portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

police / legal

Police:1 Radical-Rioters:0

My opionions about the protests in general.
You are the stupidest people ever. I laughed at all of your media and posts about "Police Brutality" or whatever youre callling it now. When you're ASKED to back off and you respond with profanity, throwing things, violent outlashes and then try to run the police blockade.... youre KINDA "MAYBE" asking to get pepper sprayed/balled/arrested/etc.

If youre so opposed to this "abuse" (which you are asking for and more than well deserve after you IGNORE the police requests) how about you get your worthless, radical, rioting asses off the streets. You cost us tax payers money.
Dude! 26.Aug.2002 02:38

RichRepublican

I agree with you 100%. The police are there to protect. Have you seen what happened in Seattle? Everybody was "peacefull", and the next thing you know, half of the town is destroyed.

You are hyper-ignorant! 26.Aug.2002 07:20

StevetheGreen

Your very biased opinion about what took place on Thursday August 22nd during the Bush visit not only shows an inability to comprehend what happened and why, but it indicates an incomplete analysis based on limited TV coverage rather than being an eyewitness.

How do I know that you were not an eyewitness?
By the shear inaccuracy of your comments, that's how.

The protest was peaceful and would have remained so if it were not for the aggressive and unwarrented actions of the police. It is that simple.

The police designated barriers could of been set up anywhere prior to the protest, but they chose to put them where they put them. To wait until hundreds of protestors are standing up against the barrier and then suddenly decide that the barrier needed to be moved back was nothing more than "looking for a fight".
Add to that the very aggressive nature of the stormtrooper tactics that came with almost zero warning when they started to push and spray people.
This of couse caused a reaction among the crowd that then and only then turned more aggressive.

That is what happened Mr. Police supporter!

To try and portray this protest as something that was caused by the lack of cooperation by peaceful protestors is a lie.
To come onto this site and pretend to know what happened while criticizing Americans participating in our democracy is shameful.

Get your facts straight idiot!

Police supporter: you are all wet 26.Aug.2002 07:21

Prairy Fairy

What costs tax payers the most money are all the bombs the US government has and will continue to drop on third world countries. These amount to subsidies to the military industrial complex and the oil industry.

What makes you think that the people on the street are not taxpayers, they are. If one pays sales tax, one is a taxpayer. If one pays income tax, one is a taxpayer. If one pays property tax or even rent, one is a tax payer, (a certain percentage of that the landlord uses to pay his or her property tax).

You suppose people who exercise their first amendment rights of peaceful assembly (and it was peaceful until the police started acting like brownshirts) don't work or pay taxes. Who is the stupid one.

I hope you got your money's worth 26.Aug.2002 08:20

ranger

Police Supporter; Hey, I support the police when they do their jobs accordingly, but that is not what happened last week. I hope you are satisfied with their actions, because it cost you and I, the taxpayer lots of buck to protect this asterick president.

Rioters 1, police 1; the police were the riot 26.Aug.2002 09:04

Shorty Pajamas

Despite the ultra-biased reporting by the mainstream media, I have seen no evidence of the alleged graffiti and vandalism perpetrated by the protesters in Portland. All the pictures have been of the police beating, choking, peppering and ultimately shooting people that could be my friends, neighbors, parents, or children. To argue that these people deserved this treatment for engaging in constitutionally protected acts smacks of anti-Americanism, the kind of anti-Americanism our current (unelected) administration has become fond of.

Suspicious lack of media coverage 26.Aug.2002 09:59

Peanut Butter & Jelly

I wasn't there personally but when there is such a lack of "popular media" coverage, I get suspicious. It smacks of government cover-up for sure. Should we call our government "leadership of interest"!?

nobody was asked 26.Aug.2002 12:18

raven

To Police Supporter -

Nobody was asked to move - the police ordered people to move, and for no reason - very very different - the police should be listening to the citizens, not ordering them around. You may be content to be a sheep, but many of us will no longer take orders from these illegitimate warmongers who show up in full battle gear to interact with their fellow citizens.

The police were intending to attack people before the protest even started, that was their AGENDA, and not a response to citizen action.

This country was formed by people rising up. They threw tea in the bay, They took other action that you would not approve of. You would have been on the side of the British then, just like today you are on the side of the military regime that is in power.

In a time when there is almost total control of media, laws, and social power, then it is the responsibility of citizens of good conscience of all ideologies to resist that oppression. By supporting the police, you are abdicating that responsibility and taking the side of the oppressors.

Response 26.Aug.2002 17:40

PoliceSupporter

I see... So basically you're all saying that you all have the right to do whatever you want and that not abiding to by the law and law enforcement is a guaranteed right in the consitition?

Somehow, I doubt it. What you folks fail to realize is that this barrier of police and barricades is setup to protect our President. Dispite how you think you should be able do whatever you want, protecting our elected officials is a matter of national security.

This quote from raven in particular is amazingly backward given your stance that you claim that you were peacefully protesting... "This country was formed by people rising up. They threw tea in the bay, They took other action that you would not approve of. You would have been on the side of the British then, just like today you are on the side of the military regime that is in power."

That, in my opinion, could be interpreted as symbolic of your acting out by causing property damage in the name of patriotism. How can you be patriotic by not supporting the president ELECTED by the process determined by the very efforts and actions of the people you quote, raven?

The fact is, you are all lacking the brains to understand that the actions you protest are good for everyone. Lets cover a few of them:

1. The war on terrorism. If we dont go after them, then they will be able to come after us again with something potentially worse than the 9/11 attacks. We are weakening them to a point where money doesnt flow easily - where it doesnt pay these people who are willing to kill themselves to feed their families by blowing themselves up or whatever. It nullifies the pay for killing innocent americans since they wont be able to fund them. What would YOU say we do? LET them come back to us and then suffer more loss of life on OUR side? Or perhaps just LET them gain control of areas so they can train TO kill us? I think not.

2. President Elected. GET OVER IT. You lost. Bush is the rightful President of the United States. He has done an excellent job so far dispite the slimey liberal democrats and the shitty circumstances which he came into office. If Al Gore were elected, our government probably setup some kind of "Please dont attack us" signs and that would be our 'defense against terrorism'.

3. The forrest situation. Dispite how you all probably think I'm evil for supporting those who you dislike at the moment, I do love the environment. Trees and wild life is what makes this state so nice. The plan Bush is proposing is a perfect way to ensure they live on. With all of the fires this state has/is/and will have, thinning the densely packed areas will help ensure they live longer. Its not like they plan on clearcutting the trees - which I would be against. If they dont clean them up now, they have the potential to light up in smoke and be gone in a few days which would be worse than letting them remove some of the ones in dense areas. Plus this creates jobs for our state to help people and will lower the risks, damages, and costs of fire to this state.



Well thats my opinion anyways. Posting things like this IS legal and more effective. Rioting IS NOT.

what elected official? 26.Aug.2002 18:43

i didn't see one there.

elected officials are supposed to be protected. yes. quite true. by nature of being elected, they're also supposed to be accountable to the public.
shrub didn't show his face, and i don't consider him elected.

Protection? 26.Aug.2002 20:55

Skullhunter

Apparently the only thing this President really wants to be protected from is legitimate dissent. PoliceSupporter can blather on and on about rioters all he wants. Since the video and still images of the incident do not support the claims he's making, it's nothing but noise. One more conservative who only cares about freedom when it's being exercised by people he agrees with, everyone else deserves to be abused. Oh, and by the way PoliceSupporter, you do realize that thinning the forests really makes them MORE vulnerable to forest fires, and not less, right? The kind of trees that would be removed are more resistant to fire than the younger, thinner trees that the logging companies have no interest in. Fewer trees also means that more sunlight will reach the forest floor, causing the debris there that normall provides nutrition to the trees to become drier faster, instead resulting in fuel for potential fires. You do know dry leaves and needles burn better right? Speaking of fuel for fires, you know what else a good fire needs? Air. Fewer trees, less windbreak, more fresh air reaching a fire by convection. It's not like this is a complicated concept, maybe I should phrase it in simple terms so you can understand it. Thin trees burn. Big trees resist burning. Dry leaves and needles burn, moist ones resist burning. Fresh air makes fire big. Got it now? By this idiotic "less trees, fewer fires" logic, the Native Americans should have been living in a land with nothing but burnt wastelands where forests used to be when Europeans arrived, since the forests were allowed to grow unchecked and unmanaged. How on Earth did nature manage to keep them intact all those centuries and millenia?

Start Hitting Back 26.Aug.2002 21:27

Chicago7

Gawd, PoliceSupporter - you know all the Gaulieters and henchmen of the Bush Reich just LOOOOVE Stassi mofos like you. Good little drones. do what daddykins tells you....protestors, BAD, police GOOD. Here, have a banana. Ook Ook.

You know what? I'm sick of the way things have been going too. Instead of lying down taking it, I think it's time to start hitting the cops BACK. I say the protestors should be arming and armoring THEMSELVES for a change. Lets see how the fucking asshole pig cops and their corrupt commanders would like to see a thousand ARMORED (thanks Skullhunter), resolute citizens marching toward them. You want a real fight? Keep pushing, Goebells. YOU'RE GONNA GET ONE.


Easy to Rebut Right-Wing Rants 26.Aug.2002 23:22

Freedom Over Fascism

Gestapo Supporter is either an imbecile sheep or (granted this is a remote possibility) he is someone writing offensive drivel in order to provoke impassioned response. Either way it's so easy to rebut his arguments it's almost not worth the words. But, alas...

1. Anyone who thinks the expansion of the U.S. military presence in the Middle East is going to decrease the likelyhood of future terrorist attacks against the U.S. is a moron.

2. Bush did lose the election, but "won" it through a nefarious mix of dirty tricks (Jeb and K Harris keeping African-Americans from voting w/ their phony felon purge), suspicious luck (the butterfly ballot), and extra-constitutional power plays (the felonious five > four Supreme Court vote) -- anyone who argues that Bush Jr represents anything than a further abnegation of American Democracy (already virtually moribund) is either a complete dolt or a plutocratic lapdog.

3. The fact that a right-wing ditto-head like Police Supporter is making the argument that Bush's pro-logging industry position is, in fact, sound, pragmatic environmentalism merely reflects the strength of the true environmental movement in Oregon -- even the Texas Republican oilagarchy has to spin its devestatingly despoiling policies as somehow pro-environmental. But if this were even remotely the case, don't you think Shrub would be in Johannesburg this month arguing for his "sensible environmentalism."

...and anyone who supports the Police -- i.e. the U.S. State Paramiltary Apparatus that imprisons 2 million of its own (inhabitants) poor people -- at this moment in history, is a fucking fascist.

... 26.Aug.2002 23:36

PoliceSupporter

Talking to you people is like talking to a wall. If you're unable to accept that fact that your fool Gore lost the election then youre not worthy of my time. You have no legitimate proof of anything you are claiming, so basically you can all go riot your worthless asses off a bridge.

Bush has done a wonderful job. The police have done a wonderful job. And you all derserve what you got since you cant follow the law.

My work here is done.

And so, having diverted the forces of evil... 26.Aug.2002 23:54

Bryan

...our hero rides off into the sunset. Hi Ho Silver! Away!!

Poor bugger. You guys don't suppose we were too hard on him do you? I mean, the guy seemed nice enough, just kinda on the dull side.

Come on, PoliceSupporter, we didn't mean to hurt your feelings. We just want to clue you in on a few things. Come on back to the discussion and we promise to be nice!

Bryan :) 27.Aug.2002 00:13

Skullhunter

I'd say I was sorry to the pinheaded little fascist apologist, but you know, it just wouldn't be sincere. Maybe it should be more like "And so, having his eyes irritated by the blinding kitchen light of facts, the cockroach scurries rapidly away into the nearest available dark crevice." :)
Seriously though, I'm tired of all the various right-wing would-be brownshirts who've found there way here since A22 just to laugh and put down all the people standing up for the freedoms they take for granted. Their whole attitude seems to be that since it's not happening to them, and it won't since they're good, compliant, uncomplaining little citizens, they don't care. They enjoy watching people like us get pepper-sprayed, beaten, and shot with rubber bullets because they hope it'll make us afraid. They hope, like Smirking Fraud probably hoped, that it will make us go away. Didn't work on A22, isn't going to work afterwards. Isn't going to work ever. We're not going to go away. We're not going to stay politely inside chain-link fence enclosures miles away from Chimpy and his adoring toadies. We're not going to quietly back away when we're threatened by the people we pay to supposedly protect and serve us. It is our right, and our duty, to speak and be heard when we disagree with those running our nation. This isn't Hitler's Germany, nor is it Stalin's Russia. And we're not going to let it become either.

what exactly was he expecting anyway? 27.Aug.2002 12:49

joe

It's not like i think they shouldn't post, dissenting opinion is a requirement of freedom, but, seriously, i can't see how the conservatives that pop up around here expect much in the way of sympathy. which leaves me to assume that they're juvenile flamers in all reality.

Hillary use Facist tactic in New York 27.Aug.2002 14:08

Fed-up

where is the outrage over this? I guess when Bill and Hillary are being fasicst c=scum none of you liberals say a word. Wake up there is no difference being Democrooks and Repub-rats.

NewsMax.com



Monday, Aug. 26, 2002 10:56 p.m. EDT

Book: Hillary Used 'Etiquette Squads' to Bust Up Protests

A former advance man for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton has confessed that her campaign used "etiquette squads" to drive hecklers away at rallies, raising new questions about a March 2000 incident where several reporters were assaulted while trying to cover then-candidate Clinton as crowds booed her during the St. Patrick's Day parade.

Patrick Halley's new book, "On the Road with Hillary," is a largely favorable portrait of the White House hopeful, seen through the eyes of the man whose job from 1992 to 2000 was to make sure Mrs. Clinton was viewed in the best light possible.

That meant that the Boston native was in charge of picking the right TV-friendly settings, the right props and the right photo-ops, according to an account of his book in Sunday's Boston Herald, which also noted:

"Things usually didn't get that dramatic for Halley, though he did help set up so-called 'etiquette squads' to help drive disrupters away from rallies."

During her 2000 bid for the Senate, Mrs. Clinton's campaign became notorious for the heavy-handed way it kept her shielded from reporters and protesters alike.

One particularly ugly altercation took place as she marched in New York City's St. Patrick's Day parade, where she was greeted by block after block of booing throngs.

As Mrs. Clinton pushed through the heckling crowd surrounded by her security and a phalanx of reporters, suddenly violence erupted. The scene was described during a live WABC radio report by Metro Network News reporter Glenn Schuck, who assumed that Secret Service were responsible for the thug-like tactics:

"Secret Service agents literally are pushing press to the ground. They just lost their minds, in my opinion," he told WABC's Sean Hannity.

"I mean they just started pushing and shoving; female camera people five feet tall were getting thrown to the ground, cameras flying. Myself, I was grabbed by the shoulder, I was thrown back over. I think somebody from Channel 11 landed on my back. From that point it really didn't get any better." (See: Hillary's Secret Service Agents Rough Up Reporters as St. Pat's Crowd Boos)

A few days later, a caller to WOR Radio's Bob Grant Show reported that she and her family were also accosted by Clinton's protest-busters along the parade route.

"Maureen" said that after her family had joined the crowd in jeering Mrs. Clinton, "they were surrounded by men in trench coats with radios." They told Maureen that since Mrs. Clinton was first lady that they "did not have the right" to heckle, she told Grant. "We think you should stop this now," the Clinton handlers ordered.

Were these incidents - and dozens of other similarly heavy-handed encounters with Hillary's handlers - the work of not the Secret Servicebut instead Clinton's protest-busting "etiquette squads"?

Author Halley could not be reached by press time to respond to that question.

Source of the infestation 27.Aug.2002 14:13

Skullhunter

joe, it would seem that most of them found there way here from a link posted over at freerepublic. They've actually toned down from what they're saying at that site about the protestors, since they'd probably be deleted here, and for good reason. Many wishes that the Portland Police had used live ammo instead of rubber bullets, someone asking why they didn't use the new focused microwave generator "pain beam" because he wanted to see pictures of "smoking protestors". You can go over and see for yourself, but I don't reccomend the experience, it's a lot like immersing your brain in raw sewage. These are the same people that made sick jokes about Beth O' Brien when she fell to her death from the Eagle Creek tree-sit, so naturally they enjoy anything involving "librulz" getting beaten and abused by police. Free speech is okay fine by them, as long as it's people like them doing the speaking, everyone else should be silent... ...or silenced. And these are the people who support the current administration. Scary, ain't it? Of course, despite all their wishes for protestors to be injured or killed, where were they on A22? At home, hoping the police would do it for them. There was one mention of a group of Bush supporters doing drive-by insults on the protestors. Hardly surprising. These are the same people that tend to shout intelligent, well-thought-out things like "Freak!" when driving by people like us walking down the street. I wonder how much it takes to suppress their desire to get out of their vehicles and physically assault us, or is it easily suppressed by their fear of what might happen to them if they do?

Me Too! 31.Aug.2002 06:40

HitlerLover

I agree with RichRepublican and PoliceSupporter!

Man, how stupid are all these rioters who come out and levelled half of Portland, just like they did in Seattle in 1999? I mean, Seattle is still rebuilding itself! Construction cranes all over! Hundreds of dead cops!

And now, we have piles of heroic police corpses amongst the burning wreckage, rotting in the streets as these liberal radical centrist whiners cry about being gently jostled by the heroic guardians of order before their heroic deaths at the hands of these wild-eyed, baby-wielding cowards! How can a cop in full body armor defend him or herself against a rabid old lady in a t-shirt, or a parent carrying an infant? These cops need to be given assault rifles and orders to shoot sign-carriers, the elderly, and parents on sight!

The smell of dead cops is simply ruining business! Sales are down 97%, although I am of course doing brisk business selling emergency supplies, clean water, and chemical warfare suits to protect against all the lethal sarin nerve gas released by those "grannies for peace."

Why don't you rioters understand that if you assemble within one hundred miles of Our Great, Elected, Eternal Leader, the police ought to kill you? You think disagreeing with Him gives you the right to say so? Hah! The purest liberal drivel I have seen all day!

If you were there, you would know that the police ordered you to disperse, politely, even. Perhaps you didn't hear them, because every protester is DEAF. Either that, or every police officer is mute, and who do you think I'm gonna believe? The mute officer! Because as certain as gravity is the Iron Law of Appropriate Police Conduct. Never in history has an American police officer misbehaved, or treated anyone poorly without full legal justification. Because, you see, the Law is that all police actions are legal and appropriate. So, even if one officer doesn't like the look or smell of you, they are entirely justified to shoot you on sight.

And profanity! Of course your children deserve to be beaten and pepper sprayed, if someone else somehwere in the crowd should DARE to mutter a profane word at one of our SACRED police vanguard!

Haven't you heard of collective responsibility? Like when we used to kill all the gays, jews, gypsies, anarchists, catholics, and union organizers in the whole camp when one of them would try (as they annoyingly persistently would) to escape, or fight back against a fully legally authorized guard, doing his sacred duty to push them into the holy, annointed, democratically elected gas chambers. They were costing tax payers money for every day we had to feed them a cup of gruel! Speed was important, I never could figure out why they didn't understand their democratic duty to the people, the State, and The LEADER, to just die efficiently.

Now you people all want to help Al Kada and Ben Laden to bomb the remaining half of Seattle and Portland, and kill our great leader so you can all go to heaven and pork virgins. Let me tell you something, I've been there, and you don't get to pork any virgins! It's much better here with The Leader, cutting trees for the health of the forest.

You people need a reality check. You are SO stupids.

No idea 26.Dec.2003 19:25

D downy

if the police did the right thing all the time there would be no riots get it. The people see the shit going down the drain and the cops just sit back and complain. Tax paying dollars. Cops wages are tax paying dollars idiot get off your asses and DO YOUR JOB