PDA

View Full Version : Police use rubber bullets on protestors



PhinPhan1227
04-07-2003, 05:00 PM
Sounds good to me. You have the right to protest and express your opinion, but you do NOT have the right to block lawful businesses. That amounts to theft, and the police were absolutely correct in the actions they took....in my opinion of course.





Rubber Bullets Used on War Protesters in Oakland
1 hour, 22 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Elinor Mills Abreu

OAKLAND, Calif. (Reuters) - Oakland police fired rubber bullets to disperse about 750 anti-war demonstrators on Monday in what was believed to be the first use of the projectiles against U.S. protesters since the American-led war on Iraq (news - web sites) began.


Several people suffered minor injuries and demonstrators complained that police overreacted because protesters had simply blocked access to a firm they claimed was profiting from the war in Iraq when police shot rubber bullets and wooden pellets into the crowd.


One man lifted up his shirt to show a welt about the size of a baseball, and several were hit as they were moving from the scene, as evidenced by large bruises on their backs.


"I have been to many protests over the years, and I have never seen police resort to shooting people because they didn't like where they were standing," said Scott Fleming, 29, a lawyer hit several times in the back.


"They had loaded guns and started charging."


An Oakland police spokeswoman said officers warned before firing. At least a dozen protesters were arrested.


"We gave our dispersal order, we gave them an order, we gave them ample time to disperse," said police spokeswoman Danielle Ashford. "When we give our dispersal order, that's pretty much it. (If) there are safety issues involved, that's when we step in."


The action is believed to be the first police use of anti-crowd munitions against U.S. demonstrators since President Bush (news - web sites) launched an invasion aimed at toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).


'NOT PROFESSIONAL'


The police action angered many in the crowd, which later dispersed, with some moving to a different part of Oakland.


"This was not professional, to say the least," said Joel Tena, a constituent liaison for Oakland's vice mayor. "I was afraid for the safety of the protesters and concerned that a nonviolent protest had turned violent at the hands of police."


Susan Quinlan was hit with pellets twice in the back. "I never heard any warning to disperse. They pursued us and shot us as we walked away," she said.


Leone Reinbold, a spokeswoman for Direct Action to Stop the War which organized the protest, said she saw a policeman run his motorcycle into one woman and another man get hit with a rubber bullet to the nose.


"We weren't there to confront the police. We set up a peaceful picket line," she said. "The worst injury was to the long, tried-and-true tradition in this country of picketing."


Jerry Drelling, a spokesman for American President Lines, the company that was the object of the protest, said it has some government contracts but declined to provide details. He said no one at the firm had been injured.


"The Oakland police department managed to keep the ingress and egress open so that worked out pretty well," he said. "We're trying to run a business and you want to keep the gates open."


At a separate demonstration, San Francisco police detained about 20 protesters blocking the Federal Building. Several people also briefly blocked one of the city's main highways.


Anti-war activists in the San Francisco area said they were resuming protest actions on Monday after a period of relative quiet in a city famous for its history of dissent. Police arrested more than 2,000 people in San Francisco in the first two days of the war.

Also on Monday, New York police arrested two or three dozen people who blocked the entrance to the Manhattan building of the Carlyle Group, a firm with a stake in the defense industry.

LeftCoastPhin
04-07-2003, 05:02 PM
Yea, it would be a real 'shame' if the cop accidentally put in real bullets. :lol: only joking here.......

PhinPhan1227
04-07-2003, 05:07 PM
Actually...the rubber bullets do a pretty good job. Check out the photo!!


http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030407/thumb.1049738719.war_iraq_us_protests_caps105.jpg

LeftCoastPhin
04-07-2003, 05:10 PM
OUCH! lmao That should do the trick!

PhinPhan1227
04-07-2003, 05:17 PM
"Kumbaya my Lord...KumbaOWOWOWOW...SONOFABITCH THAT HURT!!!!!!"

dolfan06
04-08-2003, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Sounds good to me. You have the right to protest and express your opinion, but you do NOT have the right to block lawful businesses. That amounts to theft, and the police were absolutely correct in the actions they took....in my opinion of course.

One man lifted up his shirt to show a welt about the size of a baseball, and several were hit as they were moving from the scene, as evidenced by large bruises on their backs.


man i've got bigger welts than that playing "paintball". "and bruises on their back", thats not where i'd put em!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

WharfRat
04-08-2003, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
"Kumbaya my Lord...KumbaOWOWOWOW...SONOFABITCH THAT HURT!!!!!!"

:eek: :spit: :lol:

dolfan06
04-08-2003, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Actually...the rubber bullets do a pretty good job. Check out the photo!!


http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030407/thumb.1049738719.war_iraq_us_protests_caps105.jpg excellent! wrong end though!http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

Pagan
04-08-2003, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
"Kumbaya my Lord...KumbaOWOWOWOW...SONOFABITCH THAT HURT!!!!!!"

ROTFLMAO!!!

Miafan
04-08-2003, 04:42 PM
I dont think shooting people with rubber bullets is in any form proffesional or correct. As long as it is not a riot, I wouldnt use that form of force. If they didnt want to move, just arrest people until they move. Police love to over react and use excess force when they get a chance.

PhinPhan1227
04-08-2003, 05:16 PM
So it's ok for those individuals to steal from companies by preventing their employees from entering the building? And it's ok for the police, who are always at a numerical disadvantage to the crowd, to risk their own safety to arrest individuals that are breaking the law? A few bruises is EXACTLY the LEAST of what they deserved.

LeftCoastPhin
04-08-2003, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
So it's ok for those individuals to steal from companies by preventing their employees from entering the building? And it's ok for the police, who are always at a numerical disadvantage to the crowd, to risk their own safety to arrest individuals that are breaking the law? A few bruises is EXACTLY the LEAST of what they deserved.


HERE HERE! I second that motion. Our society is to lenient in general.

Tell a 4 yr old to quit running in a restaurant and he keeps running, or you can catch him and smack him on the ass and he stops.

Barbarian
04-08-2003, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by Miafan
I dont think shooting people with rubber bullets is in any form proffesional or correct. As long as it is not a riot, I wouldnt use that form of force. If they didnt want to move, just arrest people until they move. Police love to over react and use excess force when they get a chance.

okay, this was local to me, I'll give ya the lowdown...

The poloice were called to remove theese people from private property.

When the police arrived, the people started throwing rocks and bottles at the officers, it was then that the police started to fire the rubber bullets at the mob.

Miafan
04-08-2003, 10:54 PM
When the police arrived, the people started throwing rocks and bottles at the officers, it was then that the police started to fire the rubber bullets at the mob.

Well you see, that changes everything. Once the police officers are put in danger like that, then yea, shoot rubber bullets, tear gas, whatever. But if people are just picketing around a building, I wouldnt just open fire.

Apparently tho, some of you on this board feel that no one has a right to protest and deserve to be punished physically for doing so because they "stand infront of a building". They have a right to protest under the law, and as long as they dont become violent in any way, violence shouldnt be used.

PhinPhan1227
04-09-2003, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by Miafan
Well you see, that changes everything. Once the police officers are put in danger like that, then yea, shoot rubber bullets, tear gas, whatever. But if people are just picketing around a building, I wouldnt just open fire.

Apparently tho, some of you on this board feel that no one has a right to protest and deserve to be punished physically for doing so because they "stand infront of a building". They have a right to protest under the law, and as long as they dont become violent in any way, violence shouldnt be used.


You are incorrect sir. They do NOT have the right to block access to a company. Not even close. Had they been protesting in a public area with a permit, they would have been TOTALY within their rights, and I would have been completely supportive of their right to engage in peaceful protest. They INSTEAD chose to attempt to keep people from going to work, and a company from doing business. Even before they started throwing things, they WERE comitting a crime. And I find it deplorable that some people think their right to protest supercedes someone elses right to make a living and take care of their family. I applaud the police for waiting until they came under fire before using force, but I'd have been completely supportive of them had they used force merely to get these people to stop their illegal activity.

Muck
04-09-2003, 10:25 AM
If it's something that I support, they have no right to protest. :)

PhinPhan1227
04-09-2003, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by Muck
If it's something that I support, they have no right to protest. :)


LOL....:cool:

Miafan
04-09-2003, 01:28 PM
So if I go ahead and stand infront of a McDonalds with a sign, I should be shot? Wow, I thought this type of tyranny was what we were trying to get rid of in Iraq.

PhinPhan1227
04-09-2003, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Miafan
So if I go ahead and stand infront of a McDonalds with a sign, I should be shot? Wow, I thought this type of tyranny was what we were trying to get rid of in Iraq.


If you and several of your friends decide to block the entrance of a McDonalds, and don't leave when asked to do so, I see no problem with the police using whtever means are needed to STOP YOU FROM COMITTING THAT CRIME!! "Freedom from tyranny" does NOT include the freedom to BREAK THE LAW!!! If I decide that I'm making a political statement, can I set fire to your car? These people made a CONCERTED effort to steal from this company and their employees. Crying about "tyranny" in this case is UTTER bullsh!t!

LeftCoastPhin
04-09-2003, 01:52 PM
Right on 1227! Miafan, are you a bleeding heart?

PhinPhan1227
04-09-2003, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by LeftCoastPhin
Right on 1227! Miafan, are you a bleeding heart?


I don't think he's a "bleeding heart", just very young.

Miafan
04-10-2003, 12:08 AM
There's a huge difference between standing infront of a building with a sign, and setting a car on fire. And you believe my opinion has anything to do with my age? I hope I'm not as violent and angry when I grow old. All you guys are on some sort of power trip with this war where you think you can use any kind of force to back up your opinions. I am not against this war in any way, but I dont let it go to my head, I still remember about the right to protest and to voice your opinions without being physically hurt. I agree, anyone who blocks private property should be punished, but the form of punishment is what I dont agree with. All the police need to do is arrest the stubborn morons, and the rest will disperse and follow the instructions of the police. Shooting people isnt the way to end a protest. Anyone remember how cops used water hoses against the African American protesters in the 60's? This shooting of rubber bullets into a crowd reminds me of the same thing.

dolfan06
04-10-2003, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by Miafan
There's a huge difference between standing infront of a building with a sign, and setting a car on fire. And you believe my opinion has anything to do with my age? I hope I'm not as violent and angry when I grow old. All you guys are on some sort of power trip with this war where you think you can use any kind of force to back up your opinions. I am not against this war in any way, but I dont let it go to my head, I still remember about the right to protest and to voice your opinions without being physically hurt. I agree, anyone who blocks private property should be punished, but the form of punishment is what I dont agree with. All the police need to do is arrest the stubborn morons, and the rest will disperse and follow the instructions of the police. Shooting people isnt the way to end a protest. Anyone remember how cops used water hoses against the African American protesters in the 60's? This shooting of rubber bullets into a crowd reminds me of the same thing. i've got an idea, why don't all the protesters go to dearborn, michigan. IF THEY HAVE ENOUGH GUTS!;)

PhinPhan1227
04-10-2003, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by Miafan
There's a huge difference between standing infront of a building with a sign, and setting a car on fire. And you believe my opinion has anything to do with my age? I hope I'm not as violent and angry when I grow old. All you guys are on some sort of power trip with this war where you think you can use any kind of force to back up your opinions. I am not against this war in any way, but I dont let it go to my head, I still remember about the right to protest and to voice your opinions without being physically hurt. I agree, anyone who blocks private property should be punished, but the form of punishment is what I dont agree with. All the police need to do is arrest the stubborn morons, and the rest will disperse and follow the instructions of the police. Shooting people isnt the way to end a protest. Anyone remember how cops used water hoses against the African American protesters in the 60's? This shooting of rubber bullets into a crowd reminds me of the same thing.

Incorrect my friend. There is NO material difference between a coordinated effort to keep a company and it's employees from doing business, and me setting your car on fire(not with you IN it of course!!:rolleyes: ). In both instances, it amounts to theft of property. In both instances, it costs YOU money. The big difference being, your car costs what, 15-30k? Keeping a multi-national corporation from doing any business for 4-5 hours can cost millions!! So in that sense, you're correct, there IS a big difference between what those people were doing and me setting your car on fire. What is NOT accurate, is your characterization of a person standing outside a McDonalds witha sign. AGAIN, if you want to protest, FEEL FREE!!! I served in the military in part to PROTECT your right to protest. I did NOT serve to protect your right to COMMIT A CRIME. The police ordered those people to disperse, and CEASE THEIR COMMITMENT OF THAT CRIME. They said no. The police did NOT use rubber bullets at that time, but I for one would have felt fine if they had. Tell me something, had they allowed the protestors to block access to the company all morning, or even longer, who was going to reimburse that company? What about THOSE rights? Those protestors couldn't even be FORCED to repay the company, their total assets wouldn't even begin to offset the costs. Lastly, "violent and angry"? Kid, I'm the most relaxed, mellow person you've ever met. If I ever took a qualude I'd probably slip into a coma. But in the brief time that I've lived on this planet, I HAVE learned right from wrong, and I've also come to learn that MY rights, don't supercede YOUR rights. "Angry and violent"? Ask yourself this question...."of the two of us, which one is defending the people who are payed to keep the peace, and which one of us is defending the people who organized and conspired to commit a crime, and put peoples lives in danger"?

Miafan
04-10-2003, 03:18 PM
#1 I'm not a protester, never have, and probally never will.

#2, I'm not defending the protesters cause I side with them. I'm just defending them because they are human beings, and have a right to protest without being shot at. I am for this war, and I do agree with you people when you say the protesters are a bunch of morons. But I dont let the fact that I dont agree with these people blind me from the fact that they have the right to not be harmed physically for voicing there opinions.

If you actually would have read my reply, you would have seen where I said that I didnt believe the protesters had a right to block a persons business. I said those people should have been arrested and let the law take care of them, how it should be legally done. As long as a group of protesters do not put anyone elses life in harm, then they are protected under the law. <--- This is a fact, whether or not you want to argue it.

PhinPhan1227
04-10-2003, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by Miafan
#1 I'm not a protester, never have, and probally never will.

#2, I'm not defending the protesters cause I side with them. I'm just defending them because they are human beings, and have a right to protest without being shot at. I am for this war, and I do agree with you people when you say the protesters are a bunch of morons. But I dont let the fact that I dont agree with these people blind me from the fact that they have the right to not be harmed physically for voicing there opinions.

If you actually would have read my reply, you would have seen where I said that I didnt believe the protesters had a right to block a persons business. I said those people should have been arrested and let the law take care of them, how it should be legally done. As long as a group of protesters do not put anyone elses life in harm, then they are protected under the law. <--- This is a fact, whether or not you want to argue it.

I did read your post, yes they are protected, and NOBODY said they should be seriously injured. But what the LAW says is that you CAN use force to stop a person from stealing from you, or damaging your property. If you're running from my house with my TV, I have the right to shoot you to prevent you from stealing my property. Check it out, I'm totaly within my rights to put a bullet in your ass, even though my LIFE is not in danger, only my property. What you suggest the police should do is drag people away from in front of the building(which is what they normally do). My question for you is, who is going to reimburse the company for the millions of dollars it may cost them while the cops are dragging a few hundred people off to jail, and they can't do business? Who covers that bill? The protestors don't pay it, the company pays it, and that means you and I pay it. What you may fail to realize is that there's a WORLD of difference between peaceful protestors(Who, with the exception of some actors, I have never called names. I respect them for expressing their beliefs and opinions), and criminals who try and disrupt companies. If a PETA person walks up and tries to throw paint on a person, that person IS WITHIN HIS RIGHTS TO USE FORCE TO STOP THAT PERSON. Use of force is not reserved for threat to an individual, it's also reserved for threat to property. Remember they shoot looters, and they use real bullets. What you may be missing here is that NOBODY gets shot with ANYTHING in the US for "expressing their opinion". If they get shot, it's because they're committing a crime.

Miafan
04-11-2003, 03:25 PM
What you may be missing here is that NOBODY gets shot with ANYTHING in the US for "expressing their opinion". If they get shot, it's because they're committing a crime.

No, what you are missing is that I do agree with this point. If someone is doing something illegal, then the police should use appropriate means under the law to take care of the problem. I'm not arguing that point, I'm arguing the point that some people on this board say "shoot the bastards cause they protest the war". And the funny thing is, after they say that, they say I dont agree with there point because "I'm young", which I have no clue what they mean by that.

PhinPhan1227
04-11-2003, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by Miafan
No, what you are missing is that I do agree with this point. If someone is doing something illegal, then the police should use appropriate means under the law to take care of the problem. I'm not arguing that point, I'm arguing the point that some people on this board say "shoot the bastards cause they protest the war". And the funny thing is, after they say that, they say I dont agree with there point because "I'm young", which I have no clue what they mean by that.


I don't think I've read anyone post that the police should shoot someone JUST for protesting. Maybe in jest, but I don't recall seeing anyone seriously propose using violence against anyone JUST because they oppose the war. All I was referring to were those people who have actively tried to disrupt companies/individuals, and who have broken the law in the process. If you agree that the police are justified in using whatever legal force is required, than we have no argument whatsoever between us. As for the "young" thing....people tend to be more idealistic in their younger years. Thus the old addage that anyone younger than 30 who isn't a Democrat has no soul, while anyone older than 30 who isn't a Republican has no brain. It's not really a knock on you, it's more just a comment on your idealism.