Poll: Would You shoot at Protestors?
- Thread starter heyheysg
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I was gonna say that indiscriminately firing at protesters just makes things worse. Sure you might disperse the current protest but you also insure that some people get even angrier and things escalate. You beat me to it.Furburt said:
OP mentions that the protest is hampering tourism. That is the most sad and pathetic excuse for trampling constitutional rights I've heard in a long while. And I've heard some good ones lately here in Denmark. We are getting good at police brutality. Mostly because a lot of people are too uncaring to mind that people who disagree get hurt.
From my own experience, all it does is make the fringe groups even more violent and push people like me to be more sympathetic towards violence against the cops. I don't trust them anymore and the more they abuse their power the more it seems like the only way to get a point across is to gear up for fighting instead of regular demonstrations.
And there is of course also the recent trend of the Danish police beating journalists and smashing their gear. That's the way democracy works I guess. At least it prevented them from taking pictures of blatant police brutality against peaceful protesters.
It sounds like some of you lot would be happy to be a copper in Iran. I'm somewhat disgusted.
From where do this inane idea that any protester is a hippy come from? And why are hippies so worthy of police brutality?
I'd never join the damn pigs, but in a hypothetical situation I wouldn't follow that order.
Assuming I have been properly trained in the application of the materials, and the mob had been classified a threat to public safety, I would have no contention in suppressing the crowd.
I would not, however, act surprised if they retaliated and threw broken bottles back at me. I just shot them. I would deserve as much.
I would not, however, act surprised if they retaliated and threw broken bottles back at me. I just shot them. I would deserve as much.
I have often wanted to be at one of those protests -- although for one reason or another I could not go -- so no, not off the bat. This is assuming that they filled out the forms to close off the roads.If I was a police officer, I would only shoot protesters who had outstepped their rights from the 1st Amendment and various other laws that protect them, and even then I would only use tranquilizer darts.
If they aren't threatening private property, or the safety of the police and public, you can't shoot them. They can be disruptive to a certain point - it's their right to protest.
There really IS no one answer. It depends on the situation at hand. Sometimes it is wrong to use harsh measures to control a protest, but on the other hand, sometimes it is the only appropriate response.
Yes it is wrong for the police to charge a crowd of peaceful protesters, but if said protesters aren't so peaceful, what are we to do? What do you want the police to do? Just give in? Surrender? Let the city be held to ransom by any group larger than 50 persons with a chanty slogan?
Protesters have rights, but so do the rest of us. By all means, let protests occur, but protesters cannot be violent or too disruptive. I'm sorry, but at least in my country we have this thing called democracy and a voting system. Let your voice be heard there. Don't go disrupting traffic or breaking windows just because you don't like something. If the majority don't like it, then it will be rectified in a democratic society.
Sometimes the police have no choice but to deploy "Crowd-controll" measures. I'm aware that these "less-lethal" methods can still cause grave injury and can even result in death, but again, are you going to let any marginally large group with a ideology do whatever the heck they want? Protesters don't always represent the people - in fact, in most cases, they only represent a particular group. Why they feel that their rights should supersede mine is a question I leave to them.
There really IS no one answer. It depends on the situation at hand. Sometimes it is wrong to use harsh measures to control a protest, but on the other hand, sometimes it is the only appropriate response.
Yes it is wrong for the police to charge a crowd of peaceful protesters, but if said protesters aren't so peaceful, what are we to do? What do you want the police to do? Just give in? Surrender? Let the city be held to ransom by any group larger than 50 persons with a chanty slogan?
Protesters have rights, but so do the rest of us. By all means, let protests occur, but protesters cannot be violent or too disruptive. I'm sorry, but at least in my country we have this thing called democracy and a voting system. Let your voice be heard there. Don't go disrupting traffic or breaking windows just because you don't like something. If the majority don't like it, then it will be rectified in a democratic society.
Sometimes the police have no choice but to deploy "Crowd-controll" measures. I'm aware that these "less-lethal" methods can still cause grave injury and can even result in death, but again, are you going to let any marginally large group with a ideology do whatever the heck they want? Protesters don't always represent the people - in fact, in most cases, they only represent a particular group. Why they feel that their rights should supersede mine is a question I leave to them.
if they were doing something violent then yes but if they are just doing some form of peaceful protest like sit ins or just lying around in the middle of busy high streets not only would i consider it unjust and a form of police state dictatorship but also highly illegal
A re-occurring theme on this thread )for those who voted no at least) is that protesters represent "the people" while the police are "bad". This isn't always the case.
What about the anarchist rioters in Greece? Went around burning up cars and smashing homes. I suppose you might say it's just angry youths venting their rage, but let's see you take such a sanguine perspective when it's YOUR home or YOUR car being bashed by angry youths.
What about those lunatic PETA protesters and animal-rights extremists who threaten laboratory personnel and vandalize university property? Or those anti-GM people who smash up fields?
What about those guys who show up to every single major protest, always hiding behind a cloth mask, who throw stones and set fires? Are they "peaceful"? Are they "representative" of the people as a whole? If the majority of us wanted to live in their anarchist-communist society, we would have such a society. The fact of the matter is that most of these protests do NOT represent the majority of the people. If they did, they'd have an easier time getting voted in.
Protests aren't always right. Protesters don't always want the right thing for you or me. And at the end of the day, at least in my country, Australia, they can voice their opinion. They have a vote, don't they? They can vote for the green party - it's right there on the ballot card. Anyone can, and about 10%-15% of the Australian population does vote for the Greens. The protesters represent those people. Note that they are not in the majority, as evidenced by the fact that they only gain about 10-15% of the vote.
If a protest group sits down in the middle of a busy highway, and refuses to budge (as happened in Canada about a year ago), should we just LET them? What about my job? What about my neighbors job? What about the ambulance that needs to get to a hospital? What about the economy? Or what about protesters that set fire to things or smash things up? Are the police to just stand idly by?
And what about protests you might find distasteful? Do white-supremacists also get to do whatever the heck they want? What about the west-boro baptist protesters who picket military funerals? Are you going to employ your same "tolerant attitude" for those evil groups?
Face it - the police are necessary in a civil society and protesters don't have the right to do whatever they want. The police make it very clear that protests are allowed, and good protest organizers lodge their plans with the police and a good time is had by all. The police shouldn't fire or hurt protesters who are protesting peacefully and lawfully, and a great many protesters are peaceful and lawful and I have no problem with them.
But some protesters aren't. Some protesters are just seething cauldrons of rage and anger and they just want to smash stuff up. And I'm glad the police are there to stop them.
What about the anarchist rioters in Greece? Went around burning up cars and smashing homes. I suppose you might say it's just angry youths venting their rage, but let's see you take such a sanguine perspective when it's YOUR home or YOUR car being bashed by angry youths.
What about those lunatic PETA protesters and animal-rights extremists who threaten laboratory personnel and vandalize university property? Or those anti-GM people who smash up fields?
What about those guys who show up to every single major protest, always hiding behind a cloth mask, who throw stones and set fires? Are they "peaceful"? Are they "representative" of the people as a whole? If the majority of us wanted to live in their anarchist-communist society, we would have such a society. The fact of the matter is that most of these protests do NOT represent the majority of the people. If they did, they'd have an easier time getting voted in.
Protests aren't always right. Protesters don't always want the right thing for you or me. And at the end of the day, at least in my country, Australia, they can voice their opinion. They have a vote, don't they? They can vote for the green party - it's right there on the ballot card. Anyone can, and about 10%-15% of the Australian population does vote for the Greens. The protesters represent those people. Note that they are not in the majority, as evidenced by the fact that they only gain about 10-15% of the vote.
If a protest group sits down in the middle of a busy highway, and refuses to budge (as happened in Canada about a year ago), should we just LET them? What about my job? What about my neighbors job? What about the ambulance that needs to get to a hospital? What about the economy? Or what about protesters that set fire to things or smash things up? Are the police to just stand idly by?
And what about protests you might find distasteful? Do white-supremacists also get to do whatever the heck they want? What about the west-boro baptist protesters who picket military funerals? Are you going to employ your same "tolerant attitude" for those evil groups?
Face it - the police are necessary in a civil society and protesters don't have the right to do whatever they want. The police make it very clear that protests are allowed, and good protest organizers lodge their plans with the police and a good time is had by all. The police shouldn't fire or hurt protesters who are protesting peacefully and lawfully, and a great many protesters are peaceful and lawful and I have no problem with them.
But some protesters aren't. Some protesters are just seething cauldrons of rage and anger and they just want to smash stuff up. And I'm glad the police are there to stop them.
If some left wing anarcho-communists/etc start rioting, and break the law about public gatherings and demonstrators, I'll gladly put them back in their place.
Pretty much this.Shjade said:
I always try to solve things calmly first, not because it's my personal favorite but because, objectively, it tends to have the best results for all parties involved... But if they try to fight... Let the bodies hit the floor.
are we talking about protests like the marches and peaceful protests we see today with tea party people doing sit ins and walks on federal property? then no, they have their legal right to do just that...
are we talking about protests turned riots where people are pulling innocents out of car and beating them to near death (LA Riots 1992) or Overturning cars and lighting them on fire (Boston red sox world series riot 2004) then yes, i would shoot. they are providing a dangerious atmosphere which needs to be dispersed.
are we talking about protests turned riots where people are pulling innocents out of car and beating them to near death (LA Riots 1992) or Overturning cars and lighting them on fire (Boston red sox world series riot 2004) then yes, i would shoot. they are providing a dangerious atmosphere which needs to be dispersed.