How Police Deal with Protesters

[Nova Land]

Apologies in advance: this is a post and run thread.

I have time to open this thread, but am unlikely to have time to participate actively in it until apple season is over. But I wanted to post excerpts from these news story, and links to the stories, while these are still current and while they are still available on-line, since links to news stories sometimes expire. This is something I plan to use as an example in another thread later this year, and I'd rather people have a chance to read the original now rather than simply my re-typing or cut-and-paste of the story later.

One thing people may be interested in discussing in this thread is this particular incident, in which stun guns were used on non-violent (and non-resisting) protesters in order to obtain compliance with a police order (for the protesters to unchain themselves from a barrel). I believe this was an improper action on the part of police. Protesters who chain themselves to heavy objects in order to prevent their removal from a site -- be it a construction site, as in this case, or abortion clinics, as was frequently done in the late 1980s and early 1990s by abortion protesters -- are committing civil disobedience and should be subject to arrest.

But the use of violence by police -- be it beating with clubs, stunning with tasers, or physically striking or kicking people -- should be limited to preventing people from engaging in actions, not to compelling people to engage in actions. If the protesters had been advancing threateningly toward the police, for instance, the use of violence could be appropriate. If the protesters were refusing to move, on the other hand, the use of violence to compel them to move would be inappropriate. And I believe this principle should be applied independent of the cause the protesters represent. I want to see anti-abortion protesters treated with the same respect and according to the same rules as anti-war protesters are treated. I want to see school prayer activists treated with the same respect and according to the same rules as gay rights activists.

And that's not what I see happening, which is the other thing people may be interested in discussing in this thread. Are protesters for different causes treated equally? Or are protesters for some causes treated better (or worse) than protesters for other causes?

In a thread in Religion and Philosophy about Thomas Jefferson (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=74960), a tangent has developed about a case in which an unauthorized demonstration was held at an Illinois school by school prayer activists -- adults who had no permission to be on school property, as well as by students who did. The police were called to break up the demonstration, and two of the students who refused to comply with the police order to disperse were handcuffed, taken to a police car, and detained for 15 minutes before being released without any charges being filed.

To some Christian activists, this case is evidence that Christians are being singled out for persecution. To me, the rarity of such incidents in relation to school prayer demonstrations, and the relative mildness of the alleged mistreatment, indicates just the opposite. But I would be interested in collecting more examples of mistreatment of protesters in a thread such as this in an effort to see whether incidents of mistreatment are more or less common and more or less severe, depending on the cause involved, or whether incidents of mistreatment are equally likely to occur regardless of the cause involved.

Both these news stories appeared in the Brattleboro Reformer (and both were written by Patrick J Crowley of the Reformer staff). I have excerpted out the key points relative to what I am interested in discussing, but I encourage people to click on the links for more details about these cases.

Brattleboro Reformer
September 12, 2007 -- page 1
Putney Road protesters in court (http://www.reformer.com/headlines/ci_6868605)

A pair of protesters, who spurred townwide debate over the use of stun guns, were arraigned in Windham District Court on charges of trespassing and resisting arrest. Jonathan "Slug" Crowell and Samantha Kilmurray pleaded not guilty to the misdemeanor charges through their attorney Tuesday.

The two were arrested by the Brattleboro Police Department in July for refusing to leave a vacant lot on Putney Road. They were protesting the possibility of a truck stop on the lot, owned by Cheshire Oil.

Officers on the scene used Tasers to get the two protesters to unchain themselves from a barrel filled with concrete and steel rebar. The use of the nonlethal weapon triggered a barrage of criticism from residents who alleged police brutality.
...

Police first responded at about 1 p.m. on July 23, arriving to the vacant lot at the corner of Black Mountain and Putney roads to see roughly 20 protesters putting up signs and planting flowers...

Police contacted the property owner, Cheshire Oil owner James Robertson, who said he wanted the protesters off the property. Police eventually told the group that they had to leave. Police left, then returned again to see that many of the protesters were still there. Robertson was again contacted by police and told of the situation. "The owner agreed to allow the subjects to stay on the property overnight but advised they would have to vacate in the morning," the affidavit states.

At about 7 a.m. the following day, Gorman and Lt. Robert Kirkpatrick returned to the lot, seeing that only two protesters remained on the property. "The subjects who refused to identify themselves were underneath the tarp and appeared to be chained to a fifty-five gallon drum."

Police soon learned the barrel was filled with sand, which was taken out by a Public Works crew, as well as cement, PVC pipe and steel rebar. Officers warned Crowell and Kilmurray they would be arrested if they didn't leave.

"Neither subject complied nor acknowledged our efforts. As a result of the noncompliance, the use of the department Taser units were utilized in an attempt to get them to remove themselves from the barrel," the affidavit reads... "This was effective and the subjects were taken into custody..."



Brattleboro Reformer
September 13, 2007
Putney Road protesters threaten town with lawsuit (http://www.reformer.com/ci_6879370)

Two protesters are threatening a lawsuit claiming the police department used excessive force in their arrest. Attorney David Sleigh, on behalf of his clients, Jonathan "Slug" Crowell and Samantha Kilmurray, sent a letter to Acting Town Manager Barbara Sondag on Aug. 30, notifying the town of a potential suit against the town, the police department and certain officers who have yet to be named...

"My clients would like to resolve this claim without having to file suit," Sleigh's letter reads... "We'd like to negotiate first," Crowell said. "I feel the legal system is a language they understand."

... "There may never be a lawsuit if we can work out a settlement," Sleigh said. When asked what his two clients would be seeking from the town, Sleigh said "certainly some degree of monetary compensation for pain and suffering and violation of civil rights that was caused by the use of excessive force."

Looking beyond that, Sleigh said he would like to see the town adopt a permanent policy that police officers only use stun guns in situations where they face imminent physical harm. "Use as a compliance device, in my view, is not justified," Sleigh said.

But for Crowell, the potential lawsuit is a way of holding the police officers accountable. "It's clear to me that the cops made a mistake," he said Wednesday. He and Kilmurray's action toward a lawsuit, he said, is not just about them, but also about the community and about standing up for rights.

"Overall, the use of Tasers against nonviolent protesters is a dangerous precedent," he said. "I think it has a chilling effect on freedom of speech."
...

[Darth Rotor]

One thing people may be interested in discussing in this thread is this particular incident, in which stun guns were used on non-violent (and non-resisting) protesters in order to obtain compliance with a police order (for the protesters to unchain themselves from a barrel). I believe this was an improper action on the part of police. Protesters who chain themselves to heavy objects in order to prevent their removal from a site -- be it a construction site, as in this case, or abortion clinics, as was frequently done in the late 1980s and early 1990s by abortion protesters -- are committing civil disobedience and should be subject to arrest.
===
Both these news stories appeared in the Brattleboro Reformer (and both were written by Patrick J Crowley of the Reformer staff). I have excerpted out the key points relative to what I am interested in discussing, but I encourage people to click on the links for more details about these cases.
The vignette presented showed an unreasonable stance on the part of the "protesters" who had been allowed some license and consideration by both the property owner and the police. That this occurred on private property is worth noting. After being treated with low level interaction, the protesters raised the ante, obliging the officers to use physical methods to remove them from the property, which they were apparently within the law to do.

Is the stun gun/taser (which was it, really?) method less likely to cause harm than a manhandling, or more? If the officers can get compliance via a method that reduces risk of bodliy injury, it would seem the better path to use of physical means to remove a criminal trespass.

I recommend getting Bikewer's opinion on this, given his experience with use of the tools at hand.

Interesting post, yet again. :)
DR

[Bikewer]

In fact, we attended a training session on this very sort of thing in preparation for the last presidential debate held at our university. (and we're in the bidding for another....)

Part of the training included footage of Seattle area police dealing with "tree-hugger" individuals who had resorted to similar methods to disrupt traffic, stop logging operations, and the like.

The individuals would often secure themselves in some way that mechanically removing their restraints would risk injury.
In this case (prior to the widespread use of the Taser) the officers used liquid OC (oleoresien capsicum or pepper-spray) applied to the protester's eyes and noses with Q-tips.
The desired results were obtained....

As to the propriety of this sort of thing... I can comment on the legal aspects. The protesters are usually given the formal order to disperse, as their activities are illegal. They may not be "very" illegal; often just trespassing or obstructing traffic. Still, they are violations of the law.
They are formally advised that they must disperse or be arrested. Refusing the "lawful order", they are then placed under arrest, and the officers at that point are legally enabled to take whatever actions are necessary to effect the arrest.
The application of pain-compliance techniques (pepper-spray, Taser, stun-gun) is a minimal escalation of force in these cases, and often all that's required.

Note that these sorts of protests are not generally considered to be "protected" speech. They are coupled with trespassing, disruption of traffic, or similar offenses.
Protests are generally allowed under federal and state law as long as they do not violate other laws or greatly infringe the rights of others.

[fuelair]

Apologies in advance: this is a post and run thread.

I have time to open this thread, but am unlikely to have time to participate actively in it until apple season is over. But I wanted to post excerpts from these news story, and links to the stories, while these are still current and while they are still available on-line, since links to news stories sometimes expire. This is something I plan to use as an example in another thread later this year, and I'd rather people have a chance to read the original now rather than simply my re-typing or cut-and-paste of the story later.

One thing people may be interested in discussing in this thread is this particular incident, in which stun guns were used on non-violent (and non-resisting) protesters in order to obtain compliance with a police order (for the protesters to unchain themselves from a barrel). I believe this was an improper action on the part of police. Protesters who chain themselves to heavy objects in order to prevent their removal from a site -- be it a construction site, as in this case, or abortion clinics, as was frequently done in the late 1980s and early 1990s by abortion protesters -- are committing civil disobedience and should be subject to arrest.

But the use of violence by police -- be it beating with clubs, stunning with tasers, or physically striking or kicking people -- should be limited to preventing people from engaging in actions, not to compelling people to engage in actions. If the protesters had been advancing threateningly toward the police, for instance, the use of violence could be appropriate. If the protesters were refusing to move, on the other hand, the use of violence to compel them to move would be inappropriate. And I believe this principle should be applied independent of the cause the protesters represent. I want to see anti-abortion protesters treated with the same respect and according to the same rules as anti-war protesters are treated. I want to see school prayer activists treated with the same respect and according to the same rules as gay rights activists.

And that's not what I see happening, which is the other thing people may be interested in discussing in this thread. Are protesters for different causes treated equally? Or are protesters for some causes treated better (or worse) than protesters for other causes?

In a thread in Religion and Philosophy about Thomas Jefferson (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=74960), a tangent has developed about a case in which an unauthorized demonstration was held at an Illinois school by school prayer activists -- adults who had no permission to be on school property, as well as by students who did. The police were called to break up the demonstration, and two of the students who refused to comply with the police order to disperse were handcuffed, taken to a police car, and detained for 15 minutes before being released without any charges being filed.

To some Christian activists, this case is evidence that Christians are being singled out for persecution. To me, the rarity of such incidents in relation to school prayer demonstrations, and the relative mildness of the alleged mistreatment, indicates just the opposite. But I would be interested in collecting more examples of mistreatment of protesters in a thread such as this in an effort to see whether incidents of mistreatment are more or less common and more or less severe, depending on the cause involved, or whether incidents of mistreatment are equally likely to occur regardless of the cause involved.

Both these news stories appeared in the Brattleboro Reformer (and both were written by Patrick J Crowley of the Reformer staff). I have excerpted out the key points relative to what I am interested in discussing, but I encourage people to click on the links for more details about these cases.

I have a special spot on my side (holster) for anti-abortion activists - especially those that block clinics, paraded their children around with signs, shoot or support shooting or otherwise harming abortion providers. I love children and think they are really neat - but I have supported abortion fully
and firmly since I read Blue Denim in the 5th or 6th grade.

[fuelair]

But, regardless, I have no problem with the dispersal/removal/arrest of protesters for any cause who are: blocking public access to anything public, disrupting public or private meetings (I do not include being in a legal place holding up signs - unless NO group is being allowed that option), etc. Your right to protest should not trump my need to get to work or home, my need to get information from an agency, my need to get to health care, etc. This applies to groups on any side of any issue - and can influence me very negatively (as the blockage of downtown Orlando about a year ago re: illegal aliens did on that topic - an important training which included a free computer/video capable microscope was canceled due to it and not rescheduled because of time constraints). My students and I lost something important for something that essentially turned out to be pointless(at best) for it's participants.

[Nova Land]

The vignette presented showed an unreasonable stance on the part of the "protesters" who had been allowed some license and consideration by both the property owner and the police... After being treated with low level interaction, the protesters raised the ante, obliging the officers to use physical methods to remove them from the property, which they were apparently within the law to do.


I think using the unreasonableness of protesters' actions as the basis for deciding whether police are justified in inflicting pain on protesters is not a good standard to use. Unreasonableness is in the eye of the beholder. It seems to me that people who agree with a cause are more likely to see protesters for that cause as reasonable and people who disagree with a cause are more likely to see protesters for that cause as unreasonable.

A person who opposes the Iraq war may be more likely to view the actions of anti-war activists as clever, creative, and courageous; a person who supports the war may be more likely to view the same actions as cowardly and contemptible. A person who opposes abortion may be more likely to view the actions of those who block the entrances to clinics as heroic and compassionate; a person who supports abortion rights may be more likely to view the same actions as hateful and fanatical.

Defining what is reasonable protest is not as clear or as easy as you may think. Martin Luther King and Mohanda Gandhi are often held up today as models of reasonable protest. That, however, was not always the case.

In the 1950s the civil rights activists were viewed by many to be unreasonable extremists. Indeed, they were held by many to be violent extremists. A moderately common position in the 1950s was to condemn extremism on both sides of the civil rights issue -- the extremism of the KKK and the extremism of the freedom riders and sit-inners.

As I recall, William F Buckley's National Review as late as 1962 still took the stance in relation to police excesses against the civil rights movement (such as use of fire hoses and cattle prods) that these might appear bad as portrayed in the liberal media but that the police were justified in using them because the protesters had behaved so unreasonably. (I'm not able to look that up at the moment to confirm my recollection, but I have photocopies at home of National Review's editorial on Selma and believe that's a fair paraphrase of the view expressed.)

Gandhi, likewise, was viewed considerably differently during the time he was actively engaged in his campaign against the British than he is today now that the struggle is over and Gandhi won. I recall reading a number of British books which identified Gandhi as an anarchist hoodlum. It would be interesting to look up news articles about Gandhi in British newspapers from the 1930s and 1940s. Gandhi eventually came to be perceived as a responsible voice of protest, and that's how history now records him, but I don't believe that was how the people he was protesting against viewed him at the time.

[Nova Land]

... I have no problem with the dispersal/removal/arrest of protesters for any cause who are: blocking public access to anything public, disrupting public or private meetings... Your right to protest should not trump my need to get to work or home, my need to get information from an agency, my need to get to health care, etc.


I agree. I likewise have no problem with the dispersal/removal/arrest of protesters who are illegally blocking public access, illegally trespassing, illegally disrupting meetings, etc. And I say that even though I have been in the past, and may be in the future, such a person.

I believe protest -- including illegal protest, i.e. civil disobedience -- is an important part of democracy. I support the right of people who feel strongly that something is wrong to break the law as part of their protest -- and I support the right of government and police to arrest such people.

What I do not support is the right of police to inflict unnecessary pain or violence on such people. It is one thing to use violence in order to prevent people from doing things which pose a threat to others. it is quite another to use violence in order to compel people to do as we wish.

I fail to see how this is significantly different in direction from what the police did to civil rights protesters five decades ago. What the protesters did was deemed to be against the law. Therefore the authorities used police dogs, fire hoses, and cattle prods in an attempt to get the protesters to refrain from illegal activities.

What the police did then was wrong. Ten, twenty, thirty years ago there was fairly widespread agreement on that. I am sorry there no longer appears to be moral clarity on this issue.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I think there has indeed been a moral shift in what is considered acceptable police behaviour, such that the use of torture devices is now considered an acceptable means for police to enforce compliance with their commands.

[WildCat]

I think there has indeed been a moral shift in what is considered acceptable police behaviour, such that the use of torture devices is now considered an acceptable means for police to enforce compliance with their commands.
Can you tell us when this "moral shift" occurred? And what era was it where you were allowed to resist police without painful consequences, whether it be from a taser or a billy club? I really want to know!

[Nova Land]

Can you tell us when this "moral shift" occurred? And what era was it where you were allowed to resist police without painful consequences, whether it be from a taser or a billy club? I really want to know!


There is a difference between resisting arrest and non-cooperating with arrest. One is active, one is passive. Gandhi urged his followers to go gladly off to jail, and the early civil rights protesters followed a similar discipline. But by the 1960s non-cooperation with arrest was fairly common. Surely you have seen photos from that era of protesters going limp and being carried away by police?

That's one of the things which used to be a point of pride to Americans: the difference between the way we handled protesters and the way dictatorships did. There, protesters were indeed beaten. Here, only the amount of force necessary was used. I can't think of one incident in the last 30 years where protesters -- be they anti-war, anti-nuke, or anti-abortion -- were beaten because they refused to walk.

As to when this came about: I'm not an expert, so will defer to those more knowledgeable if anyone cares to correct my quick summary which follows.

Back in the 1920s and earlier there was not moral clarity on this. Police regularly waded into crowds of union workers and suffragists. (As I recall, one suffragist died from being trampled by a horse; I think she was English rather than American, but police treatment of protesters was similar in both countries.) During the 30s and 40s I would say the tide turned against such use (abuse) of force by the police. Beatings of suspects in custody happened regularly during those eras, but it wasn't officially approved. In the 50s and 60s a series of Supreme Court decisions (much-denounced by conservatives) drew clear lines of what police could and could not do to people in custody, taking the US in an increasingly humane and rational direction.

Anti-war and civil rights protesters were occasionally beaten in the 1950s -- both by the police, and by hostile bystanders with the tacit permission of police. Protest was seen as disreputable and such abuses were winked at and tolerated. I would guess that the excesses of police reaction to the civil rights movement contributed strongly to the renunciation of such behavior. So did the increasing realization that protesters were not all scruffy communist anarchist traitors -- that they were priests, nuns, daughters and sons.

By the late 1970s it was fairly well-accepted that it was immoral and tactically stupid to beat people who were non-cooperating. If someone doesn't walk, it makes more sense to pick them up and carry them than to try to beat them until they walk.

So to answer your question: roughly from 1975 through 2005, the idea that it could be justified to beat protesters who]refused to cooperate with arrest had been soundly rejected. There would not have been objection to using nightsticks or tasers on a person who attempted to wrestle with the police, or who charged at them menacingly; but there would have been strong objection to using such force against a person who was lying passively on the ground.

(Indeed, the idea that it was okay to rough up prisoners who refused to walk had been so roundly rejected that there was major outrage on the part of the Pro-Life movement in 1989 when police in Pittsburgh carried limp protesters off to jail but did not do so quite gently and respectfully enough. I don't have time to post a link to it now, but something I do want to touch on in this thread at some point is the incident they referred to as "the Pittsburgh Nightmare".)

[JoeEllison]

There's something wrong with a society that thinks that the mere presence of a badge means that you should instantly comply with any and all orders, and that you deserve to be tortured for not complying. Tasers, especially, seem to be a free pass for cops to hurt people on any or even no provocation. There's no risk for the officer, and the hand's off nature seems to make it very easy to abdicate responsibility for the torture.

[WildCat]

There is a difference between resisting arrest and non-cooperating with arrest.
Exactly, and I've never advocated hitting/tasering people engaged in passive resistance. Just cuff them and carry them away.

But in the case of active resistance (like Andrew Meyer) you use the tools at your disposal, whether it's a taser, pepper spray, or the old billy club.

[WildCat]

There's something wrong with a society that thinks that the mere presence of a badge means that you should instantly comply with any and all orders,
Really? Who advocates that?

and that you deserve to be tortured for not complying. Tasers, especially, seem to be a free pass for cops to hurt people on any or even no provocation.
Tasers are not torture... :rolleyes:

There's no risk for the officer,
Now you're catching on! Allowing yourself to become a huiman punching bag is not part of the job description of being a cop.

and the hand's off nature seems to make it very easy to abdicate responsibility for the torture.
This makes no sense at all.

[Bikewer]

Torture devices? Perhaps some explanation is in order?

I thought that I explained the legal basis for such arrests previously, but perhaps I wasn't clear.
"Passive" resistance is still resistance, once the individual has been told he/she is under arrrest. At that point, in all jurisdictions in this country, the police may then use such force as becomes necessary to effect the arrest.
There is always a "continuum of force" policy in modern police agencies, detailing what methods, techniques, and tools can be used against various sorts of resistance.

The reason we police carry so many different "tools" these days is to deal with that varying level of resistance.
(I carry pepper-spray, baton, Taser, and firearm)

Individuals who have done things like chaining themselves to private property or obstructing traffic may be removed. As I said, the use of something like pepper-spray to force compliance may be preferable to removing restraints with an angle-grinder, which might injure the individual.

I should note that the primary driving force behind the change in police procedures in this regard has not been an altruistic desire to avoid hurting people, but the desire to avoid expensive lawsuits....

[RandFan]

There's something wrong with a society that thinks that the mere presence of a badge means that you should instantly comply with any and all orders, and that you deserve to be tortured for not complying. I usually don't comply. I'm an ahole and usually argue and make the lives of cops hell. I'm not quite sure why. I've never been tortured for doing so. I've been awfuly close to arrest though. I don't doubt that had I resited that some means to force compliance would have been used.

Tasers, especially, seem to be a free pass for cops to hurt people on any or even no provocation. There's no risk for the officer, and the hand's off nature seems to make it very easy to abdicate responsibility for the torture.Police can lose their jobs and are subject to civil law suits. I'm not sure how prevalent such attitudes are. I don't doubt that there exists police who have malicious intent. I think most are proffesional and will work to descalate a situation first. The case with the ahole screaming at Kerry was a great example. No one ran up to him and tassed him. The police asked him to calm down time and again. Please note that I'm not saying that the police acted properly only that tasering was not their first action

I remember when it was argued that K-9 officers needed to let their dogs bite a suspect even if the suspect was compliant to reinforce the dog's training. This was absolutely wrong IMO.

[Nova Land]

There is a difference between resisting arrest and non-cooperating with arrest.

Exactly, and I've never advocated hitting/tasering people engaged in passive resistance. Just cuff them and carry them away.

But in the case of active resistance (like Andrew Meyer) you use the tools at your disposal, whether it's a taser, pepper spray, or the old billy club.


Andrew Meyer? The case under discussion in this thread so far involves Jonathan Crowell and Samantha Kilmurray. They were not actively resisting. They were tasered, not to get them to refrain from struggling, but to get them to unlock the device they were chained to.

I'm happy to have additional incidents introduced and discussed in this thread -- both incidents in which there is a feeling protesters were treated improperly and incidents in which there is a feeling protesters were treated properly. If you would like to introduce and discuss the case of Andrew Meyer in this thread, please do so.

[Nova Land]

... "Passive" resistance is still resistance, once the individual has been told he/she is under arrrest. At that point, in all jurisdictions in this country, the police may then use such force as becomes necessary to effect the arrest...

Individuals who have done things like chaining themselves to private property or obstructing traffic may be removed. As I said, the use of something like pepper-spray to force compliance may be preferable to removing restraints with an angle-grinder, which might injure the individual.

I should note that the primary driving force behind the change in police procedures in this regard has not been an altruistic desire to avoid hurting people, but the desire to avoid expensive lawsuits....


I can certainly appreciate and sympathize with the desire to avoid lawsuits (and the desire to avoid injury, either to the officers who must remove the device or the protesters who must be removed). I still think the use of tasers (or other forms of inflicting pain) in order to get protesters to unlock themselves is a poor choice. This is a slippery slope, and a very dangerous one.

As far as I know, this incident is the first time this has happened. Are you aware of previous incidents in which tasers have been used this way? When anti-abortion activists used "lock and block" tactics back in the late 80s and early 90s, I am virtually certain this tactic was not used.

I don't think there have been any lock-and-blocks at clinics for more than a decade. I would be very interested to see what would happen if there were another anti-abortion action of that nature and tasers were used the way they were on Crowell and Kilmurray.

[RandFan]

I don't think there have been any lock-and-blocks at clinics for more than a decade. I would be very interested to see what would happen if there were another anti-abortion action of that nature and tasers were used the way they were on Crowell and Kilmurray. I find this an odd query, It seems to me that the sentiment is very much against such tactics for anti-abortion activists.

[robinson]

What a great thread. Due to the recent taser incidents in the News, I thought about this very issue.

[pipelineaudio]

Interesting that "Corporal punishment for adults" is ok at a time when disciplining children isn't

[Kevin_Lowe]

Torture devices? Perhaps some explanation is in order?

In this case they were used to cause people pain until they complied with an order. I cannot see any other sensible term for them. Should we call them "Technically Legal And Perfectly Justifiable Devices For Causing Unbearable Discomfort"?

I see no problem with tasers being used as an alternative to batons or guns in situations that would normally demand the use of a baton or gun, since they are safe and harmless by comparison, but I do have a problem with them being used as a torture device to enforce compliance. The same goes for pepper spray - it is a valuable tool when used as a substitute for more damaging tools, and a torture device when it is used otherwise.


I thought that I explained the legal basis for such arrests previously, but perhaps I wasn't clear.
"Passive" resistance is still resistance, once the individual has been told he/she is under arrrest. At that point, in all jurisdictions in this country, the police may then use such force as becomes necessary to effect the arrest.
There is always a "continuum of force" policy in modern police agencies, detailing what methods, techniques, and tools can be used against various sorts of resistance.

The issue here is that there must, in a civilised society, be lines police cannot cross in dealing with non-violent, non-compliant dissidents.

If dissidents have managed to arrange so that police have no safe alternatives other than to leave them be or torture them, it's my position that the police should document the offence and arrest them some other time. They can't stay chained to a barrel forever.

[Nova Land]

I don't think there have been any lock-and-blocks at clinics for more than a decade. I would be very interested to see what would happen if there were another anti-abortion action of that nature and tasers were used the way they were on Crowell and Kilmurray.


I find this an odd query, It seems to me that the sentiment is very much against such tactics for anti-abortion activists.


Just a quick note about an ambiguity in your post you may not have realized was there. When you say it seems to you that "the sentiment is very much against such tactics," it is unclear whether you mean that the sentiment among anti-abortion activists is currently very much against the use of lock-and-blocks or if you mean the sentiment among law enforcement is very much against the use of tasers on anti-abortion protesters. I'm guessing you mean the latter -- but I believe both are true, so whichever it is you mean we appear to be in agreement.

For a variety of reasons, the Pro-Life movement has moved away from the use of clinic blockades and other acts of civil disobedience. Operation Rescue still exists, but does not seem very involved in active "rescuing" these days. So it does not seem likely that my curiosity about what would happen if there were an anti-abortion lock-and-block is going to be satisfied any time soon.

The reason for my curiosity is that I believe Pro-Life protesters have generally received more lenient treatment than other protesters. Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Bush have all been sympathetic to the anti-abortion cause, and have to some extent curtailed investigation and prosecution of criminal activities. The Pro-Life movement has generally been considered exempt from the kind of surveillance which has been practiced against the anti-war movement. I think we are in agreement that "sentiment is very much against [the use of] such tactics for anti-abortion activists."

Why I think it would be interesting if such tactics were to be used against anti-abortion activists is that I do not believe social conservatives, especially Christian social conservatives, would tolerate such a thing. Whether this would lead them to condemn this use of tasers in general, or only when it was used against "good" protesters, is one of the things I am curious about. I think this could lead to some intriguing new political alliances and some intriguing new political divisions.

[RandFan]

For a variety of reasons, the Pro-Life movement has moved away from the use of clinic blockades and other acts of civil disobedience. Because it doesn't work and the supreme court has ruled against them and people don't like their tactics.

The reason for my curiosity is that I believe Pro-Life protesters have generally received more lenient treatment than other protesters.
I see no evidence for that at all.

[Lonewulf]

Wow, THIS conversation took a weird turn.

Personally, I'm not a fan of police brutality, and I agree 100% that police shouldn't use pain devices to get someone to cooperate, but should use the relevant devices if they actively attack or resist.

Personally, I can't wait until we get the "goober" weapons from Schlock Mercenary or other science fiction movies. Don't bother with tazing someone, just splat them with goober rounds, have them stuck to a wall or the floor, and then pick up the pieces afterwards.

[Bikewer]

To my knowledge, "torture" under various legal definition, involves the application of pain, duress, psychological trauma, etc. under prolonged periods for the purpose of extracting information, degrading or humiliating the individual, and so forth.

"Pain compliance" is a technique that has been used in police work for a very long time, long before the adoption of "devices" for same.
Take the case of an intoxicated subject who refuses to exit his auto and wraps his arms through the steering wheel.
Difficult to remove the individual at best. However, applying pressure to a painful "pressure point" may well allow the removal of the individual without harming him.

Likewise in the case of someone (such as the individual at Florida State) who is actively resisting arrest. In such cases, the application of a pain stimulus is considerably more humane than beating the individual into submission, no?

There is a certain misperception about the Taser, BTW, which I tried to explain in another thread. The device can be used in two ways.
The normal application is to actually fire the flesh-penetrating darts from the "air cartridge" into the individual. The weapon automatically fires it's muscle-signal-disruption charge on impact, for five seconds. Ideally, this incapacitates the individual very effectively; it's rather like a whole-body "charly horse".

The other mode is what Taser International calles the "drive" mode. (I don't know why....Perhaps because you "drive" the weapon into physical contact.) In this mode, you remove the air cartridge, and the contacts on the weapon become equivalent to a "stun gun". In effect, a pain-compliance device.
There is no incapacitation effect, just the same high-voltage, low-amperage jolt you'd get with a commercial stun gun.
Again, the use of a rather harmless, painful jolt to cause the individual to cease resisting is considerably safer for all concerned than say, clubbing him with nightsticks.

The removal of protesters who have secured themselves to public or private property is normally done because the presence of the protesters interferes in some way with the rights of others. Disrupting traffic, preventing work, that sort of thing. The decision to remove the individuals is normally made considering the totality of the circumstances.
A couple of years ago, we had a group of students "occupy" some administration offices as part of their solidarity with the food-service and cleaning workers on campus. The "Student-Worker-Alliance" which started at Harvard.
These kids were simply allowed to do their thing. The office workers went to different offices, and the protest went on for about a week without incident.

[Nova Land]

The reason for my curiosity is that I believe Pro-Life protesters have generally received more lenient treatment than other protesters.


I see no evidence for that at all.


You don't? I'm surprised, since from your earlier post I'd assumed that you (like I) thought it was unlikely that anti-abortion protesters who behaved as Crowell and Kilmurray did would have been treated as they were.

I was closely following news about the abortion issue during the late 1980s and early 1990s (the heyday of Operation Rescue and related groups such as Missionaries to the Preborn). There were a number of cases where Pro-Life activists received treatment which seemed to me considerably different than what protesters for other causes who engaged in similar behavior would have been likely to receive.

One example is Wichita, the "Summer of Mercy" campaign in 1991, in which anti-abortion activists were allowed to blockade the clinic there for a considerable period of time -- at least a week, and my unreliable-on-this-matter memory says for several weeks -- before the police began making arrests. When arrests did begin, the charges were minimal -- misdemeanors such as loitering and trespassing -- and the blockaders were able to bail themselves out the same day and return to blockade the clinics again. Many of the protesters were arrested and released several times.

During this campaign, president Bush and other high government officials expressed sympathy with the Pro-Life cause, refused to give federal aid in coping with the situation, and in my opinion encouraged state and local officials to refrain as much as possible from taking actions against the protesters.

A number of the protesters taking part in the Wichita protests, including some who were arrested during the campaign, were already on probation for previous blockades in other parts of the country. Nothing was done about this in any of the cases I am aware of, either in Wichita at the times these people were arrested there nor in the locations where they were on probation following their return home, despite the probation office being notified.

People who blockaded and vandalized clinics in Pittsburgh (the city with which I am most familiar) were repeatedly given minimal sentences (or had charges reduced or dropped). Those who blockaded over and over were given probation. And the probation office turned a blind eye toward continued participation in civil disobedience actions by the protesters supposedly under their supervision. (I can cite specific instances of this after I get back home.)

I am not saying the police and courts were necessarily wrong to afford this treatment to Pro-Life protesters. In general I believe that a more restrained approach to dealing with demonstrators is much more sensible than a hard-line approach. But I would like to see a consistent policy, not one in which some protest groups receive more favorable treatment than others. **

What I do think was wrong was the refusal of the government, especially at the federal level, to investigate the more militant (and violence-prone) elements of the Pro-Life movement. Where the government over the past 6 decades has often been too willing to engage in inappropriate surveillance, infiltration, and disruption of anti-war, civil rights, environmental, and other leftish groups, they have often been too unwilling to engage in appropriate surveillance of rightish groups.

The evidence seemed fairly clear to me that Shelley Shannon, who committed numerous acts of violence against abortion clinics and providers, did not act alone. (Shannon possessed an Army of God manual for how to engage in terrorism against clinics, which she buried in her yard before taking off on one of her actions to avoid it being found if her home was searched.) Clayton Waagner, who committed numerous acts of violence and terrorism, did not act alone. James Kopp, who committed numerous acts of violence and terrorism (including the murder of Bernard Slepian), did not act alone. If the FBI had put the same resources into keeping an eye on the people who aided and abetted these people as they have into keeping an eye on anti-war activists, numerous acts of violence could probably have been prevented.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** While my perception is that Pro-Life protesters have generally received more lenient treatment than other protesters, many people involved in the Pro-Life movement have just the opposite perception and feel they have been singled out for harsher treatment than is given to the anti-war or gay rights movements. It's possible this is selective perception on my part, their part, or both. That's why I'm interested in a thead such as this one, to examine the treatment protesters from various different causes have received.

[ponderingturtle]

Wow, THIS conversation took a weird turn.

Personally, I'm not a fan of police brutality, and I agree 100% that police shouldn't use pain devices to get someone to cooperate, but should use the relevant devices if they actively attack or resist.


So how do you deal with a situation where the compliance is nessacary to prevent injury to themselves? Cut them out and if you injure them well that is the risk they took? Or use pain to gain compliance to prevent injury?

[Lonewulf]

So how do you deal with a situation where the compliance is nessacary to prevent injury to themselves? Cut them out and if you injure them well that is the risk they took? Or use pain to gain compliance to prevent injury?

I'm not entirely sure how pain compliance can help in that situation.

Can you be more specific?

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not entirely sure how pain compliance can help in that situation.

Can you be more specific?

They might well be able to extract their hand from a metal pipe themselves while cutting if off would risk injury. I can see a limited role for such things in specific situations.

So is it better to cut off the pipe and risk injury to the protestors hand, or better to use some form on non injurying pain to gain complaince and prevent injury.

I can see the view "They knew the risks when locking themselves up" and simply not care if they get crippled in the extraction process, but that seems a bit more harsh

[Lonewulf]

They might well be able to extract their hand from a metal pipe themselves while cutting if off would risk injury. I can see a limited role for such things in specific situations.

So is it better to cut off the pipe and risk injury to the protestors hand, or better to use some form on non injurying pain to gain complaince and prevent injury.

Question: Why is it not in the individual's interest to remove his hand anyways? What does him sticking his hand in a pipe actually accomplish?

I can see the view "They knew the risks when locking themselves up" and simply not care if they get crippled in the extraction process, but that seems a bit more harsh

I agree. I'm just skeptical that this case might come up very often.

In that case, I'd probably be okay with inducing non-lasting pain. So I'm not 100% against it, okay. Maybe 95%, or 90%. But in the case of using an eyedropper to dab painful chemicals into a girl's eyes while she was chained to a tree... why was it so impossible to clip the chain without harming the girl? I'm just not entirely sure that it's always necessary.

[ponderingturtle]

Question: Why is it not in the individual's interest to remove his hand anyways? What does him sticking his hand in a pipe actually accomplish?

It means that they can not be removed. IF you are trying to block access it is more effective if the police can not just pick you up and take you away.



I agree. I'm just skeptical that this case might come up very often.

In that case, I'd probably be okay with inducing non-lasting pain. So I'm not 100% against it, okay. Maybe 95%, or 90%. But in the case of using an eyedropper to dab painful chemicals into a girl's eyes while she was chained to a tree... why was it so impossible to clip the chain without harming the girl? I'm just not entirely sure that it's always necessary.

They often chain themselves together, not just one person to a tree. It is not as effective if a simple bolt cutter can free you. They design them so that they can not be removed by force with out injury.

[RandFan]

You don't? I'm surprised, since from your earlier post I'd assumed that you (like I) thought it was unlikely that anti-abortion protesters who behaved as Crowell and Kilmurray did would have been treated as they were. Anecdotes.

I was closely following news about the abortion issue during the late 1980s and early 1990s (the heyday of Operation Rescue and related groups such as Missionaries to the Preborn). There were a number of cases where Pro-Life activists received treatment which seemed to me considerably different than what protesters for other causes who engaged in similar behavior would have been likely to receive. Most if not nearly all protestors are booked and released on their own recognicance and becasue of our tradition of civil disobedience they are almost always given a token punishment. I've seen Woody Harelson, Martin Sheen Daryl Hanna and also many non celebrities get a small fine even when they caused very serious problems.

No, I can honestly say that there is zero evidence for your claim.

[Bikewer]

The "environmental" protesters get quite creative; again the point being to make it as difficult as possible to remove them.

In the training material I was referring to, they used tactics like inserting their arms into large-diameter piping and then handcuffing themselves together inside the pipe....

[RandFan]

Let's not forget Julia (Butterfly) Hill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Butterfly_Hill). The loopiest environmentalist ever. The tree spoke to her. Not only was she not prosecuted but the logging company made a number of consessions to her.

As much as I think those folks were a bunch of idiots you have to admit that that particular bunch of idiots kicked ass. They really did. My hat is off to their success.

[Kevin_Lowe]

To my knowledge, "torture" under various legal definition, involves the application of pain, duress, psychological trauma, etc. under prolonged periods for the purpose of extracting information, degrading or humiliating the individual, and so forth.

"Pain compliance" is a technique that has been used in police work for a very long time, long before the adoption of "devices" for same.
Take the case of an intoxicated subject who refuses to exit his auto and wraps his arms through the steering wheel. Difficult to remove the individual at best. However, applying pressure to a painful "pressure point" may well allow the removal of the individual without harming him.

I don't think it's productive to split hairs over whether causing someone unbearable pain until they do what they are told counts as "torture" or whether you think you can plea bargain it down to "pain compliance" or "freedom tickling" or whatever else you want it to be called.

Believe it or not I'm actually in favour of torturing people until they comply, but only if it is necessary to prevent harm to others and the only alternative is to seriously injure the subject.

In cases where the lawbreaker is being nothing more than an idealistic nuisance, I think society is much better served by having the police cordon off the area and wait them out. I'm happy to pay police to do that rather than give them to power to torture political dissidents until they comply.


Likewise in the case of someone (such as the individual at Florida State) who is actively resisting arrest. In such cases, the application of a pain stimulus is considerably more humane than beating the individual into submission, no?

I'm not sure exactly what case you are referring to - googling "florida state taser" yielded at least two different stories about taserings.

If someone is resisting arrest in such a way as to present a probable threat to the safety of police officers then taser away. If not, then neither beating them into submission nor tasering them is consistent with the minimal use of force, which is the standard we should hold police to.


There is a certain misperception about the Taser, BTW, which I tried to explain in another thread. The device can be used in two ways.
The normal application is to actually fire the flesh-penetrating darts from the "air cartridge" into the individual. The weapon automatically fires it's muscle-signal-disruption charge on impact, for five seconds. Ideally, this incapacitates the individual very effectively; it's rather like a whole-body "charly horse".

The other mode is what Taser International calles the "drive" mode. (I don't know why....Perhaps because you "drive" the weapon into physical contact.) In this mode, you remove the air cartridge, and the contacts on the weapon become equivalent to a "stun gun". In effect, a pain-compliance device.
There is no incapacitation effect, just the same high-voltage, low-amperage jolt you'd get with a commercial stun gun.
Again, the use of a rather harmless, painful jolt to cause the individual to cease resisting is considerably safer for all concerned than say, clubbing him with nightsticks.

It's also an easy, convenient torture device for lazy police officers to use to enforce compliance when otherwise they might have to work harder at their jobs, call for assistance or wait a little while.


The removal of protesters who have secured themselves to public or private property is normally done because the presence of the protesters interferes in some way with the rights of others. Disrupting traffic, preventing work, that sort of thing. The decision to remove the individuals is normally made considering the totality of the circumstances.
A couple of years ago, we had a group of students "occupy" some administration offices as part of their solidarity with the food-service and cleaning workers on campus. The "Student-Worker-Alliance" which started at Harvard.
These kids were simply allowed to do their thing. The office workers went to different offices, and the protest went on for about a week without incident.

The right to peaceful protest is a vital part of a healthy democracy, and it's how a great deal of moral progress has been achieved.

When people with tasers get the power to torture peaceful protesters until they comply with official demands, it's just as much an attack on a free and progressive society as stuffing ballot boxes or gerrymandering electorates.

[Nova Land]

You don't? I'm surprised, since from your earlier post I'd assumed that you (like I) thought it was unlikely that anti-abortion protesters who behaved as Crowell and Kilmurray did would have been treated as they were.


Anecdotes.


Okay, let's try to clear up a point of confusion here. You wrote: "It seems to me that the sentiment is very much against such tactics for anti-abortion activists." I tried to point out that the phrase such tactics is ambiguous and that I wasn't sure what you meant. One possible interpretation is that you were trying to say that sentiment among anti-abortion activists is currently against using lock-and-block tactics" ; another possible interpretation is that you were trying to say that official sentiment would be against using tasers on anti-abortion activists who engaged in lock-and-blocks.

I guessed -- and told you I was guessing -- that you had intended the latter. You didn't respond, either to say I had understood you correctly or to let me know I had picked the wrong interpretation of your remark. My assumption then was

But then you made a comment which seemed contradictory to that view. In the earlier post, you seemed to be saying that you felt sentiment would be against treating anti-abortion protesters who engaged in a lock-and-block by tasering them; in the later one you seemed to be saying you saw no evidence that anti-abortion protesters would receive different treatment from other protesters.

Your silence about which of the two interpretations you actually intended had led me to assume I had guessed correctly, and that you had seen no need to specify which interpretation you meant since I had already picked the right one. But this new statement seemed to indicate that wasn't what you'd meant after all.

That's why I wrote: "I'm surprised, since from your earlier post I'd assumed that you (like I) thought it was unlikely that anti-abortion protesters who behaved as Crowell and Kilmurray did would have been treated as they were." I was again stating my interpretation of what you'd written in the earlier post, so that if I were misinterpreting that post you could clarify what you had meant.

Your one-word reply, "Anecdotes, seems totally unresponsive to my statement of surprise. That indicates to me that we are not understanding each other very well, and that it would probably be good to clarify that point before we go too much further.

So let me ask again, more clearly I hope: what did you mean by you statement that "sentiment is very much against such tactics"? Were you referring (a) to public sentiment being against the tasering of anti-abortion protesters, (b) to official sentiment being against the tasering of anti-abortion protestors who engage in lock-and-blocks, (c) to sentiment among anti-abortion protesters being against the use of lock-and-blocks, or (d) to something else entirely?

[Nova Land]

Most if not nearly all protestors are booked and released on their own recognizance and because of our tradition of civil disobedience they are almost always given a token punishment. I've seen Woody Harelson, Martin Sheen Daryl Hanna and also many non celebrities get a small fine even when they caused very serious problems.


There have been two distinctly different kinds of civil disobedience actions in recent decades. Let me use actions in which protesters have trespassed on property and refused to leave as an example for distinguishing between the two.

In one kind of trespassing-CD action, the participants actually intend to shut down (or significantly disrupt) the place where they are trespassing. The anti-nuclear occupations of the late 1970s are a good example of this kind of CD, as are the anti-abortion blockades of the late 1980s and early 1990s.

In the second kind of CD action, the participants trespass with the intent of getting arrested as a way to make a public statement. The point of these actions is "to raise awareness" about something the protesters are concerned about" and "to show solidarity" with others involved in the cause. There is little or no actual intent to shut down the place where the trespassing occurs, and frequently there is negotiation in advance between the protestors and the police about how the action will be carried out in order to come up with a way which will minimize the disruption caused, simplify the job of the police, and permit the protesters to carry out their action and be home within a few hours. Most CD actions of the past few decades have been of this type. For example, there are actions of this nature periodically at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and at the School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia. Most of the CD actions in the US that I am aware of over the past few decades have been of this nature.

I believe the instances you mentioned in which Hollywood celebrities were involved were generally of this nature as well. If you provide specific instances, it should be possible to look up newspaper coverage to see if this was a negotiated CD (in which case it was almost certainly the second type of action, intended to raise awareness of an issue) or non-negotiated CD (in which case it is likelier to have been intended to actually shut something down).

The actions under discussion -- what Crowell and Killmurray were doing, and what Pro-Life "rescuers" were doing -- are examples of non-negotiated actions which were intended to seriously disrupt or shut down their targets. The comparison of how these two groups of protesters were treated is therefore appropriate. To look at the lenient treatment given to participants in negotiated CD actions in which minimal disruption occurred, with the lenient treatment given to protesters who blocked access to Wichita clinics for several weeks before police action was taken to stop them, is not an appropriate comparison.

[Nova Land]

Most if not nearly all protestors are booked and released on their own recognizance and because of our tradition of civil disobedience they are almost always given a token punishment.


No, that is incorrect. Most protestors at negotiated CD events in which the point of the action is to raise awareness are released on their own recognizance or given token punishment. But in non-negotiated CD actions in which the point is to actually close a place down that is not generally the case. Occasionally it is -- such as was usually the case for anti-abortion protestors. But more often, the penalty for people who take part in actions that shut down or seriously disrupt the functioning of a business or a government office are more serious.

It is not respect for our tradition of civil disobedience that leads to minor sentences. It is the minor nature of the offense. The actions you are referring to were largely symbolic actions. The organizers wanted to include arrest as part of the action, in order to communicate to the public how serious the issue was and how serious the protestors were. When civil disobedience actions have included serious offenses, they have generally resulted in the protestors receiving serious jail time. The Plowshares people, for instance, have received sentences ranging from several months to several years, as have some School of the Americas protestors (I'm sorry, I don't have time to find and post good links or good summaries of such examples at the moment.)

[Nova Land]

No, I can honestly say that there is zero evidence for your claim.


I'm sure you can say it sincerely. Whether you can say it correctly is another question. The examples I gave are evidence that anti-abortion activists have received lenient treatment. It is not proof that they have received lenient treatment more frequently than other groups; for that, we would need additional evidence. One collects and examines evidence until enough has been accumulated to make an informed decision on a matter, and that's what I'm interested in doing in threads such as this.

Rather than making a blanket dismissal as you are doing, I think it would be more productive to continue examining the question and putting forward evidence. I have enjoyed additional computer access this weekend, while visiting Jeff, so was able to write more and post more than I've been able to the last couple months. I won't be able to post as much this coming week but will resume this conversation soon.

[Bikewer]

Kevin:
Essentially, I'm in agreement, and I believe that from the standpoint of policy, most police agencies would be as well.
It would be foolish to maintain that there have not been abuses of police power, and also the governmental decisions to use police as a political tool.
The best that can be said about such instances is that, at least in contemporary times, such abuses tend to be condemned and the governmental agencies, command officers, and actual perpetrators subject to both civil litigation and criminal complaint.

I notice of late that the handling of protest over government policy tends to be handled by restricting the protesters to "designated areas" which tend to be far from the scene of whatever is being protested, and well out of the sight of participating government officials.
By limiting access to the involved persons, and limiting media coverage, the government can exercise considerable restraint on free speech without appearing to be violently suppressing dissent...

The Taser is intended to be used as a less-than-lethal control device, to be employed against out-of-control individuals who must nonetheless be controlled.
When circumstances permit, it performs this quite well, incapacitating the individual without serious harm.
The potential for harm is far less than the traditional tools of "control", which include nightsticks and firearms. (note that individuals who are out of control as a result of alcohol or drug use, or insanity, may be quite unresponsive to things like pepper spray)

Deaths associated with the use of the Taser have almost always been found to be caused by "cocaine intoxication syndrome", a situation that results when individuals who are on cocaine (usually crack) engage in violent physical activity such as a fighting with police.
When the individual is restrained, they may suddenly die.
This syndrome was well-examined and documented before Tasers were ever available.

[RandFan]

I'm sure you can say it sincerely. Whether you can say it correctly is another question. And the answer to that question is yes.

Rather than making a blanket dismissal as you are doing, I think it would be more productive to continue examining the question and putting forward evidence. ?

That's exactly what I did. I did give evidence.

[RandFan]

No, that is incorrect. Most protestors at negotiated CD events in which the point of the action is to raise awareness are released on their own recognizance or given token punishment. But in non-negotiated CD actions in which the point is to actually close a place down that is not generally the case. Occasionally it is -- such as was usually the case for anti-abortion protestors. But more often, the penalty for people who take part in actions that shut down or seriously disrupt the functioning of a business or a government office are more serious.

It is not respect for our tradition of civil disobedience that leads to minor sentences. It is the minor nature of the offense. The actions you are referring to were largely symbolic actions. The organizers wanted to include arrest as part of the action, in order to communicate to the public how serious the issue was and how serious the protestors were. When civil disobedience actions have included serious offenses, they have generally resulted in the protestors receiving serious jail time. The Plowshares people, for instance, have received sentences ranging from several months to several years, as have some School of the Americas protestors (I'm sorry, I don't have time to find and post good links or good summaries of such examples at the moment.)

Let's cut to the chase. So far all that either of us have offered is anecdotal evidence.

I don't accept your assertion because it is not borne out by my experience. Sure there are exceptions on both sides. It depends on many factors including jurisdiction, prosecutors and judges.

Get back to me when you have hard evidence and skip any further anecdotal data. I can dig up more than enough to match yours.

[RandFan]

The actions under discussion -- what Crowell and Killmurray were doing, and what Pro-Life "rescuers" were doing -- are examples of non-negotiated actions which were intended to seriously disrupt or shut down their targets. The comparison of how these two groups of protesters were treated is therefore appropriate. To look at the lenient treatment given to participants in negotiated CD actions in which minimal disruption occurred, with the lenient treatment given to protesters who blocked access to Wichita clinics for several weeks before police action was taken to stop them, is not an appropriate comparison.{snipped}

Sorry.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

If dissidents have managed to arrange so that police have no safe alternatives other than to leave them be or torture them, it's my position that the police should document the offence and arrest them some other time. They can't stay chained to a barrel forever.

So they should be allowed to block/barricade/obstruct whatever it is they are opposed to for as long as they want and no action will be taken?

What about the rights of the law abiding to go about their legal business? Does that not come into your thinking anywhere?

[Kevin_Lowe]

So they should be allowed to block/barricade/obstruct whatever it is they are opposed to for as long as they want and no action will be taken?

Unless they are getting in the way of an ambulance or something, sure. It beats having police going around using torture devices on them.


What about the rights of the law abiding to go about their legal business? Does that not come into your thinking anywhere?

They can sue them later, or they can accept it as part of the cost of living in a free society.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Unless they are getting in the way of an ambulance or something, sure. It beats having police going around using torture devices on them.

I guess that is easy to say as long as it is someone else being inconvenienced.

How about the Heathrow protests this year? If they had gone ahead with the rumoured blockades of roads/rail links to the UK's major airport, do you think it would be reasonable to leave them in place for as long as they feel like it and arrest them at some future date? Is there any limit on this or are you willing to have the airport effectively closed indefinitely by a handful of people in shifts?

They can sue them later, or they can accept it as part of the cost of living in a free society.

No point in suing people without sufficient resources to pay you. What about the freedom of the law abiding - why no interest in protecting that?

[Bikewer]

It has generally been the case in the law that protests can take place as long as they do not restrict the rights of other citizens.
Blocking roads or sidewalks, limiting access to businesses, disrupting traffic...All these things have been considered out of bounds for a long time.

Disruptions of the "peace" can be trickier; depends on the area, the time of day, and so forth.

There is long-standing case law in this regard, and I suppose one can argue from an idealistic standpoint what should be allowed. Still, as Jaggy Burnett points out, the non-protesting citizens have rights too.


For some levity..... Years ago, when Ceasar Chavez was organizing grape-pickers and picketing outlets of Gallo wine products, a locally-organized group decided to picket a liquor store in the beat that I was assigned to.
Culturally speaking....This was not the right venue. A decidedly lower-middle-class neighborhood where Chavez (despite trying to unionize!) was viewed as some sort of Communist.
The picketers showed up, and began marching in front of the door. Police were called, and we informed the idealistic young folks that they would have to confine their marching to the periphery of the parking lot, and not cause patrons any inconvenience. They complied, and I was assigned to keep an eye on things.
Customers began buying gallon jugs of Gallo wine and walking out of the store waving them at the picketers. Now these were good beer-drinking rednecks who had probably never had a glass of white in their lives...
The picketers got disgusted and left.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

But the use of violence by police -- be it beating with clubs, stunning with tasers, or physically striking or kicking people -- should be limited to preventing people from engaging in actions, not to compelling people to engage in actions.

So in this case it is justified as it is preventing the protestors from continuing their action of trespass?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

There is long-standing case law in this regard, and I suppose one can argue from an idealistic standpoint what should be allowed. Still, as Jaggy Burnett points out, the non-protesting citizens have rights too.

Like not paying a bill of £5m for policing, diverting up to 150 officers from other duties and having traffic disrupted on and off for a year?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7020833.stm

[robinson]

I predict the "pain amplifier" will soon be the tool of choice. Non lethal, they are making them the size of a shoebox, and by all reports, the level of pain is unbearable, even to someone trained to deal with extreme pain.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3016047#post3016047

Can be used on large numbers of people at once, and has the added benefit of preventing entry at all. One or two seconds and protesters will be begging to leave.

[robinson]

Are protesters for different causes treated equally? Or are protesters for some causes treated better (or worse) than protesters for other causes?


To speak to the OP, it is obvious that different groups or causes are subjected to different treatment. Using the News archives, even for just the last 3 or 4 years, you can see the vast difference in Police tactics, as well as reporting of events by the Media.

A wicked tactic for dispersing non-violent compliant protesters, the ones not violating any laws, staying on legal ground, just being a pain to authorities, but not doing anything illegal, is to plant agitators within the protesters. For the purpose of starting violence, which allows the massed police to attack and arrest all the protesters.

Once even one rock or brick is thrown from the crowd, it is grounds for the police to arrest everyone in the crowd, using whatever level of violence they choose. It has become so common, protesters are alert for such people, and videos of protesters ejecting protesters from a protest are becoming more common.

Law enforcement has a long history of infiltrating protesters. There is evidence that this tactic, of planting agitators within protest, allows Police to disperse and arrest, and yes, attack law abiding protesters, based on the actions of only a few people in the crowd.

One has to respect the intelligence and cunning of such a tactic.

[Bikewer]

Trying to deal with large protests, which may at any moment descend into the status of "riot", is extremely difficult for authorities.
At a previous presidential debate at the university where I work, we were presented with a large group of Ralph Nader supporters who had been joined by a ragtag bunch of "anarchist" type demonstrators along for the fun.
The tactic employed by police was simply the "show of force"; with some 300 fully-equipped "emergency response" police on scene, and nearly as many in a backup position.
This proved sufficient, and the demonstrators were content for the most part with chanting, singing, and holding signs for the media.
Naturally, things could have gone bad.

Note that "agitators" have been used by both sides in these confrontations. I can well remember the "intelligence" be got back in the 70s about "outside agitators" at various demonstrations, and the tactics they were expected to use against police in an effort to draw reaction or over-reaction.
It is a common technique for police to put undercover officers into the demonstrator's ranks primarily to identify such individuals, or to locate leaders who might be arrested first.
These things can get out of control very rapidly, and police forces with limited resources can be quickly overwhelmed.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I guess that is easy to say as long as it is someone else being inconvenienced.

How about the Heathrow protests this year? If they had gone ahead with the rumoured blockades of roads/rail links to the UK's major airport, do you think it would be reasonable to leave them in place for as long as they feel like it and arrest them at some future date? Is there any limit on this or are you willing to have the airport effectively closed indefinitely by a handful of people in shifts?

Since I'm a utilitarian by inclination I agree that a line has to be drawn somewhere, and if protesters were causing sufficient economic damage to the general community (such as by blockading an existing major airport) then we'd have to find a way of prying them off. That could well mean tasering people if it was really the safest option for everyone.

However this is only a reasonable response to a rumoured scenario which has never actually developed and does not seem likely to. So it's not legitimate to generalise from what is appropriate in such a case to what is appropriate if some protesters chain themselves to an abortion clinic door or a tree.


No point in suing people without sufficient resources to pay you. What about the freedom of the law abiding - why no interest in protecting that?

Not "no interest", that's a straw man. Rather I recognise that we live in an affluent society where we can well afford to make the occasional sacrifice of money or convenience to preserve more important political freedoms.

So far protesters have not destroyed the economic fabric of society, and I don't think they will in the future either.

A point that we have not considered in this thread so far is that protesters are intelligent human beings, just like police, and can adapt their tactics to those of their opposition. If we allow police to respond to peaceful tactics with torture then some protesters will find other ways of protesting which could well be more destructive or dangerous to others. Not all protesters are going to go home quietly and abandon their beliefs because police have tasers now. A few people chaining themselves to things beats rioting, firebombing and so forth. Whether or not you condone such behaviour you still have to consider the consequences of police actions.

[robinson]

One can only imagine the tactics protesters might go to.
Topless anti-war protest near White House. (http://www.koin.com/Global/story.asp?s=7145574)

How did Police deal with this? "Nearby Secret Service agents made no move to intervene."

[Bikewer]

Gee, all I got to look at at the last one was that jerk with the "God Hates Fags" sign.

Not a pretty sight....

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Since I'm a utilitarian by inclination I agree that a line has to be drawn somewhere, and if protesters were causing sufficient economic damage to the general community (such as by blockading an existing major airport) then we'd have to find a way of prying them off. That could well mean tasering people if it was really the safest option for everyone.

However this is only a reasonable response to a rumoured scenario which has never actually developed and does not seem likely to. So it's not legitimate to generalise from what is appropriate in such a case to what is appropriate if some protesters chain themselves to an abortion clinic door or a tree.

Your previous statement was unless they were getting in the way of an ambulance or something they should be left. You seem to have moved a fair way from that.

What about significant economic damage to a specific legitimate business rather than the general community. Lets say an abortion clinic, seeing as you refer to it. Why is that not sufficient reason to take action to protect the rights of that business, its owners, staff and customers?

Not "no interest", that's a straw man. Rather I recognise that we live in an affluent society where we can well afford to make the occasional sacrifice of money or convenience to preserve more important political freedoms.

As I said "I guess that is easy to say as long as it is someone else being inconvenienced."

So far protesters have not destroyed the economic fabric of society, and I don't think they will in the future either.

The same could be said about terrorists. Does that mean we should let them go about their business unhindered as well? What a bizarre standard to apply - if it doesn't destroy the economic fabric of society then let them get on with it.

A point that we have not considered in this thread so far is that protesters are intelligent human beings, just like police, and can adapt their tactics to those of their opposition. If we allow police to respond to peaceful tactics with torture then some protesters will find other ways of protesting which could well be more destructive or dangerous to others.

And of course knowing that they have been given free reign to bring economic harm to their targets with no prospect of police intervention and no effective redress for the people they are harming will not have any impact whatsoever on their actions.

If we allow economic terrorism (you seem to enjoy hyperbolic descriptions so I thought I would join in) without effective counter measures, then we will see vastly more of it. Still as long as the economic fabric of society isn't destroyed it isn't worth worrying about. Sure some people will lose their lifes savings, businesses they have spent years building up, their homes and their jobs, but they need to realise that is the price they have to pay for living in a free society (not free for them to carry out their legitimate business of course, but free for some criminal to stop them).

Not all protesters are going to go home quietly and abandon their beliefs because police have tasers now. A few people chaining themselves to things beats rioting, firebombing and so forth. Whether or not you condone such behaviour you still have to consider the consequences of police actions.

Unbelievable. Why don't we stop all animal testing, all animal farming, instigate Sharia law and any other measures necessary to avoid upsetting any of the people who are willing to act outside the law to enforce their views on others? After all if we don't it will be our fault if we provoke them into taking illegal action.

Appeasement doesn't work. If they break the law, then the police SHOULD act to stop that breach of the law as soon as possible in the most effective way. The protestors chose not to stop breaking the law, chose not to make it possible for the police to prevent them easily and therefore have to accept the consequences of their actions.

[robinson]

If they break the law, then the police SHOULD act to stop that breach of the law as soon as possible in the most effective way. The protestors chose not to stop breaking the law, chose not to make it possible for the police to prevent them easily and therefore have to accept the consequences of their actions.

Funny, that is just what General Than Shwe says about the Burmese monks, protesters and pro democracy leaders. They brought it on themselves.

[Lonewulf]

Funny, that is just what General Than Shwe says about the Burmese monks, protesters and pro democracy leaders. They brought it on themselves.

Yeah, but I mean... what if people were stopping your business, or blocking entryway to your own home? I mean, would you rather be able to go into your own home, or would you rather that the police take action?

No one's advocating lasting injury being done to protesters, nor to protesters being injured unnecessarily. And I'm starting to lean more towards the "doing what is necessary" crowd.

I'm against police brutality and harmful actions being done unnecessarily, but I also don't want to see everyone who wants to bother to screw other people getting to be able to do whatever they want because the law is helpless.

[Normal Dude]

Funny, that is just what General Than Shwe says about the Burmese monks, protesters and pro democracy leaders. They brought it on themselves.

This is the dumbest comparison I have heard this week. Congrats robinson, you get a cookie.

[robinson]

Topic: How Police Deal with Protesters

A tentative list from around the world:

ignore them

tell them to leave

disperse them (spray with water cannons, use peppers spray, tear gas, clubs, whips, dogs, rubber bullets, etc)

arrest them without violence

arrest them and use pain for compliance if they resist non violently
(hit with fists, clubs or whips, gas them, spray with water cannons, pepper spray, pepper in eyes, torture them with electricity, rubber bullets, etc)

arrest them with violence, (hit with fists, clubs or whips, gas them, spray with water cannons, pepper spray, pepper in eyes, torture them with electricity, shoot with rubber bullets, real bullets, etc)

arrest them with violence, torture them later in prison

just shoot them with real bullets

There may be a few other options.

[Bikewer]

Those with long enough memories may recall graphic images of South African "security forces" beating children with the vicious "sjambok" whips.

Or, of British "police units" viciously clubbing Irish protesters with huge truncheons.


The world-wide record of authorities' response to civil "unrest" has been brutal.

In many countries, it's just a matter of turning the military loose and shooting. Many years ago, (I'm a firearms aficionado) I was reading a description of the Mauser "broomhandle" pistol which was available in a fully-automatic version in the 30s for use in "riot control".

One can go on and on in this vein. No one says that the US has a perfect track record in this regard, but at least we're not turning automatic weapons on demonstrators.

[Lonewulf]

Well, saying, "We're better than them" doesn't really justify your actions. Saying, "Yeah, well, we use these methods.. but at least we aren't using THOSE methods, eh?", doesn't really give a lot of strength to your actual methods, it just points out that there's a greater evil. "The lesser of two evils is still evil", and all that.

However, in this case, I see the pain implementation as a necessary evil. And those that misuse that necessary evil and make it an unnecessary evil, should be punished accordingly. In which case, I'm talking about clear-cut cases of police brutality.

[sts60]

Sometimes any kind of stimulus (threat of arrest, pepper spray, etc.) is simply not an option - specifically when protesters chain themselves together with special rigs that conceal the linkage. They can't remove themselves, and you can't simply saw through without the risk of amputation. Although I've never had to deal with it, I've had some training on the techniques to cut them apart .

I should hasten to add that "them" refers to the links, not the protesters.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Your previous statement was unless they were getting in the way of an ambulance or something they should be left. You seem to have moved a fair way from that.

I don't see it that way. You proposed an example even more extreme than getting in the way of an ambulance, and I agreed that if the more extreme scenario eventuated then tasering some people might be the lesser of two evils.


What about significant economic damage to a specific legitimate business rather than the general community. Lets say an abortion clinic, seeing as you refer to it. Why is that not sufficient reason to take action to protect the rights of that business, its owners, staff and customers?

As I said "I guess that is easy to say as long as it is someone else being inconvenienced."


As I see it, allowing the police to torture people into compliance in such situations is a greater evil than permitting significant economic damage to a specific legitimate business to occur.


The same could be said about terrorists. Does that mean we should let them go about their business unhindered as well? What a bizarre standard to apply - if it doesn't destroy the economic fabric of society then let them get on with it.


I think you misunderstood that remark.

My point was merely that you were exaggerating the economic harm that would be caused by not torturing political dissidents into complying, given that before we started using such torture techniques we seemed to get by.


And of course knowing that they have been given free reign to bring economic harm to their targets with no prospect of police intervention and no effective redress for the people they are harming will not have any impact whatsoever on their actions.

Again, before tasers and pepper spray and other such devices were employed society seemed to struggle along.


If we allow economic terrorism (you seem to enjoy hyperbolic descriptions so I thought I would join in) without effective counter measures, then we will see vastly more of it. Still as long as the economic fabric of society isn't destroyed it isn't worth worrying about. Sure some people will lose their lifes savings, businesses they have spent years building up, their homes and their jobs, but they need to realise that is the price they have to pay for living in a free society (not free for them to carry out their legitimate business of course, but free for some criminal to stop them).


Now you are well into the realm of hyperbole. Do you really think the only thing stopping "economic terrorists" from destroying businesses willy-nilly right now by chaining themselves to the doors is the threat of tasering? If so please provide evidence.


Unbelievable. Why don't we stop all animal testing, all animal farming, instigate Sharia law and any other measures necessary to avoid upsetting any of the people who are willing to act outside the law to enforce their views on others? After all if we don't it will be our fault if we provoke them into taking illegal action.

Because that would be stupid, and being that stupid is in no way entailed by anything I have said.


Appeasement doesn't work. If they break the law, then the police SHOULD act to stop that breach of the law as soon as possible in the most effective way. The protestors chose not to stop breaking the law, chose not to make it possible for the police to prevent them easily and therefore have to accept the consequences of their actions.

This is nothing but authoritarian insanity.

"Appeasing" the civil rights protesters "worked" in the sense that it brought about a better world. "Appeasing" anti-apartheid protesters in South Africa "worked" in the sense that it brought about a better world.

Authoritarian torture-fans who wans tasers used on protesters want to see the door closed to future moral progress, pure and simple.

[RandFan]

ignore them

tell them to leave

arrest them without violenceAre you saying there is always a choice?

[pipelineaudio]

This gets tricky when some protestors * up the ante *

Sometimes a cause finds that they can get very little or no helpful general population support, so they go past the normal civil disobedience route and push things a little further

Sometimes they push things a LOT further, like say, burning down houses or bombing abortion clinics

Sometimes its not even a physical thing, like anti-alcohol or anti-tobacco lying about things to get laws passed, or even weirdos like Loose Change nutters

We've been trying to get bikes into skateparks in my area, and we were greeted with a SWAT team in gasmasks at a protest. ( http://psychicflyingmonkey.com/Videos/whenothersareoppresseddec05.wmv ) for a video

I don't know WHAT they thought we were going to do to need this type of response. But I expect if we started throwing skateboards at the bystanders that we'd deserve to get maced in the face

[Lonewulf]

Gasmasks could have been likely to be worn in case there was a riot, and they needed to use tear gas or pepper spray or the like.

At least, that would be my personal layman's guess.

As to why they would expect a riot... no clue.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

torturing political dissidents

torture techniques

authoritarian insanity.

Authoritarian torture-fans

want to see the door closed to future moral progress, pure and simple.

You accuse me of hyperbole? The irony is amazing.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

IAs I see it, allowing the police to torture people into compliance in such situations is a greater evil than permitting significant economic damage to a specific legitimate business to occur.

Stripping out your hyperbole, what you are saying is that any group can destroy a legitimate business they disagree with and you think the correct police response is to sit and watch it happen.

As I said "I guess that is easy to say as long as it is someone else being inconvenienced."

Or maybe you are willing to compensate the business owners for the impact of your do nothing policy?

[Lonewulf]

Kevin, I'd be perfectly fine to agree with you if the choice was between "killing protesters" and "loss of investments" for a company. If the choice was between lasting and grievous crippling injuries of many, as opposed to loss of revenue from businesses, I would agree.

However, we're talking about very non-lasting pain, that's being made more and more non-lasting thanks to modern designs (pepper spray instead of billy club, for instance). Yeah, sure, it hurts, but it's very temporary, and doesn't cripple or give out any lasting injury.

I'm just finding it more and more hard to be truly sympathetic here. Where's my outrage supposed to be directed at?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kevin, I'd be perfectly fine to agree with you if the choice was between "killing protesters" and "loss of investments" for a company. If the choice was between lasting and grievous crippling injuries of many, as opposed to loss of revenue from businesses, I would agree.

However, we're talking about very non-lasting pain, that's being made more and more non-lasting thanks to modern designs (pepper spray instead of billy club, for instance). Yeah, sure, it hurts, but it's very temporary, and doesn't cripple or give out any lasting injury.

I'm just finding it more and more hard to be truly sympathetic here. Where's my outrage supposed to be directed at?

As I see it, if people are chaining themselves to things for a political cause it means that we've got a situation where the protesters think that they are stopping something that is very seriously morally wrong.

Now sometimes in the past they have been right, such as when people protested (and in some cases were killed for it) for the right to an eight hour working day. Sometimes in the past they have been wrong, such as when religious kooks blockaded abortion clinics. So don't misinterpret me as arguing that protesters are necessarily sensible, right or socially beneficial.

However to my mind they're a different kettle of fish from run-of-the-mill criminals. They're trying to bring about socially beneficial change, often by standing up to powerful interests. Often (though not always) they do bring about socially beneficial change.

So when we come up with a way to neutralise that kind of peaceful political protest, by using a convenient form of torture (and that's not hyperbole, it's calling a spade a spade) to incapacitate protesters and give them a savage lesson about the consequences of dissidence, that threatens the very possibility of social progress.

In addition, some of the justifications people have been using in this thread for the use of torture have been "they are criminals so it is okay" or "they are hurting the target of their protest economically, so it is okay". I think the first indicates a category error that lumps together peaceful political dissidents and self-interested criminals, and the second a terrifying prioritisation of private profit over political freedom.

I'd much rather let anti-abortionists chain themselves to a clinic, pay for the police to keep an eye on them, and make a donation to the clinic to keep it going than pay for police to taser them until they comply with instructions to surrender. I think it's in keeping with the ideals of a progressive society in a way that the use of torture on dissidents, whatever the justification, simply cannot ever be. To put it bluntly I prefer not to live in a society that uses tasers on political protesters, and the people who think that using tasers in such a way is okay scare me.

[robinson]

Since pro-democracy demonstrations peaked on September 24, the junta has resorted to its usual tactics: killing, beating and arresting countless numbers until the populace is cowed into submission. Nighttime roundups across Rangoon are now carting truckloads ...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119153149644749304.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The answer to protesters is obvious. Once you shoot a bunch of them, or run them over with tanks and stuff, those unreasonable civilians demanding "rights" and "freedoms" tend to stfu (http://www.sharpened.net/glossary/acronym.php?STFU). A win win situation.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I'd much rather let anti-abortionists chain themselves to a clinic, pay for the police to keep an eye on them, and make a donation to the clinic to keep it going than pay for police to taser them until they comply with instructions to surrender.

And have you made any such donations?

What about the impact on the woman who is unable to have an abortion because you think it is wrong to stop these people breaking the law? Seeing as you are unwilling to have the police stop the illegal activity, she goes beyond the legal limit for termination - is that just tough luck?

To put it bluntly I prefer not to live in a society that uses tasers on political protesters, and the people who think that using tasers in such a way is okay scare me.

And I would hate to live in a society where every special interest group who are willing to break the law know that the police will stand by and let them ruin other peoples lives rather than take steps to stop them from continuing their criminal activity. What other crimes do you think the police should watch take place and make no attempt to stop? Shoplifting, drink driving, assault?

I bet your opinion would change pretty quickly if it was YOUR home or YOUR business that was being blockaded.

[Lonewulf]

As I see it, if people are chaining themselves to things for a political cause it means that we've got a situation where the protesters think that they are stopping something that is very seriously morally wrong.

Sure, and I may assassinate the president because I think that he's an immortal* president that has done great wrong. That doesn't mean I should be allowed to do it.

Now sometimes in the past they have been right, such as when people protested (and in some cases were killed for it) for the right to an eight hour working day. Sometimes in the past they have been wrong, such as when religious kooks blockaded abortion clinics. So don't misinterpret me as arguing that protesters are necessarily sensible, right or socially beneficial.

However to my mind they're a different kettle of fish from run-of-the-mill criminals. They're trying to bring about socially beneficial change, often by standing up to powerful interests. Often (though not always) they do bring about socially beneficial change.

Sure, but there are various ways of protesting.

Martin Luther King, for instance, didn't chain himself to anything, nor did he directly attack any business. He lead a non-violent protest that, as far as I understand, didn't actually harm anybody (business or otherwise).

So when we come up with a way to neutralise that kind of peaceful political protest, by using a convenient form of torture (and that's not hyperbole, it's calling a spade a spade) to incapacitate protesters and give them a savage lesson about the consequences of dissidence, that threatens the very possibility of social progress.
But we aren't using "torture" to "give them a savage lesson". Pain compliance is used for far more short-term goals, usually to prevent harm to another in the protest. It's hard to punch a police officer after you get pepper spray in your face.

Also, could you please point to a dictionary definition that could demonstrate how your use of the word "torture" here isn't hyperbole? Because I rarely hear "torture" being used for pain compliance tactics. If I learn Judo, am I learning how to torture people? If I defend myself by putting someone in an arm lock and it hurts them a little bit, am I "torturing" them?

Were all those times I pinched someone "torture"?

In addition, some of the justifications people have been using in this thread for the use of torture have been "they are criminals so it is okay" or "they are hurting the target of their protest economically, so it is okay". I think the first indicates a category error that lumps together peaceful political dissidents and self-interested criminals, and the second a terrifying prioritisation of private profit over political freedom.

Political freedom doesn't mean the freedom to assault or kill other human beings. Why is theft any different?

If I own property and you destroy my property, you're costing me money. In essence, you are stealing from me.

I'd much rather let anti-abortionists chain themselves to a clinic, pay for the police to keep an eye on them, and make a donation to the clinic to keep it going than pay for police to taser them until they comply with instructions to surrender. I think it's in keeping with the ideals of a progressive society in a way that the use of torture on dissidents, whatever the justification, simply cannot ever be. To put it bluntly I prefer not to live in a society that uses tasers on political protesters, and the people who think that using tasers in such a way is okay scare me.
I agree that tasers should be used sparingly, and only in cases where it is used to prevent harm to either the police officers or other civilians.

However, there are times where pain compliance is the only choice. I don't want for it to be the first choice, but there are times when it becomes necessary. I would rather live in a society where I can expect for protesters to not always get their way just because they feel like overthrowing something that they don't like, like abortion. I would like to live in an environment where me and my family can be NOT harassed by a bunch of people that decided to camp out in our front lawn, destroyed our mailbox, and threw bricks into our building.

That's just the kind of environment I want for me and mine.





*I meant "immoral", but as the typo is kinda funny, I'll leave it on.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119153149644749304.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The answer to protesters is obvious. Once you shoot a bunch of them, or run them over with tanks and stuff, those unreasonable civilians demanding "rights" and "freedoms" tend to stfu (http://www.sharpened.net/glossary/acronym.php?STFU). A win win situation.

Yes, because comparing those who choose to adopt illegal methods in a democracy because they have failed through the legitimate channels available to them with those campaigning against a military junta is 100% accurate.

[Kevin_Lowe]

And have you made any such donations?

Nope. I haven't been aware of any organised protests here in Australia, whose cause I disagreed with, causing irreperable economic harm to anyone. I'm not saying I scan the news religiously for such stories, but I cannot recall any.


What about the impact on the woman who is unable to have an abortion because you think it is wrong to stop these people breaking the law? Seeing as you are unwilling to have the police stop the illegal activity, she goes beyond the legal limit for termination - is that just tough luck?


So these hypothetical protesters have closed off every abortion clinic there is? And they are going to keep them closed off for the next six months at least, since the overwhelming majority of abortions are in the first trimester? And there is no way at all the police can just isolate them and starve them out given six months? Okay, under those circumstances you can taser them. Until then I'm sure we can find a way of working around them.


And I would hate to live in a society where every special interest group who are willing to break the law know that the police will stand by and let them ruin other peoples lives rather than take steps to stop them from continuing their criminal activity. What other crimes do you think the police should watch take place and make no attempt to stop? Shoplifting, drink driving, assault?

Maybe I'm getting unduly snippy, but did you fail to read the large chunk of text where I explicitly stated that I think it's an intellectual blunder to conflate political dissidents attempting to bring about social improvement with self-interested criminals?

If you aren't even reading my posts with enough attention to pick up on points like that I do have to question whether there is any point in responding to you.


I bet your opinion would change pretty quickly if it was YOUR home or YOUR business that was being blockaded.

Run along and apply for the million then, since you have mind reading powers.

[robinson]

Yes, because comparing those who choose to adopt illegal methods in a democracy ...

Much as it might annoy some, a topic about Police and protesters, is going to include the best and the worst of current social issues and events.

[Lonewulf]

The thing is, if someone breaks the law, they are by definition engaging in criminal activity. While the motives for the crime may be different, it's still a crime.

Sure, I might have murdered someone because I believe God wanted me to, or because I wanted to save the world from this "evil man", or because it was part of my ideals, or because I got really angry, whatever... I still committed murder.

[Lonewulf]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119153149644749304.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The answer to protesters is obvious. Once you shoot a bunch of them, or run them over with tanks and stuff, those unreasonable civilians demanding "rights" and "freedoms" tend to stfu (http://www.sharpened.net/glossary/acronym.php?STFU). A win win situation.

Evidence that American law enforcement shoots protesters or runs them over with tanks?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Sure, and I may assassinate the president because I think that he's an immortal* president that has done great wrong. That doesn't mean I should be allowed to do it.

Like I said to Jaggy, I think that any time you start conflating peaceful protesters with self-interested criminals or terrorists you've lost the plot, and there's no longer any need to reply to your point.


Sure, but there are various ways of protesting.

Martin Luther King, for instance, didn't chain himself to anything, nor did he directly attack any business. He lead a non-violent protest that, as far as I understand, didn't actually harm anybody (business or otherwise).

Well, he did organise boycotts that caused significant economic harm to targeted companies. However there is certainly a difference between a boycott and a blockade.

On the other hand, you are probably not familiar with the issue because you are not Australian, but a major campaign of political protest including, if I recall correctly, people chaining themselves to trees successfully blocked the Fraser Dam proposal in Tasmania many years ago. The claim at the time was that protesters were both hurting the economy and setting up Tasmania for crippling power shortages in the future. Today the area they tried to flood is a huge tourism earner, there is no shortage of power, and the permanent jobs created by tourism are still here while the temporary jobs created by dam construction would have been long gone.

So it's not even universally true that peaceful protests hurt the economy. In some cases they do so, but in other cases they stop antisocial profiteers from harming the economy to line their own pockets.


But we aren't using "torture" to "give them a savage lesson". Pain compliance is used for far more short-term goals, usually to prevent harm to another in the protest. It's hard to punch a police officer after you get pepper spray in your face.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The result is that political dissidents get tasered until they comply, and philosophical distinctions about how you justify that don't alter the end result.


Also, could you please point to a dictionary definition that could demonstrate how your use of the word "torture" here isn't hyperbole? Because I rarely hear "torture" being used for pain compliance tactics. If I learn Judo, am I learning how to torture people? If I defend myself by putting someone in an arm lock and it hurts them a little bit, am I "torturing" them?

Were all those times I pinched someone "torture"?

That's fairly easy, I don't even have to Google for one. The dictionary program that came with my laptop says:

"torture |?t??t??| noun the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain."

The action of inflicting severe pain on someone to force them to do something - bingo, done.


Political freedom doesn't mean the freedom to assault or kill other human beings. Why is theft any different?

If I own property and you destroy my property, you're costing me money. In essence, you are stealing from me.

In essence, they are also preventing immoral acts. In their own view at least. The fact that you plan to profit from those immoral acts is supposed to change their opinion of it how exactly?


I agree that tasers should be used sparingly, and only in cases where it is used to prevent harm to either the police officers or other civilians.

However, there are times where pain compliance is the only choice. I don't want for it to be the first choice, but there are times when it becomes necessary. I would rather live in a society where I can expect for protesters to not always get their way just because they feel like overthrowing something that they don't like, like abortion. I would like to live in an environment where me and my family can be NOT harassed by a bunch of people that decided to camp out in our front lawn, destroyed our mailbox, and threw bricks into our building.

That's just the kind of environment I want for me and mine.

Did you not have that environment, before police discovered they could drip pepper into people's eyes or torture them (in the dictionary sense) with electric shocks?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Nope.

So when you talk about making donations in compensation that is completely hypothetical. Understood. An easy claim to make, much harder to live up to.

So these hypothetical protesters have closed off every abortion clinic there is? And they are going to keep them closed off for the next six months at least, since the overwhelming majority of abortions are in the first trimester?

Time limits vary considerably by country, however I doubt you can find one that is going to allow abortion at 35 weeks, so your comments about having six months available are clearly nonsenical.

You were the one who suggested we consider the impact of policy on demonstrator tactics - is that a one way street? Or do you really doubt that, knowing the police will stand by and take no action, a co-ordinated campaign against abortion clinics over a wide geographic area is possible?

And there is no way at all the police can just isolate them and starve them out given six months? Okay, under those circumstances you can taser them. Until then I'm sure we can find a way of working around them.

Surely you object to starvation? That would certainly fall under your chosen definition of torture. Or does that definition only apply when you want it to?

Maybe I'm getting unduly snippy, but did you fail to read the large chunk of text where I explicitly stated that I think it's an intellectual blunder to conflate political dissidents attempting to bring about social improvement with self-interested criminals?

Nope, I just disagreed with it. I do not consider anti-abortion activists, animal rights terrorists and others engaging in criminal acts to be political dissidents, I consider them to be criminals. I do not believe they are trying to bring about social improvements, I believe they are attempting to use force to impose their morals on other people because they cannot command sufficient support to do so through the ballot box.

These people are completely self interested - they want to impose their morals on others.

If you aren't even reading my posts with enough attention to pick up on points like that I do have to question whether there is any point in responding to you.

Translation - I know my arguments are weak and am setting up an exit route for myself where I can flounce off claiming moral victory.

Run along and apply for the million then, since you have mind reading powers.

Unfortunately the million dollars is not available for pointing out the blooming obvious.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Much as it might annoy some, a topic about Police and protesters, is going to include the best and the worst of current social issues and events.

And attract those who wish to compare policing in a democratic society with running over people with tanks in a dictatorship. Sad really.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Like I said to Jaggy, I think that any time you start conflating peaceful protesters with self-interested criminals or terrorists you've lost the plot, and there's no longer any need to reply to your point.

Translation - I know my arguments are weak and am setting up an exit route for myself where I can flounce off claiming moral victory.

Interesting how you manipulate the language to pretend that what we are talking about are "peaceful protestors" or "political dissidents" instead of the purely factual description of "criminals currently engaged in a criminal act".

Well, he did organise boycotts that caused significant economic harm to targeted companies. However there is certainly a difference between a boycott and a blockade.

Indeed. One is illegal and involves the use of force. The one that you want the police to ignore.

[Darth Rotor]

I think using the unreasonableness of protesters' actions as the basis for deciding whether police are justified in inflicting pain on protesters is not a good standard to use. Unreasonableness is in the eye of the beholder. It seems to me that people who agree with a cause are more likely to see protesters for that cause as reasonable and people who disagree with a cause are more likely to see protesters for that cause as unreasonable.
OK, I find it unreasonable to break the law of criminal trespass for the sake of your agenda. In this case, some forebearance was provided by the property owner for a short time, showing a reasonableness in letting a point be made. Was there a quid pro quo, an equitable return of that forebearance on the part of the arrested protestors? No. Some of the protestors did in fact leave when advised of the legal status of their demonstration. Reasonable. Those arrested did not so conduct themselves.

I find your counter a point worth digesting, but your slippery slope to fire hoses turned on public protests not on private property an ill fitting comparison.

DR

[Kevin_Lowe]

So when you talk about making donations in compensation that is completely hypothetical. Understood. An easy claim to make, much harder to live up to.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not a mind reader, and you haven't actually addressed the point except to launch a tangential personal attack.


Time limits vary considerably by country, however I doubt you can find one that is going to allow abortion at 35 weeks, so your comments about having six months available are clearly nonsenical.

According to wikipedia, as of 1998, of the 152 most populous nations 54 banned abortion entirely or allowed it only to save the life of the mother, 44 nations banned abortions after some cutoff between 12 and 24 weeks, and 56 nations had no such cutoff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion

If you have more up-to-date figures I'd be interested.


You were the one who suggested we consider the impact of policy on demonstrator tactics - is that a one way street? Or do you really doubt that, knowing the police will stand by and take no action, a co-ordinated campaign against abortion clinics over a wide geographic area is possible?

It didn't happen before tasers and pepper droppers, so yes, I doubt it very much.


Surely you object to starvation? That would certainly fall under your chosen definition of torture. Or does that definition only apply when you want it to?


You don't get to define torture for me. I'd define is as too mild a stimulus to qualify as torture, in situations where the starving protester can quit at any time (and will, I imagine, find a few days of martyrdom sufficient to attract attention in any case).

Depriving them of water might count as torture, I haven't got a firm opinion on that.


Nope, I just disagreed with it. I do not consider anti-abortion activists, animal rights terrorists and others engaging in criminal acts to be political dissidents, I consider them to be criminals. I do not believe they are trying to bring about social improvements, I believe they are attempting to use force to impose their morals on other people because they cannot command sufficient support to do so through the ballot box.

These people are completely self interested - they want to impose their morals on others.


What then would qualify someone as a political dissident in your view? Or do you see it as a meaningless term in your society?


Translation - I know my arguments are weak and am setting up an exit route for myself where I can flounce off claiming moral victory.


My translation of your translation - "whoever shouts longest wins".


Unfortunately the million dollars is not available for pointing out the blooming obvious.

It's also not available for things you can't do, like read my mind. So either go apply and embarrass yourself that way, or stop pretending you can.

[ZirconBlue]

It didn't happen before tasers and pepper droppers, so yes, I doubt it very much.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think the police used before tasers and pepper droppers?

[robinson]

Tear gas. (o-Chlorobenzylidene malononitrile)

[Lonewulf]

Have they stopped using tear gas?

[robinson]

Who is "they"?

[Lonewulf]

Police, SWAT teams, riot police, et al.

[robinson]

The vast number of police forces makes the question impossible to answer. AFAIK, Pepper spray has pretty much replaced CS gas for one-on-one chemical assault. It is also used for crowds.

[robinson]

From News reports, CS it is still popular with many Governments and Police forces. Rubber bullets and a good old fashioned beating with a stick is still common as well.

[Bikewer]

Chemical agents such as CS and even CN (nauseating agent) are popular when dealing with large crowds; pepper-spray tends to be a one-on-one control agent. The gases can be dispersed over a wide area.
The "stick-to-the-head" retains it's popularity; some of the first videos out of Burma showed monks being whacked by "security forces".

[Jaggy Bunnet]

According to wikipedia, as of 1998, of the 152 most populous nations 54 banned abortion entirely or allowed it only to save the life of the mother, 44 nations banned abortions after some cutoff between 12 and 24 weeks, and 56 nations had no such cutoff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion

If you have more up-to-date figures I'd be interested.

So that will be a "No" on providing evidence of any abortions taking place at 35 weeks then? Thought so.

It didn't happen before tasers and pepper droppers, so yes, I doubt it very much.

Given there has never been a time when the police did what you advocate, stand aside and let the criminals get on with it, then you cannot claim past experience as evidence of what would happen if your proposal was implemented.

You don't get to define torture for me.

I'm not - you provided the definition.

I'd define is as too mild a stimulus to qualify as torture

Starvation is too mild to be torture? Wow!

What then would qualify someone as a political dissident in your view? Or do you see it as a meaningless term in your society?

Well for starters, they need to be deprived of a legitimate, free, democratic route to have their proposal put into effect. None of this applies to the criminals that are the subject of this thread.

It's also not available for things you can't do, like read my mind.

Reading your posts gives insight into how you are likely to react. For example the "I would give a donation" turned out to be, as predicted, "I have never actually done this".

[Kevin_Lowe]

So that will be a "No" on providing evidence of any abortions taking place at 35 weeks then? Thought so.

I think those goalposts just moved some distance. You said you'd never heard of places where late-term abortion was legal, and I showed you that about half of the nations that permit abortion at all, permit abortion at any time up until birth. So now you pretend you were asking for he exact numbers of late-term abortions that do take place and act as if I ducked the question.

I'm not - you provided the definition.

Starvation is too mild to be torture? Wow!


Self-imposed starvation, yes, it's not that painful. Thirst yes, hunger no. Physiological fact.


Well for starters, they need to be deprived of a legitimate, free, democratic route to have their proposal put into effect. None of this applies to the criminals that are the subject of this thread.


In theory there's a "legitimate, free, democratic route" to anything in most democracies, if you can win a few elections and a few constitutional referendums. That doesn't mean the eight hour working day, civil rights for women and minorities and so on would ever have been achieved by following due process.


Reading your posts gives insight into how you are likely to react. For example the "I would give a donation" turned out to be, as predicted, "I have never actually done this".

I've gotten a pretty good insight into how you will react as well, but I don't indulge in making personal remarks about you instead of presenting a rational argument.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I think those goalposts just moved some distance. You said you'd never heard of places where late-term abortion was legal, and I showed you that about half of the nations that permit abortion at all, permit abortion at any time up until birth. So now you pretend you were asking for he exact numbers of late-term abortions that do take place and act as if I ducked the question.

So that will be a "No" on providing evidence of any abortions taking place at 35 weeks then? Thought so.

Self-imposed starvation, yes, it's not that painful. Thirst yes, hunger no. Physiological fact.

Physiological made up lies.

"Mrs Taylor made the decision to starve herself to death as the only way to die. She ended this starvation after nineteen days because it was too painful for her."

http://www.dignityindying.org.uk/news/news.asp?id=213

Guess you know better than someone who has actually suffered that pain, right? After all you "know" that it is "not that painful".

In theory there's a "legitimate, free, democratic route" to anything in most democracies, if you can win a few elections and a few constitutional referendums. That doesn't mean the eight hour working day, civil rights for women and minorities and so on would ever have been achieved by following due process.

What civil rights have been won other than through the ballot box, when all of the conditions I listed were met? Specifics please.

I've gotten a pretty good insight into how you will react as well, but I don't indulge in making personal remarks about you instead of presenting a rational argument.

You should try reading your own posts. For example this sentence:

"Authoritarian torture-fans who wans tasers used on protesters want to see the door closed to future moral progress, pure and simple."

Like to try and argue that this is a rational argument rather than a personal attack?

Lets see it starts with an inaccurate and offensive characterisation, carries on with a strawman and ends up in a totally unsupported conclusion. You might think that is rational, sane people do not.

[Lonewulf]

Starvation "isn't painful"? What?

Hasn't Kevin heard of "Hunger Pain"?

The results of the starvation experiment were tested in many ways. According to Josef Brozek, author of Psychology of Human Starvation and Nutritional Rehabilitation, studies "ranged from intelligence and personality tests through ratings to purely descriptive material, provided by the experimenters' notes and diaries kept by the subjects".[3] According to subjects of the semistarvation experiment, tiredness was the worst effect of the low calorie intake, followed by appetite, muscle soreness, irritability, apathy, sensitivity to noise, and hunger pain.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation#_note-Brozek

Yes, it's a wikipedia article, but this is where it's quoted from:

Brozek, Josef. "Psychology of Human Starvation and Nutritional Rehabilitation." The Scientific Monthly 70 (1950): 270-274.

I did a search for it, and came up with that article, but I think I need to pay for it. Just in case, here's the link:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1950SciMo..70..270B

Anyways, if someone can link evidence that demonstrates that starvation isn't very painful, I'd like to read it.

[Kevin_Lowe]

So that will be a "No" on providing evidence of any abortions taking place at 35 weeks then? Thought so.


Congratulations on your victory. You have caught me not providing evidence for a claim I did not make.


Physiological made up lies.

"Mrs Taylor made the decision to starve herself to death as the only way to die. She ended this starvation after nineteen days because it was too painful for her."

http://www.dignityindying.org.uk/news/news.asp?id=213

Guess you know better than someone who has actually suffered that pain, right? After all you "know" that it is "not that painful".


I've read first-hand accounts of starvation too and while it sucks, it beats being tasered from what I can tell.

Just checking... shall I take it that you have conceded every point but this one about how much it sucks to be starving? I refer to points such as the point that your definition of political dissident is vague but seems to exclude historically significant progressives, that progressive dissidents have benefited society enormously by standing up for their views, and that there is no concrete reason to fear that protesters will cause serious economic harm to society if we disallow torture to remove them.

If so, I see no reason not to be nice and concede the starvation point. It's really pretty minor in the larger argument.


What civil rights have been won other than through the ballot box, when all of the conditions I listed were met? Specifics please.


Define "won through the ballot box", please. Is a right "won through the ballot box" if a government loses office after illegal protests, and the new government passes reforms, for example? I'd like these goalposts nailed down before I bother aiming a kick at them.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Congratulations on your victory. You have caught me not providing evidence for a claim I did not make.

You claimed that the woman had six months to find an abortion clinic. Yet you appear unable to find one that offers terminations that late.

Your claim, your problem.

I've read first-hand accounts of starvation too and while it sucks, it beats being tasered from what I can tell.

I assume you are ignoring the fact that starvation is an enduring pain whereas being tasered is a one off?

Just checking... shall I take it that you have conceded every point but this one about how much it sucks to be starving? I refer to points such as the point that your definition of political dissident is vague but seems to exclude historically significant progressives, that progressive dissidents have benefited society enormously by standing up for their views, and that there is no concrete reason to fear that protesters will cause serious economic harm to society if we disallow torture to remove them.

Nope, I asked for specific examples of your progressives that had access to the ballot box but chose to commit criminal acts instead. Failing to provide any examples and then asking me to concede the point is nonsensical.

I have also given a very specific, entirely possible outcome of economic harm caused by criminals if your proposal that police do not prevent them commiting crime were to be introduced.

Try harder.

If so, I see no reason not to be nice and concede the starvation point. It's really pretty minor in the larger argument.

Translation: I know my position is intenable, so will try and pretend it is a minor point as opposed to demonstrating that I am quite happy to torture protestors by starvation but not to taser them, ignoring the fact that tasering is quicker, stops the crime and causes less long term harm.

Define "won through the ballot box", please. Is a right "won through the ballot box" if a government loses office after illegal protests, and the new government passes reforms, for example? I'd like these goalposts nailed down before I bother aiming a kick at them.

Yes - you don't get to count things that are wn through the ballot box just because someone committed a crime as well. Take a swing.

I see you decided not to try and defend your claim that you have not used personal attacks. Wise move but I would have had more respect if you had acknowledged the fact rather than snip it and hope no-one noticed.

[Kevin_Lowe]

You claimed that the woman had six months to find an abortion clinic. Yet you appear unable to find one that offers terminations that late.

Your claim, your problem.

Did you not read the wikipedia article? Such abortions are unusual but there are established medical procedures for them, which I think entails the conclusion that they are in fact carried out sometimes.


I assume you are ignoring the fact that starvation is an enduring pain whereas being tasered is a one off?


That would be a silly assumption. I think you should assume I have taken it into account, along with the fact that the pain is self-inflicted and self-managed rather than being imposed by someone else with a taser, and the fact that the entire subthread is a bit silly because a protester with their hand in a specially designed pipe is going to have difficulty managing a hamburger anyway.


Nope, I asked for specific examples of your progressives that had access to the ballot box but chose to commit criminal acts instead. Failing to provide any examples and then asking me to concede the point is nonsensical.

A specific US example perhaps?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_Riot


I have also given a very specific, entirely possible outcome of economic harm caused by criminals if your proposal that police do not prevent them commiting crime were to be introduced.

Try harder.

"Possible" doesn't cut much ice. I think you need to shoot for "probable" at the very least, if you are going to use your predictions of the future as a basis for policy.


Translation: I know my position is intenable, so will try and pretend it is a minor point as opposed to demonstrating that I am quite happy to torture protestors by starvation but not to taser them, ignoring the fact that tasering is quicker, stops the crime and causes less long term harm.


These "translations" are tiresome. I decline to play that game any more.


Yes - you don't get to count things that are wn through the ballot box just because someone committed a crime as well. Take a swing.

I suspected that was going to be your move. Essentially you are challenging me to prove that progress would not have occurred anyway if protests had not occurred, and proving such a thing without access to parallel dimensions or a time machine is difficult at best. If I'd taken a shot at those goalposts without making you clarify your position first I'd have suddenly found them a long way away and much smaller.

Fortunately I think they're still eminently hittable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution


I see you decided not to try and defend your claim that you have not used personal attacks. Wise move but I would have had more respect if you had acknowledged the fact rather than snip it and hope no-one noticed.

Do you think there is a difference between attacking positions, and attacking people?

I'm not arguing that Jaggy Bunnett is a terrible person and so we should ignore Jaggy Bunnet's arguments. I'm arguing that your arguments are bad and that your position is both deeply immoral and dangerous to a free society. You seem to be bent on trying to discredit my arguments by attacking me personally.

Edited to Add: Actually the Velvet Revulotion does not speak to the actual claim in question now I think about it. I think it's too early to be posting and I need a coffee. I'll take another swing at that one later. I'll leave the post as is rather than airbrush out my goof.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Did you not read the wikipedia article? Such abortions are unusual but there are established medical procedures for them, which I think entails the conclusion that they are in fact carried out sometimes.

Again, do you have evidence of voluntary abortions taking place at 35 weeks?

That would be a silly assumption. I think you should assume I have taken it into account, along with the fact that the pain is self-inflicted and self-managed rather than being imposed by someone else with a taser, and the fact that the entire subthread is a bit silly because a protester with their hand in a specially designed pipe is going to have difficulty managing a hamburger anyway.

Then your conclusion is not supported by the facts: I do not believe anyone could reasonably conclude that starvation over a number of days is "not that painful" compared to a one off incident of being tasered.

If only they had two hands, then they could use the one not in the pipe to eat with.

A specific US example perhaps?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_Riot

So your example of a progressive is someone who threw a bomb at the police? Wow.

"Possible" doesn't cut much ice. I think you need to shoot for "probable" at the very least, if you are going to use your predictions of the future as a basis for policy.

Apart from the fact that this is a nonsenically high standard to impose, who was it who posted:

"If we allow police to respond to peaceful tactics with torture then some protesters will find other ways of protesting which could well be more destructive or dangerous to others. Not all protesters are going to go home quietly and abandon their beliefs because police have tasers now. A few people chaining themselves to things beats rioting, firebombing and so forth. "

Seems like discussing possible future outcomes is OK when it suits you, but not when it doesn't. Funny that.

I suspected that was going to be your move. Essentially you are challenging me to prove that progress would not have occurred anyway if protests had not occurred, and proving such a thing without access to parallel dimensions or a time machine is difficult at best. If I'd taken a shot at those goalposts without making you clarify your position first I'd have suddenly found them a long way away and much smaller.

Fortunately I think they're still eminently hittable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution

Not even close, as you acknowledged in your edit. No legitimate route for change via the ballot box.

Do you think there is a difference between attacking positions, and attacking people?

Absolutely. I am also quite clear which one you were doing.

I'm not arguing that Jaggy Bunnett is a terrible person and so we should ignore Jaggy Bunnet's arguments. I'm arguing that your arguments are bad and that your position is both deeply immoral and dangerous to a free society. You seem to be bent on trying to discredit my arguments by attacking me personally.

Lets see:

Is "Authoritarian torture-fans" attacking the person or the argument?

How about "want tasers used on protestors" - person or argument. Nobody has said they want tasers used on protestors, some have said it is acceptable if that is the lowest harm method of ending their criminal activity.

Maybe "want to see the door closed to future moral progress, pure and simple." Not much about arguments in there. A nonsensical, illogical personal attack.

There is at least one person engaging in personal attacks here. Look in a mirror to find them.

Edited to Add: Actually the Velvet Revulotion does not speak to the actual claim in question now I think about it. I think it's too early to be posting and I need a coffee. I'll take another swing at that one later. I'll leave the post as is rather than airbrush out my goof.

Finally something we agree on!

[Kevin_Lowe]

Again, do you have evidence of voluntary abortions taking place at 35 weeks?


I've provided evidence they are legal in roughly half of the nations that allow abortion, which answers the question you asked. I'm through chasing your goalposts beyond that.


Then your conclusion is not supported by the facts: I do not believe anyone could reasonably conclude that starvation over a number of days is "not that painful" compared to a one off incident of being tasered.

If only they had two hands, then they could use the one not in the pipe to eat with.


So it's a two-person protest? I may be completely wrong, but I imagined that the only way these pipe thingies could be of any use was if the protesters formed a ring around a blockaded object with their bodies. What's the good of two people not being seperable if the police could just carry the two of them off at once?


So your example of a progressive is someone who threw a bomb at the police? Wow.


If your response to that article is "So your example of a progressive is someone who threw a bomb at the police? Wow." then it's very clear to me you have no interest in a rational discussion. Either you didn't read the article, you didn't understand it or you do not want to understand it.

Yes, this is a personal attack on you.


Apart from the fact that this is a nonsenically high standard to impose, who was it who posted:

"If we allow police to respond to peaceful tactics with torture then some protesters will find other ways of protesting which could well be more destructive or dangerous to others. Not all protesters are going to go home quietly and abandon their beliefs because police have tasers now. A few people chaining themselves to things beats rioting, firebombing and so forth. "

Seems like discussing possible future outcomes is OK when it suits you, but not when it doesn't. Funny that.

You are sliding around between "possible" and "likely" without owning up to it. Rioting and firebombing are known problems when masses of people are disenfranchised and angry. It has happened in the past and probably will again. Peaceful protesters causing massive economic harm gratuitously has, to my mind, never occurred. Yet you try to paint your points as equivalent to mine. How does that work?


Not even close, as you acknowledged in your edit. No legitimate route for change via the ballot box.

Having thought about it a bit more, my mistake was playing your game in the first place. As I said at the time, your challenge is to prove something which cannot be proved without a time machine or some similar science fiction device for checking hypothetical scenarios.

All we could ever say in a democracy is that a social ill seemed like it would not be fixed without illegal protest, and then there was illegal protest, and then it was fixed. If the odd Jaggy Bunnett want to deny any causal relationship they can do so, and the onus of proof should be on them to prove that the protests were irrelevant.

At this stage I'm through with you, unless at the very least you read the Haymarket article and come up with an adult response. Post away and have fun. Yes, this is a personal attack on you.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I've provided evidence they are legal in roughly half of the nations that allow abortion, which answers the question you asked. I'm through chasing your goalposts beyond that.

Again, do you have evidence of voluntary abortions taking place at 35 weeks?

So it's a two-person protest? I may be completely wrong, but I imagined that the only way these pipe thingies could be of any use was if the protesters formed a ring around a blockaded object with their bodies. What's the good of two people not being seperable if the police could just carry the two of them off at once?

You are completely wrong. Do some research.

Yes, this is a personal attack on you.

Again. And treated with all the respect it deserves.

You are sliding around between "possible" and "likely" without owning up to it. Rioting and firebombing are known problems when masses of people are disenfranchised and angry. It has happened in the past and probably will again. Peaceful protesters causing massive economic harm gratuitously has, to my mind, never occurred. Yet you try to paint your points as equivalent to mine. How does that work?

What is your definition of massive? Obviously a £5m police bill was not enough for you, or are you just ignoring the link I posted making specific reference to such a bill? How big a bill does it need to be before you give a monkeys (after all as we have established, you are not paying it, so clearly you are willing to be very generous with other peoples money).

Having thought about it a bit more, my mistake was playing your game in the first place.

No your mistake was in making a claim for which there is no evidence. However somewhat pathetically you refuse to acknowledge that and try and wriggle out of the claim. Sad really.

Nice to see you that you are still editing out the evidence of your personal attacks that you claimed you hadn't made. You do realise how that makes you look, right?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

At this stage I'm through with you, unless at the very least you read the Haymarket article and come up with an adult response. Post away and have fun. Yes, this is a personal attack on you.

Translation - I know my arguments are weak and am setting up an exit route for myself where I can flounce off claiming moral victory.

Looks like this translation was accurate then.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Like I said before, if the person who shouts longest wins then you win.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Like I said before, if the person who shouts longest wins then you win.

Translation - I know my arguments are weak and am setting up an exit route for myself where I can flounce off claiming moral victory.

Looks like this translation was accurate then.

[ponderingturtle]

Did you not read the wikipedia article? Such abortions are unusual but there are established medical procedures for them, which I think entails the conclusion that they are in fact carried out sometimes.

And evidence that they are done and readily done on potentialy viable pregnancies? There will always be dangerous nonviable pregancies that get aborted.

[Kevin_Lowe]

And evidence that they are done and readily done on potentialy viable pregnancies? There will always be dangerous nonviable pregancies that get aborted.

I've looked at a few government sources just now trying to find an answer to that question, and inevitably they categorise all late-term abortions into "14 weeks and over", "21 weeks and over" or some other similar category.

So I'd be interested in seeing any data touching on this specific question if anyone can find it.

Bear in mind this is not a major issue, just one of Jaggy Bunnet's peripheral gripes. If you think it likely that it would be impossible to get an abortion after 24 weeks, then knock the time anti-abortion activists would have to blockade every abortion clinic in the USA down to two or three months in order to bring about his doomsday scenario. It's still not plausible.

What I was not aware of was that in the US you only have a federally mandated right to abortion up to the time of viability, and that after that point states can pass laws restricting access to abortions. So it's not surprising if some USians think it strange that late-term abortions are legal, since they may well have grown up in a state that banned them.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I've looked at a few government sources just now trying to find an answer to that question, and inevitably they categorise all late-term abortions into "14 weeks and over", "21 weeks and over" or some other similar category.

So I'd be interested in seeing any data touching on this specific question if anyone can find it.

What, you want somebody else to find the evidence to support your claim? Why am I not surprised?

Bear in mind this is not a major issue, just one of Jaggy Bunnet's peripheral gripes. If you think it likely that it would be impossible to get an abortion after 24 weeks, then knock the time anti-abortion activists would have to blockade every abortion clinic in the USA down to two or three months in order to bring about his doomsday scenario. It's still not plausible.

So you think it is perfectly reasonable for someone in Texas to be required to travel to Alaska for an abortion, just so that the criminals blockading clinics can be allowed to get on with it without interference? What a perfectly reasonable and in no way utterly nonsensical thing to say.

What I was not aware of was that in the US you only have a federally mandated right to abortion up to the time of viability, and that after that point states can pass laws restricting access to abortions. So it's not surprising if some USians think it strange that late-term abortions are legal, since they may well have grown up in a state that banned them.

Yet you can't find evidence to support your claim that these things happen, so have asked others to provide it for you.

[Gurdur]

What, you want somebody else to find the evidence to support your claim? Why am I not surprised?

Kevin Lowe's always been like that. Evidence is just so not hs strong suit. Neither is logic.

[ponderingturtle]

I've looked at a few government sources just now trying to find an answer to that question, and inevitably they categorise all late-term abortions into "14 weeks and over", "21 weeks and over" or some other similar category.

So I'd be interested in seeing any data touching on this specific question if anyone can find it.

Bear in mind this is not a major issue, just one of Jaggy Bunnet's peripheral gripes. If you think it likely that it would be impossible to get an abortion after 24 weeks, then knock the time anti-abortion activists would have to blockade every abortion clinic in the USA down to two or three months in order to bring about his doomsday scenario. It's still not plausible.

Well one you might well have difficulty finding a doctor who will perform such an abortion, and as you are totaly ignoreing travel difficulties, why not just make it the world?

And the vast majority of late term abortions are for medical reasons.