of history?
Captainbojanglesiii
Banned
The times were also very different then. Perhaps I'm just jaded, but most people who are assholes aren't gonna change their views these days. They'll just demonize you if you try.
Gordon Shumway
Banned
So be it..if I can turn one out of a thousand, it was worth it.
Forerunner
Member
It's not maybe. They were overzealous. This is a use of force model (every agency has one). They need to follow it.
Someone just posted the general public's approval ratings of the civil rights movement.
Doesn't seem like the times are all that different.
I'm not.
The document likely refers to oppressive regime restricting your ability to assemble peacefully on private property, which under the rule of the British could be considered treasonous.
Comparing that original intention to blocking traffic in the street is quite disingenuous.
(I'm not an Originalist nor a Constitutional scholar in any way)
Generalpsyduck
Banned
Except the founders protests where similarly disruptive (and the british response is quite similar to what the poilice are doing now)
Captainbojanglesiii
Banned
I've always seen it as trying to publicly persuade others of your perspective
pirateluigi
Member
I hate to break it to you... but people were assholes then too. Probably even more so.
Whether you agree or disagree with disruptive protesting, it's hard to deny this protest looked pretty poorly thought out. It's just a handful of people standing and yelling in the street. Protests should be organized and have a clear visible message with a clear visible objective. This had none of that. That's the difference between an actual protest and simply disturbing the peace.
It's ok to have standards even when it comes to protesting!
It's ok to have standards even when it comes to protesting!
Captainbojanglesiii
Banned
I'm alwaya just scared of creating counter-movements
You're right, I'm not sure what I was getting at there.
And they targeted symbols of British oppression.
They didn't randomly interrupt the livelihood of their fellow Colonials to try to gain the sympathy of the public or piss off the British form afar.
Amory
Member
When did missing work become something that's like....not at all a big deal? A "minor inconvenience"? For some people maybe that's true, for others it definitely isn't. Maybe you're willing to sacrifice "Random Person X's" job for the greater good, but don't be surprised if Random Person X feels differently and wants you out of the fucking way regardless of how they feel about your cause.
But either way I can see where the other side is coming from, if you want to enact change then you have to capture attention somehow. So then you block a road, because that's a good way to capture attention and be very disruptive. It's going to make thousands of people late for wherever they're going, whether that's a particularly important place or not.
But then to say "OH BOO HOO, BOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOO IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL RESPECT THE PROTESTER'S RIGHTS", like, you know that making a lot of people late and fucking up their day is a big deal. That's the whole reason this is a strategy in the first place, because it's disruptive, right? It can't be a big deal and not a big deal at the same time.
If everyone shared your opinion and started applauding when traffic got blocked because who doesn't just love a good protest, it would ruin the point of doing it. You can't have the positive effect that protesting can bring without accepting the consequences. And in this case, blocking the road is illegal and you're probably going to get arrested if you do it.
Doesn't look like they should've tackled that person though. I see that as a separate issue.
But either way I can see where the other side is coming from, if you want to enact change then you have to capture attention somehow. So then you block a road, because that's a good way to capture attention and be very disruptive. It's going to make thousands of people late for wherever they're going, whether that's a particularly important place or not.
But then to say "OH BOO HOO, BOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOO IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL RESPECT THE PROTESTER'S RIGHTS", like, you know that making a lot of people late and fucking up their day is a big deal. That's the whole reason this is a strategy in the first place, because it's disruptive, right? It can't be a big deal and not a big deal at the same time.
If everyone shared your opinion and started applauding when traffic got blocked because who doesn't just love a good protest, it would ruin the point of doing it. You can't have the positive effect that protesting can bring without accepting the consequences. And in this case, blocking the road is illegal and you're probably going to get arrested if you do it.
Doesn't look like they should've tackled that person though. I see that as a separate issue.
Gordon Shumway
Banned
MLK was big on the boo hoo..whiner..
Hexa
Member
Not sure if I'm understanding this correctly, but their goal isn't to gain allies but to disrupt and annoy, right? So that they've annoyed people to the point that they're cheering on police tackling them, that's essentially mission accomplished? Like, I don't get why people find animosity towards them strange. That's the entire point, isn't it?
Getting beat up and tackled are different things, but both are physical actions. No one got hurt so we're gucci.
Forerunner
Member
It doesn't work like that. They both fall under the same category. Bodily harm.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
It's not really all that big a deal. Especially when, in this instance, it's not "missing work" it's "maybe being a little late to work," but in this specific instance, it's more like "maybe being 20-30min late to get home" Which is also not that big a deal,
I feel like a whole bunch of people in here are kinda ignoring and or glossing over the context and specificity of this story and its location and are instead moving to arguing of hypotheticals and theoreticals. There's a lot of back & forth that seems to operate from notions that people who would be inconvenienced by a protest action in downtown Portland are all in danger of permanently losing either their jobs or their scholarships as a result of people exercising their first amendment rights in the downtown area.
This is almost as over-the-top as the tackle that prompted the discussion in the first place.
"Just fallowing orders" (or, hey its my job) doesn't absolve one of being the actual strong arm of oppression. In times like now, re examining one's volition is more important than ever.
Generalpsyduck
Banned
Someone could have gotten hurt so no we are not gucci.
pirateluigi
Member
The point of a disruptive protest is to cause such a gridlock or frustration that the other side is forced to negotiate. And animosity happens. So do arrests and sometimes even violence.
But what you don't usually see, especially on a left leaning forum, is people cheering for police tackling a protester.
A hypothetical for those in favor of blocking public transit to protest: how long should they be allowed to occupy a street before their "point has been made"?
Should a well organized group, for instance, be allowed to block every road in D.C. Leading to and from the White House/Capital building for an indefinite amount of time? Should they be allowed to shut down I-95 for an indefinite amount of time?
You may consider this outlandish, but if people were allowed to block street access without prior permission whenever they wanted, I don't see how a couple dozen people wouldn't be able to pull this off.
Should a well organized group, for instance, be allowed to block every road in D.C. Leading to and from the White House/Capital building for an indefinite amount of time? Should they be allowed to shut down I-95 for an indefinite amount of time?
You may consider this outlandish, but if people were allowed to block street access without prior permission whenever they wanted, I don't see how a couple dozen people wouldn't be able to pull this off.
Generalpsyduck
Banned
Are you saying the founders actions against the British did not affect the colonials at all? Because that is simply not true.
Save your hypotheticals for your livejournal. No one is interested in hilariously over the top non-existent scenarios for which there is literally zero precedent, nor are they interested in pretending that the person pulling them into this discussion is interested in genuine discourse. There is plenty enough information about this specific scenario as well as recent previous protests, from blocking traffic to kneeling at a football game. Your imaginary protests aren't needed.
- Status