Cliff LyonPolice State. This Country is FUCKED! Thanks Dick.
Its time for the law enforcement community to decide of they are going become a community of thugs or respectful civil servants. It takes balls to be a cop. If you are so afraid that you have to man handle women, you should not be a cop. If you’re not willing to take the risk, don’t do it. If you really, really respect authority and have no interest in the law and the Constitution, don’t become a cop.
If you are an angry, white jar-head, do not become a cop. If you hate liberal and progressive people who protest the government, don’t become a cop.
There are good cops and bad cops. If you are a bad cop, you suck. If you are a good cop, speak up.
(651) 266-8513 fax
Call Chris Rider from St. Paul Mayor Coleman’s office is 651-266-8535, (651) 266-8513 fax and the Ramsey County Jail at 651-266-9350 (press extension 0).
Demand
This kind of shit is not the exception, it seems to have become the rule.
September 2nd, 2008 at 1:14 am
The Democracy Now show had it’s full two hours today. I don’t know if it was completed after Amy got released or not, but there is some fascinating footage of preemptive tactics on peaceful activists. Amy Goodman probably knows more about the limits of the law then most veteran policemen. To think that she would put herself in a position of inciting a riot is nonsense.
This has been made possible by the war on marijuana. There are practically no policemen who can remember a time when you couldn’t arrest somebody for a completely non-violent activity. That, coupled with the job security angle, is a powerful incentive to ignore what tugs your heart. The bosses who sent them on this mission should be tried.
Amy will survive this and it will make her even stronger then she is now. Foolish move for the fascists.
September 2nd, 2008 at 1:20 am
Dennis Kucinich had the quote of the year. He was prevented from saying this about the Republicans in his speech last week:
September 2nd, 2008 at 3:31 am
I really, don’t see the problem in this video with the way the police responded. She was repeatedly told to step back on the sidewalk and refused to comply. While we all like to think that our freedoms are absolute and unbridgeable in a free society, this certainly isn’t the case. If you feel that a police officer has somehow violated your rights, the time to address it is after the moment through the court system. While I agree that the last video Cliff showed with the guy getting beaten up by cops was a terrible abuse of power, I have to disagree with this one.
In fact, I think the police acted properly in this case. “Failure to Comply” laws are an unfortunate necessity for police to be able to maintain the peace. If she had simply complied with the officer, there would have been no conflict. He gave her ample opportunity to step back on the curb, which was not an unreasonable request.
I do agree with you Larry about the War on Drugs in this country slowly eroding civil liberties, but I don’t think this is a prime example of that. The recent enactment of the Prescription Drug Monitoring System where private medical records must be turned over to the government without warrant is a far better example.
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:25 am
Cliff,
Another post up about the “police state” we live in, but it doesn’t seem that you’ve addressed your desire to have all the citizens disarmed.
Care to comment on that?
September 2nd, 2008 at 7:00 am
You do make a good point Bob. If we fire all the police, who will protect CLiff from the law of survival of the fittest? I would agree that the power that comes with being a police officer may attract certain undesirable people to the job. If this is the case then we need to do a better job of screening these individuals out before they make everyone distrusting of the police.
September 2nd, 2008 at 8:17 am
Glenn Greenwald has an mpeg video of a woman getting pepper sprayed by riot police. Her crime? She is standing aside holding a flower. This is totally nuts.
Direct link: Woman holding flower gets pepper spray in face. (2.7 MB)
September 2nd, 2008 at 8:20 am
Richard Okelberries,
1. No one is suggesting firing all the police are they. I should point out that my sheriff, Jim Winder is a good cop and his deputies reflect the highest standards of civil service. I feel quite well protected.
2. The law of the “survival of the fittest” is an artifact of history now going on about 30 years. But you will be pleased to know that it was modified right around the time you were potty trained to “selected for reproductive advantage”.
3. re: Better screening of police…That statement reveals zero understanding of the culture and reality of law enforcement. I thought you served. Its about superiors abusing the loyalty of well-trained officers.
You ARE potty trained aren’t you?
September 2nd, 2008 at 8:52 am
Richard,
I totally agree with you and completely disagree with you. I know it’s complicated.
First she wasn’t pepper sprayed because she was holding a flower. It appears that she was hindering a police activity. A lawful police activity. Yes, her presence in front of the officers hindered their ability to do their job. I don’t hear any audio, but wouldn’t you be confident they were telling her to move away, to clear the area?
Disobedience to a lawful police directive is a crime.
Had she been holding the flower in the approved spot, on the approved street, followed approved police commands she would not have been sprayed.
Given all that, Second– it is absolutely ridiculous that the police have such powers to decide when, where, why, how long a peaceful protest can go on. There is a time and place for the police to disperse gatherings. I don’t see that this one reached that level.
This is part of the continued erosion of our rights by the government. Who is to say when they start coming into our homes because they don’t like what we write on the web? This isn’t a political party issue, it’s a rights issue. Just like our Second Amendment rights. Something Cliff still hasn’t addressed.
September 2nd, 2008 at 9:21 am
Yeah, Bob, that phalanx of police officers sure look like they’re being hindered in that video!
September 2nd, 2008 at 9:56 am
Richard,
I agree it isn’t much and shouldn’t have been treated that way. But I wanted to point out the inconsistency in your comment.
It wasn’t because she was holding a flower; it was where, why and how.
I also agreed that it shouldn’t have came to that. It is about the police having too many powers, don’t you agree?
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:21 am
Richard,
By the way, do you agree with Cliff that civilians should be disarmed?
That only the militia, military, law enforcement and other authorized personnel should be the “Only Ones” allowed to keep and bear arms?
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:39 am
Well, if things that were legal (like standing on a public sidewalk) five seconds before suddenly become illegal in a heavily policed situation, maybe people can be politely asked to move instead of being shot in the face with pepper spray. It wasn’t a weapon she was holding– it was a flower!
Cliff never said (to my knowledge), and I never said, that people should never be allowed to keep and bear arms. We said that it’s not a constitutional right. I trust you’re not contemplating armed insurrection at the RNC…
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Richard,
Sorry but Cliff has said that people shouldn’t be allowed to keep and bear arms. Cliff has also said the right to assemble and the right to free speech should be curtailed for those 2nd amendment advocates.
As far as people being politely asked, the video doesn’t have audio. It however does show the police moving to clear an area. Is it reasonable to assume the police gave lawful commands to disperse?
It doesn’t matter what she was holding, it matters whether or not she quickly and efficiently obeyed the commands of the law enforcement personnel. It is especially galling that she was only holding a flower but what happens when those in charge decide they want no political free speech? How does the average citizen ensure he or she will be heard.
Our rights are being attacked from both sides of the political spectrum, do you agree?
Sorry, but you might not have thought it was a constitutionally protected right but the Supreme Court disagreed. I’m asking your opinion now, given the “police state” we live in.
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Bob–
No doubt our rights are in jeopardy. Barack Obama and senators of both parties recently voted to, in effect, repeal the 4th Amendment and offer a get-out-of-jail-free card to the Bush administration and its enablers who conducted illegal domestic surveillance. Not good.
I think you hit the nail on the head, the riot police in St. Paul are deployed to prevent free speech as much as to keep order. Eyewitness accounts confirm that the atmosphere of intimidation is unprecedented.
Of course, if you mean to imply that armed force employed by the citizenry is an intelligent response to this, that makes no sense. I think even Justice Scalia would agree.
September 2nd, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Richard,
At one point, the option of armed response to continued governmental malfeasance has to be an issue. It was in the past and continues to be a reason in the future
The Heller opinion recognized the reason:
Are the current law enforcement people basically good and decent, I think yes. Can they be mis-used? Turned into a way to disarm folks; things like that have been done in the past.
So, is there a personal, individual right to keep and bear arms?
September 2nd, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Bob– I recommend you employ nonviolent resistance only! The lady with the flower adopted exactly the right tactics for that situation, trust me.
September 2nd, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Richard,
I plan on using very many means before I ever consider moving beyond non-violent resistance.
Let’s move it away from armed insurrection then since it makes you uncomfortable
Given the Heller decision, given the crime rate, given all the factors; simply:
Is there an individual right to keep and bear arms?
September 2nd, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Bob– There is no constitutional right to keep and bear arms as far as I’m concerned. The Second Amendment is clearly written. A 5-4 majority of the SCOTUS seems to think there is such a right.
We’ve been over this before. I own a car, but I don’t claim it’s my constitutional right to own a car.
September 2nd, 2008 at 1:42 pm
That’s good dumbass.
Your flippant use of F bombs revels how dessperate you lefties really are.
September 2nd, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Richard,
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So are you in favor of the removal of the people from the other rights protected by the Constitution?
September 2nd, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Bob– I know you’re obsessed with this issue, but we’ve been over it before.
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Cliff,
Not hearing much out of you as far as your support for civilian disarmament.
What do you say?
September 6th, 2008 at 4:39 am
It sure looks to me like the right of the people to assemble peaceably wasn’t very well respected. I used to think better of St. Paul.