Says you from the comfort of your computer desk. If the entire crowd is controlled, there is too much potential for an officer to be injured or killed. The demonstration ceased to be peaceable as soon as some bone head threw a rock. Once that happens, the cops have every reason to break things up before more and more people join the few idiots and make the situation all out uncontrollable, ie civilians dying, damage and destruction to property and so on.

Yeah, says me in this comfy chair right here. I'm still not understanding how 600 police officers couldn't deal with 50 (-100 in Lee's article) people when they are in ballistics armor, have shields, and are armed with batons, pepper spray, and "less-than-lethal" ammunition. How is it less dangerous for the policemen to not arrest them, but instead march into the crowd? How is marching into the crowd safer than dealing with the agitators?

Yeah, that's my specialty.

Well.. they uhh.. did deal with the crowd. You just don't like how they dealed.

Anyway, like I said earlier, maybe they were a bit on the rough side, but personally I'd rather they err on the side of caution.

Cops > Citizens


ALWAYS. Duh.












(I'm being sarcastic douchebags)

I didn't say deal with the crowd, I said deal with the agitators. The people that were doing something wrong. Erring on the side of caution like this is what gets people shot by cops when they're trying to pull their wallet out of their pockets, or gets old women shot when police use "no-knock" entry warrants on "drug houses."

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Interesting - we're down from 240 to 148 "rubber bullets", and up to 30-40 bottle/rock-throwing people (assault with a deadly weapon - felony).

Just a minor note. If you're interested in commentary from other officers, feel free to look here.

Another interesting note -- according to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, "not even police are above the law" - which is all fine and good. Until he says "It doesn't matter to me whether you have papers or not. You came to work. We all have the same dreams. We want peace and decent jobs."

....

...you keep trying to make this about immigration. It's not about immigration.:psyduck:

I have not. If you believe otherwise, find it and quote me.

What I did do is point out the obvious hypocrisy by the Mayor of Los Angeles, which implies a bias on his part regarding this entire issue.

I either want less corruption, or more chance to participate in it.

I don't think we're up to 30-40, we're down. we went from 50-100 agitators to 30-40

I hadn't read this link - I was going off the other link that was proudly claiming "no arrests were made", implying that it was purely a police assault upon hundreds of entirely innocent people.

I would really have liked to see those 30-40 arrested for assault...but that might've sparked a full-scale riot..who knows.

welp those 30-40 people who committed assault were probably in the LAPD so maybe you don't want to get your wish there

That will be left up to the investigation to determine.

considering the fact that many of the police officers involved in this will be transferring to a desk job I think it's pretty clear what the investigation is going to determine.


Also, you know, this is the LAPD. None of you should be surprised about this at all. It's almost like, you know, they have a history of reckless incompetence and battery.

WHEEEEE! That was fun, daddy! I want to go down the slippery slope again!

You claim this as "fact" before the investigation has been concluded?

and because they're cops they're automatically innocent right?

And where did I say this?

You don't have to say something to insinuate it.

Ah - so you/he are/is making an assumption, then. Nice going.

Regardless, I take it the whole 'innocent until proven guilty in a court of law' idea doesn't fly here?

Not for the Patriot Act! LOL!

Nice catch, Roach.



Bonus points for complete irrelevance!

everything is relevant when you're talking about how the police are trying to rob us of our god-given freedoms

They'd be assumptions if you weren't, you know you.

We all have more than a good idea how you think, captain.

Until I get a good explanation of how the Patriot Act does not reverse the American ideology of "innocent until proven guilty", it will stand as my joke

No matter; I suppose police will always be on the side of police during a riot, which prevents coup de'tat and such, and the people will normally be on the side of the people. The more resistance the two have, the more attention the riot pulls. The more attention the riot pulls, the more the idea strives. The more the idea strives and grows, the more the government will respond. Success in riots is measured by the resistance both sides have.

Thing is, immigrant reform is "on the backburner" of things Americans care about, and this protest, like many on Washington D.C., etc., are not noticed by the public eye. Reason? It doesn't affect all people's natural born rights. At least I don't think so, maybe I'm wrong. Who knows.

I'm just blabbering on now, I should go to sleep

For some reason the initials just weren't clicking until as I hit "reply".

that's right. the power-hungry and corrupt cops are working to rob of us our freedoms. they're fighting tooth and nail to see that all of our firearms are banned, that they can search us and our property without a warrant. it's already to the point where they can pay some junky to accuse us of dealing in drugs and are automatically granted a knockless warrant by corrupt judges. a cop can accuse us of racketeering and all of our property is confiscated by the police without a trial. and they'll send you to gitmo if you complain. things have to change. if you aren't part of the solution you're part of the problem.

I am unable to decipher your first sentence. Maybe that's because...well, it doesn't make sense. Or, perhaps I need sleep.

Your BS line of 'you all knowing how I think' is just...well, BS. Goodnight all.

The mayor's hypocrisy has no bearing on the judgment of the LAPD officers who committed the questionable acts.

Seriously, did the cops come over and kick your dog or something?

no, but they want to. because they're cops.

You know how many rubber bullets were used in three days of riots here in Denmark a couple months ago?

That's right, none.

I have to say, Michael, I would encourage police forces to use "less-than-lethal" rounds against a rioting mass of arsonists, especially after it carried on for longer than a day.

They suffered only one injury to a policeman and were able to put a stop to the riots within a few hours each night (they didn't continue into the next day), and furthermore they actually made arrests of many of the people responsible for the violence rather than handing out injuries indiscriminately, which is what would have happened if they'd fired into crowds that contained a lot of nonviolent protesters and bystanders. They also cleared journalists and bystanders off sections of street without having to resort to beatings. All this in a situation far more serious than the one the LAPD police were in. I have to say that I like their way of doing things better.

Ah, the reports I read about those riots made it sound like it was a continuous riot. That doesn't sound as bad.

The cops that were involved got reassigned, one demoted.