Conference back40::soapbox

    John...
    
    
    Clue me in, what is SCOTUS?
    
    Where did this happen...Are the TotenKopfe making a come back?
    
    Sin-te-da

SCOTUS = Supreme Court of the United States.

 Well, that oughta take care of them nasty pro-lifers, eh?

    Duh!
    
    Oy yeah...Can you say Dain Bramage?
    
    
    Sin-te-da

 >> Well, that oughta take care of them nasty pro-lifers, eh?
    
    And any other pesky protestors of any kind in the future,
    who have the audacity to disagree with whatever regime
    currently happens to be holding the reins.
    
    Repubs are spinning their wheels on this whole contract thing.
    Until they get the courts back into reality and accountable,
    they can pass all the laws they want and we can have all the
    elections we want and it won't matter, because the courts can
    handwave just about anything at all now.
    
    Chris

  What was the case and what did they say?

  George

    B.S.

re .-1  Yeah, I think "B.S." is a good description of this decision.

WASHINGTON (Tue, 21 Feb 95) - The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday allowed
the police to use painful mechanical devices to remove arrested,
uncooperative demonstrators.

Six people claimed the police used excessive force in arresting them
in San Diego in 1989.  Officers had warned the demonstrators to walk
away voluntarily or else the police would use the technique of squeezing
the wrists of the demonstrators with mechanical devices or other ``pain
compliance'' methods.

The police employed sticks of wood connected by a cord, which are used
to grip the wrists of demonstrators. The officers then tighten the cord
until the demonstrators finally got up and walked, or, in at least one
case, the demonstrator's wrist was broken.

Police department policy barred the officers from dragging or carrying
the demonstrators but permitted the use of the mechanical devices.

The justices let stand a ruling by a U.S. Court of Appeals in California
last year upholding the action by the police. The appeals court affirmed
a jury verdict that the police did not use excessive force.

The six demonstrators asked the high court to hear the case, but the
justices sided with the city of San Diego and denied the appeal without
any comment or dissent.

Civil disobedience and peaceful protest carries with it a certain amount
of accountability.

The police are within the law to remove unlawful protestors. If the
courts have decided that among the means they may employ are thumbscrews,
then the point to be taken is that one may have to endure that if one
chooses the path of civil disobedience.

Would the court ruling otherwise, thereby nullifying the ability of
the police to deal with civil disobedience, have been a preferable
outcome?

Be thankful the courts didn't give them carte blanche to beat them
senseless with billy clubs.

    
    
    So they can't carry them away, but they can use these mechanical
    devices.........makes sense to me.

    I think a dose of Iron Maiden with their particular brand of awful
    heavy metal would be enough to deter the most avid of protestor.
    
    A bit like when the American Army blasted out that er,South American
    dictator bloke with heavy metal music. 
    

Central American, Panamanian to be specific.  One of the songs they played
was "I fought the law and the law won."

    Hey, my ears are as strong as anybody elses...and I can sleep through
    alot of noise (except for those annoying Digital commercials!)
    Keep in my that if I have to listen to Iron Maiden, so does the poor
    doctor inside the clinic!!!  Makes no diff to me!
    
    -Jack

    
    can we use these methods on the striking baseball owners and players
    perhaps?
    
    Mark

 Z   Central American, Panamanian to be specific.  One of the songs they
 Z   played was "I fought the law and the law won."
    
    Good Del Shannon tune.  If I were Nooriega, I would have sent a
    messenger out to the general saying, "How got any Molly Hatchet?"  This
    really would have gotten the armie goat!!
    
    -Jack

    I would guess it was the Clash`s version.
    
    Which is ironic,as The Clash would no doubt quite approve of a left
    wing dictator.
    

 "I fought the Law" a Del Shannon tune?  I think not.  The Bobby Fuller Four
  had the big hit with it, and I believe it was Bobby Fuller that wrote it,
  though I may be mistaken.



 Jim

    Your right.  I have an album called WRKO now Goldens and it has alot of
    the songs from the 60s.  Runaway by Del Shannon is right after I fought
    the law and I get the two confused.
    
    -Jack

For torture, they could use the live version of "I Fought the Law"
by the Grateful Deal - perhaps even one where Jerry Garcia is singing 
off-key and forgeting some of the words.

Jim

    
    Just pick any random Grateful Dead tune. That's torture enough;
    bordering on cruelty.
    

    S.A.TUR.DAY..NIGHT....  Oh listen to the rythm of the rock and roll
    			    on Saturday night...Saturday night....
    
    Tie them down and make them listen to groupee music!

    Re .9:

    > . . . the point to be taken is that one may have to endure that if
    > one chooses the path of civil disobedience.

    Why is that asinine statement repeated so often?  What does it even
    mean?  It's presented as some sort of justification for the harms
    inflicted on protestors.  But does it justify those harms?
    
    Read literally, the statement is a truism about physics:  When one
    performs any act, one suffers the consequences that happen in the real
    world.  But civil disobedience isn't about physics.  It's about ethics
    and law.
    
    Is having one's bones broken the ethical consequence of sitting in a
    place the government disapproves of?  Maybe in some situations it would
    be, but it we know today it was not ethical for police to turn dogs on
    civil rights protestors in the 60s.  When we consider what is ethical
    and what is legal, we must examine the situation carefully.  It cannot
    be said that civil disobedience necessarily justifies punishment.
    
    Merely saying that people who choose civil disobedience must endure
    anything that comes their way is just plain stupid.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    The purpose of civil disobedience is to illustrate the fact that the
    opposing force lacks moral and/or ethical grounds for its position. 
    Civil disobedience should be carried out in the expectation of harmful
    consequences -- physcial consequences, legal consequences, whatever. 
    If the opposing force acts ethically and morally, then the tactic loses
    its punch, so to speak.

re: Eric

Yes - it's meant to be taken quite literally. The action
of civil disobedience presupposes the suffering of a
consequence. Anyone is free to argue until they are blue
in the face as to the ethics or morality of the treatment
or punishment, however that doesn't change the fact that
those treatments or punishments will be meted out. One can
argue that the courts were wrong in their decision. One can
argue that the treatment or punishment is inhumane. But those
arguments need to be conducted where they belong - in the
courts or the political arena. The fact of the matter is
that if one chooses to follow a path of civil disobedience
and knows up front that they can have their wrists broken,
then they better damn well be ready for a borken wrist until
the courts change their minds.

I'm reminded of the line in a movie with Jeff and Beau Bridges.
One brother is hassling the other. The second admonishes the
first to cease, or he will slug him in the face. The first
persists, gets slugged, and says, "What'd you haveta go and
do that for?" The reply is, "But I just TOLD you I was going
to hit you."

It's just as clear here. If people know ahead of time that
they can be thumbscrewed for picketing the PP Clinic or the
nuke facility, and they picket anyway, and they are told by
the police to leave because they are violating the law, and
they remain and are thumbscrewed, they have no one to blame
but themselves. They were told they were going to be hit.

	.24  

	Most of that sounds true, but I thought edp was asking whether
	the consequences were justified.  IMO, he's right - they can't
	be assumed to be, just because they've been declared as
	consequences.

Another analogy might work better -

You pick up the paper one morning and read that the court ruled
that it's hunkey-dorey for the local cops to use rubber bullets
against pickets and peaceful protestors that are outside of the
law and refuse to quit the premises. So you pause, and say to
yourself, "Is it _really_ worth it to me to take that risk at
the nuke facility today? They could shoot my eye out."

Then, you make a decision based on that available data and follow
your conscience accordingly.

The next day, you open the paper and read that the courts were
in session again and came back with "Oh-ho! Just kidding! Nothing
more stringent than wet noodles allowed". Again, you make your
decision.

Now, I'll wager that the comrades you may have found at the nuke
facility the first day vs. the second, are significantly different.

And that's part of the rationale for determining what's Hunkey-dorey
and what's not, though it may not be stated in so many words.

    
        I dunno.  Guy chains himself to a tree, say.  But the majority
      said it's OK for the owner to cut it.  In a majoritarian democracy,
      the owner can cut it.  Can he saw the guy in half along with it ?
    
        One part of me says yes.  I remember getting stuck in the Callahan
      Tunnel by some folks who held up traffic, in favor of a cause I
      happened to support.  They really messed up my life and cost me
      big bucks, so much so I took great pleasure when the cops came and
      beat them up.  "If I'm gonna miss the last plane today with no hotel
      room, then they can get their heads split."
    
        The best argument against it, howsomever, is tactical - aren't you
      guys afraid of creating martyrs ?  I would think the less sadistic
      the treatment, the less the protesters get in the papers, etc ?
    
        bb

re:    <<< Note 314.25 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum" >>>


I didn't make any determination as to whether or not the punishment
was justifiable in .9 or elsewhere. I simply pointed out that if
one wants to whine about the risk of being thumbscrewed, one still
has to decide whether it's a risk they want to take. And, if they
choose to take it, they know full well ahead of time what can happen.

The sense I got from the basenote was "Look what they propose to do!
This will make it difficult to get people to protest." And I say, so
be it. And, if one gets their wrists broken, I don't want to hear
the sob story.

It would be a whole different kettle of fish if the cops used means
which had specifically been disallowed, but that's not the case.

None of this has anything to do with a "side" on a protest issue or
the ethics of the punishment (which I specifically haven't spoken
of). It has to do with strengths of convictions.

>>You pick up the paper one morning and read that the court ruled
>>that it's hunkey-dorey for the local cops to use rubber bullets
>>against pickets and peaceful protestors that are outside of the
>>law and refuse to quit the premises. So you pause, and say to
>>yourself, "Is it _really_ worth it to me to take that risk at
>>the nuke facility today? They could shoot my eye out."

	But first, I might pause and ask myself, "Are rubber bullets
	really justified against peaceful protestors?"  And I would
	probably answer (because I don't like to keep myself
	wondering) - "No.".  Isn't that more what the issue is, or am
	I missing the point? 

	.28  sorry, Jack - I hadn't seen that.

I'm not sure what "the point" was, as the basenote author
is frequently a puzzlement. As I mentioned in .-2, I thought
"the point" was "See what they've done! Whatever will we do
now?". And thus my response. What will you do? Depends upon
how much you value your thumbs, I guess. If you seek support
to find clemency for "victims" of this, you'll find none in
this quarter. You need to be responsible for the strength
of your own convictions.

    Re: .29
    
    The greatest progress made in the area of civil disobedience was with
    Gandhi in India, where numerous peaceful protestors were killed.  Was
    killing them justified?  No.  But then, that's what the protests were
    about, more or less.  Injuring peaceful protestors discourages protest
    -- and that's all the more reason to have protests.

    Hey, if the FBI can shoot Mrs. Weaver in the forehead, and their
    boy in the back...
    
    is it any wonder that the fuzz can now beat the Shyte outta someone
    and not have to worry about the sC?
                                            
    I just hope a JURY would have the bal, audacity to put an end to
    this sort of crap, but I don't know these days... hey... oprahs on....
    
    MadMike
    

	.32  yes, that's an interesting example.  good point.
	     i realize that it's _effective_ to exact those
	     types of measures against protestors, but i have to
	     agree with edp that the ethical/moral basis for protest
	     changes the equation in terms of what the consequences
	     _should_ be.  should the strength of one's convictions
	     be tested in such a non-ethical manner?  i don't think
	     so.

>	     _should_ be.  should the strength of one's convictions
>	     be tested in such a non-ethical manner?  i don't think
>	     so.

I think that's a decision that everyone has to make for themselves
when the circumstances arise. Assuming one could pass a universal
law which said that "the worst thing that could happen to a civil
disobedient under any circumstances was xxx", all you'd accomplish
is immediately winnowing out the future civil disobedients, i.e.
those for whom xxx was no big deal.

>>Assuming one could pass a universal
>>law which said that "the worst thing that could happen to a civil
>>disobedient under any circumstances was xxx", all you'd accomplish
>>is immediately winnowing out the future civil disobedients, i.e.
>>those for whom xxx was no big deal.

	on the other hand, you might get to see just how many
	people thought that a law needed changing (or whatever).

Do I understand correctly that the Police have been forbidden to drag/carry
away the protesters?

Bob

    Re: .34
    
    >should the strength of one's convictions be tested in such a 
    >non-ethical manner?
    
    Should, shmould.  If we didn't have any unethical behavior, we wouldn't
    have much grounds for protest.  The only reason to protest is because
    the other guys aren't doing what they should.  All you're saying is
    that the other guys aren't doing what they should some more.  If they
    were motivated by should and shouldn't, they wouldn't be doing whatever
    it is that lead to the protest, after all....

re:    <<< Note 314.37 by ROWLET::AINSLEY "Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow!" >>>


My understanding from previous replies was that some district affected by
this ruling has a department policy not to carry or drag. No doubt this is
based on litigation they've been involved in in a negative way with respect
to this practice.

Testing the strength of anyone's convictions isn't the purpose of
imposing a deterrent. The purpose is to get them not to perform the
activities which they fully intend to perform even though they be
outside of the law. The only place that the strength of convictions
really comes into play is with respect to the individual making a
conscious choice as to their next moves. From this standpoint, it
doesn't appear to me that it makes much sense to talk about the
gravity of an action being justified relative to the strength of
conviction of the perp. The situation as I see it is one of -

	Individual: I would like to protest this situation by
		picketing.
	Society/Law: You may not. That is illegal by current law.
		And should you do so you will be pilloried.
	Individual: I'm going to do it anyway.
	Police: Cease and desist.
	Individual: No. I will not.
	Police: Then I will pillory you as prescribed by law.

At this point, it's up to the individual, based on their convictions.

As far as the masses determining that a law needs to be changed, I'm
unsure which law we mean. If we agree that the law being protested is
NOT the one in question, but rather the court decision that thumbscrews
are the cat's PJ's, is, then, how do the masses enter into it?

Society has apparently determined that peaceful protestors ordered
to quit the premises and failing to do so are outside of the law.
The goal is to get them to quit the premises and so to cease being
in violation of the law. Some methods have been tried and have failed
(e.g. asking them to leave, telling them to leave, trying to push them
away, showing them a presentation of "Ishtar", playing bad music,
who knows what else.) It is now the responsibility of society, in the
person of law enforcement, to take stronger measures. (Unless we want
to assume that society should just throw up their hands and walk away
leaving the protestors to their own devices, regardless of what the law
says and whether or not it should do its duty.) So, what's the next step
for the police? "Everything in their power up to but not including ---?"
What? In this case, it's thumbscrews et al. As I mentioned in .9, it
could just as well have been beating them senseless with billy clubs.

I don't understand how you put a "limit" on this type of thing. You
(as society in the person of the police) do as much as you need to,
and are allowed to by law, but not necessarily any more, in order to
enforce the law. We could define some other limit, I suppose, but when
and if that isn't effective, what's next. Adjust the limit upwards, I'd
suppose. I assume the Thumbscrews Rule was just such an adjustment.

    I'm amazed at how many people, just jump in and assume the side of the
    folks doing the protest is just, and that the police were in the wrong.
    The way i've always seen it, is that when they were asked to leave ,if
    they had just left there wouldn't have been a problem, but they chose
    to stay and break the law, and what ever happens is their responsibilty
    not the poor police officer trying to keep the peace and do what we pay
    him to do.

    Re .24:
    
    > . . . they have no one to blame but themselves.
    
    As I wrote, it is wrong, even stupid, to use the physical consequences
    as justification:  the BLAME belongs to the wrong-doers -- in this
    case, the police.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>>        <<< Note 314.41 by CSLALL::WHITE_G "you don't know. do you?" >>>
>>    I'm amazed at how many people, just jump in and assume the side of the
>>    folks doing the protest is just, and that the police were in the wrong.

	Which people?  Do you mean in this NOTES discussion or in general?
	If you mean in this discussion, I haven't seen people making
	assumptions about the justness of this particular protest.
	I certainly am not.  I'm saying that imposing this sort of a 
	consequence is not necessarily just.  Hauling people's butts off
	to jail is fine, but breaking their wrists?  Sorry - can't see it.
  

    
    
    What Lady Di said.

    I agree that breaking someone's wrist is definitely stepping over the
    line, but using painful stimulis to motivate an uncooperative criminal,
    i'm all for it. The people i was refering to are the people in the box,
    and most people in general. It seems to me that since the Rodney King
    incident people are just quicker to side against the Law enforcement
    community.
                                                      Gary

	So, Gary, you are in agreement that there are just and unjust
	punishments for civil disobedience, if I read you correctly.
	That's what I'm saying too.  I don't agree that it's okay for
	members of the legal system to say, "If you sit here in peaceful
	protest, we'll cut your head off - that's the law.", and that
	it then becomes the protestor's quandary as to how strongly he
	supports his cause, with the prospect of losing his head looming
	large on the horizon.  IMO, civil disobedience should not be
	discouraged in that fashion.  (should not, shmould not)

    Lady Di, while i agreed that breaking someone's wrist is excessive, i
    also know that accidents do happen. The officer in his zeal to do the
    best job he can and the protestor struggling to break free, to resume his
    illeagal activity could have caused the injury. There are, and should be
    appropriate punishments for any crime, society through the legaslature
    determines what is acceptable. 
    
    
    

    
    I used to work in a form of law enforcement (Special Police Officer). 
    A lot of the cops I dealt with enjoyed inflicting pain on "the bad
    guys".  They looked for an excuse to get rough and then many of them
    had a big laugh about it afterwards.  I didn't last long in that job, 
    wasn't my idea of fun and resigned after a few months.
    
    Mike

    I'm amazed at how many people just jump in on the side of law
    enforcement, not knowing the situation or the people involved.

    "If X is illegal, then anything the cops do to prevent X is ok with me"
    is a very short-sighted perspective.

    What if some misguided lawmaker makes reading the bible illegal,
    punishable by death?  Are you pro-law-enforcement types prepared
    to say, "Oh, well, guess if someone reads the bible, then they should
    be prepared to be executed?"

    And no crap about how I must have had a bad experience, please; I'm
    related to a police officer.

    \john

	>>There are, and should be
        >>appropriate punishments for any crime, society through the
	>>legaslature determines what is acceptable. 

	I'm not sure how much of a role "society" had in determining
	if wrist clamps were acceptable, but nevertheless what you're
	saying is basically true - there should be _appropriate_
	punishments.  No doubt about it.   The punishment we're talking
	about here is not appropriate, in my opinion.  

        
    
    

    Personally, I like the little thumb cuffs and anything leather.:')

    /John, Though i believe strongly in the U.S system of justice i do
    realize that it is far from perfect. I know we have the power of the
    Vote to get rid of Lawmakers that make laws that are against what
    society wishes, and in the state of Massachusetts we have the ability
    to get laws we disagree with put on the next ballot to be voted on by
    the voting public, but i do strongly feel that a criminal should be
    aware of the consequences of his actions, that crimes against soceity
    will not be tolerated.

>    As I wrote, it is wrong, even stupid, to use the physical consequences
>    as justification:  the BLAME belongs to the wrong-doers -- in this
>    case, the police.

"In this case", since I don't even know the circumstances of the protest,
I find it hard to say whether or not the police were "the wrong-doers".
What if the protestors whose wrists were damaged were some whacko splinter
group barring free access to a daycare center?

Who attempted to "justify" anything, Eric? Not I. I stated that if one knows
that they run the risk of getting their wrists busted for failing to quit the
premises when ordered to do so, and they proceed to fail to quit the premises,
then they will get their wrists busted, and know full well ahead of time that
they had a choice available to them whereby they could have prevented the
injury. They chose not to pursue that path. They are therefore "to blame".
Perhaps other words work better. They are therefore "responsible for their
resultant condition". Fer crissakes, who is in a better position to prevent
them from coming to harm than they themselves? The police already provided
them with fair warning.

That doesn't say anything about the justifiability of the action on the
part of the police or the courts who allow it.

What the hell is society supposed to do? Throw up their hands and surrender
as I mentioned in a previous reply? We're talking about a case where the
police department is forbidden by policy to drag people away. Now, whether
or not that proscription is proper, and/or whether or not wrist busting is
proper, all of these are very interesting discussions, but the fact of the
matter is that the proscription exists and the restraint is allowed by law,
until such time as that changes. None of that justifies the practice, but
it very clearly puts the responsibility for self protection of the individual
on the individual. The police should do what instead?

Police officer: OK. We asked you to leave. And we told you to leave. And
	we tried to push you away. And we read bad poetry to you. And we
	sprayed the whole area with hydrogen sulfide. And we told you we'd
	use the wrist busters next. And still you haven't moved. So, now,
	we were just kidding about the wrist busters. We're going to start
	all over and ask you to leave again. If you're still here after that,
	we'll TELL you to leave again. And then, . . . 

I'm open for suggestions as to what the alternatives are as long as the
department policy continues to prohibit dragging them away. Tear gas?
Rubber bullets? What? The police need to be left with _SOME_ means of
removing them, or else you may as well not have the laws saying that
they are outside of the law to remain there.

Does anyone know why the police wouldn't drag/carry the protestors away?

Someone mentioned that the police department had a policy against doing so.
Did someone successfully sue the department for doing so?  Has anyone
successfully sued another department for doing so?

I'm trying to understand why the police felt they had to resort to wrist
clamps.

Bob

I don't know anything more about the background on this than what I read
in .8, Bob.

Re: \John

>    I'm amazed at how many people just jump in on the side of law
>    enforcement, not knowing the situation or the people involved.
>    "If X is illegal, then anything the cops do to prevent X is ok with me"

The position I'm taking on this isn't necessarily on the "side" of
law enforcement in the above context. Certainly it's not right for the
cops to do _anything_ to prevent X. But in this case, apparently since
the cops cannot by policy physically drag protestors away, they have been
granted another "tool" by the courts as an alternative. I don't necessarily
_like_ the tool, or think it's _proper_ or _commensurate_with_the_offense_,
but I DO believe that if you expect the police to enforce a law which you
feel is appropriate, that you need to provide the police the latitude
by which to accomplish that enforcement. That's what the court did, and
it's within that framework that the police are functioning. If you don't
provide that latitude, then what's the point of having the law?

    
    
    	If the protesters are violent, use wrist clamps, mace, OC spray,
    clubs, whatever.
    
    	If the protesters are non-violent then pick them up and move them.
    
    
    my $.02...

    The policy could just be the City Of San Diego's way of cutting down on
    Police Dept. Worker's Comp. cases, not allowing officer's to lift over
    X amount of weight.

re: .52 (White_G)

    Well, it's also the case that at one time, we used to KNOW what
    was legal and what was illegal.  Common sense could be your guide,    
    and you really never had to fear that you were crossing the line.

    Now, if you clear brush from your own land you could be breaking
    the law.  If you don't have some particular piece of paper in
    your glovecompartment you could be breaking the law.  Etc.

    It is NOT the case that "legal" means "good" or "right" or even
    "reasonable."  Let's not use that to make judgements.
    
    \john

    Re .53:
    
    > Who attempted to "justify" anything, Eric?
    
    You did.  "Blame" is a judgement, not a physical consequence.
    
    > The police already provided them with fair warning.
    
    No, the police provided them with unfair warning.
    
    > What the hell is society supposed to do?
    
    Rule against using bone-breaking force in handling "crimes" that do not
    involve bone-breaking force or similar damage.
    
    > The police should do what instead?

    The police should refuse to commit unethical actions, even if the law
    requires otherwise.  It was wrong for Nazis to kill innocents, even if
    their law required otherwise, and it is wrong for US police to use
    excessive force, even if their law requires otherwise.
    
    > Police officer: OK. We asked you to leave. And we told you to leave.
    > And we tried to push you away. And we read bad poetry to you. And we	
    > sprayed the whole area with hydrogen sulfide. And we told you we'd use
    > the wrist busters next. And still you haven't moved. So, now, we were
    > just kidding about the wrist busters. We're going to start all over and
    > ask you to leave again. If you're still here after that, we'll TELL you
    > to leave again. And then, . . . 
    
    Oh my gosh, what an ATROCIOUS situation!  Imagine that, a street full
    of people SITTING there!  How can society possibly survive such an
    imminent threat to law and order.  Why, if we just allow people to SIT
    in public, there's no telling what will be next -- certainly it will be
    followed by at least murder and heinous crimes.  If you let it go on
    long enough, there's a real danager that wanton FREEDOM might break
    out.                                                  
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    SO, These protestors who are infringing on someone's right to run a
    business or to live a peaceful existence should just be left to sit
    there and thumb their noses at, what the rest of soceity feels is
    acceptable behavior. Does this sound sane to anyone?
    
                                                    Gary
    

    
    Not to me.  "Just sitting there", at certain times and places, could
    be as sinister and viscious an act as any other.  Depends on context.
    
      bb

>    You did.  "Blame" is a judgement, not a physical consequence.
 
Poor choice of words on my part, then. I've also used some other less
judgemental terms to get the same idea across.
   
>    No, the police provided them with unfair warning.

How so? "Leave the premises or I'll have to use force to coerce you to
leave." Sounds like a fair warning to me. That's all it would take to get
my butt out of there, assuming I was there to begin with, unless I didn't
care what they did to me, based on the strength of my convictions. Why is
it "unfair"?
    
>    Rule against using bone-breaking force in handling "crimes" that do not
>    involve bone-breaking force or similar damage.

I have no problem with that. But the matter being discussed here is that
society, in the form of the Supreme Court, has ruled otherwise. Until
that rule changes, that's the law of the land.
    
>    The police should refuse to commit unethical actions, even if the law
>    requires otherwise.  It was wrong for Nazis to kill innocents, even if
>    their law required otherwise, and it is wrong for US police to use
>    excessive force, even if their law requires otherwise.

And the police are free to not use the force allowed to them if they either
have other means available or simply choose not to use that force. No one
is contending that point. However, if the police believe they are RIGHT in
upholding the law to remove the protestors, and have no personal objections
to applying force, then I can't really expect them to hold back because
someone else thinks it's inappropriate. The police are also free to be
personally injured if they fail to use force in a violent situation. The
poilice are also free to lose their jobs if they don't perform them to
the expectations of their fellows and their superiors.
    

>    Oh my gosh, what an ATROCIOUS situation!  Imagine that, a street full
>    of people SITTING there!  How can society possibly survive such an
>    imminent threat to law and order.  Why, if we just allow people to SIT
>    in public, there's no telling what will be next -- certainly it will be
>    followed by at least murder and heinous crimes.  If you let it go on
>    long enough, there's a real danager that wanton FREEDOM might break
>    out.                                                  

Then do away with the laws which prohibit protestors from illegal assembly.
As it currently stands, society feels that law should stand. If it stands,
leaving the protestors to sit there makes a mockery of society. You either
enforce the laws you have, or eliminate or change them. Ignoring them
invites trouble in the form of litigious situations based on inconsistent
enforcement, as witness Bodybags current state of affairs (inconsistent
enforcement).

    I've concluded, after reading this entire chain, that abortion
    protesting is becoming more and more like marriage.
    
    -b

    Re: .41
    
    >assume the side of the folks doing the protest is just, and that the 
    >police were in the wrong.
    
    Actually, the justice of the protestor's cause is irrelevant.  Their
    conduct is.  This falls into the area of "escalation of force."  If the
    protestors were not offering any violence to anyone else, then anyone
    who does violence to them is therefore the aggressor.
    
    Actually, in this case, the broken bone seems to have been an accident. 
    The police did not use the wrist clamps with the intent of breaking
    bones, which would be a far worse thing.

    The escalation of force as i recall is that Police officer are to use
    the minimum amount of force nessasary to affect the arrest. Due to San
    Diego's policy, the officers were using the next level of force open to
    them. The first being voice commands and intimidation, which
    failed,leaving them no alternative but to go to the next level. 
    
                                                          Gary

    Re .66:
    
    > . . . leaving them no alternative but to go to the next level. 

    As human beings, they had the alternative of refusing to obey unethical
    orders.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    As human beings they may not see it as being unethical. The protestors
    could have at any time just got up and left, but they opted to ignore
    the law and forced the issue. The police officers , in my opinion had
    no choice but to remove them in accordance with their department
    policies and procedures. 
    
                                                     Gary
    
    
    

    Re .68:
    
    > The protestors could have at any time just got up and left, but they
    > opted to ignore the law and forced the issue.
    
    The police could have any time just got up and left, but they opted to
    ignore ethics and break bones.
    
    The protestors chose to sit.  The police chose to harm.  And we're
    supposed to believe the police aren't at fault?  It was the police who
    committed the violent acts, the police who battered, the police who did
    the action that broke bones.  "Law" doesn't excuse that.
    
    > The police officers , in my opinion had no choice but to remove them
    > in accordance with their department policies and procedures.
    
    The same way the Nazis had no choice but to kill millions of people.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

So, what you are saying, Eric, is that we SHOULDN'T have laws which
prohibit picketting and protest, and that free access and private property
rights SHOULD be abolished.

    So, what the bottom line of your argument is that if a criminal breaks
    the law, which by the way is unethical,but he doesn't commit it in a
    violent fashion, all a police officer should be able to do is ask him
    to come with him to jail and not use any force to take the offender
    into custody. 

    Re: .69
    
    >they opted to ignore ethics and break bones.
    
    The information provided here describes a single broken wrist (which
    might qualify as multiple broken bones, depending on the injury).  It
    does not give any indication that the device was used with the intent
    of breaking bones.  If there was no intent, then the officers obviously
    did not choose to break bones.
    
    Your point would be better made without the hyperbole.

  If this is true then it seems to me that the police here clearly used
excessive force and in doing so violated the spirit of nearly half the
amendments in the Bill of Rights. 

  Using this type of force seems like unreasonable seizure (4th), punishment
without due process (5th and 14th) or a trial (6th) and cruel and unusual
punishment (8th). 

  If the protesters were shooting back endangering the lives of law enforcement
officials and by standers then lethal force may have been called for but that
didn't seem to be the case. 

  Again, if this is true it sets a really bad precedent.

  George

re: .73

Wrong topic, George?

Bob

  What makes you say it's the wrong topic?

  George

    
    OK, allegedly wrong topic.
    
    Do mods get to use wristclamps ?  I'm warming to this idea ?
    
      bb

re .76:

Into B&D, eh?

    Re .70:
    
    > So, what you are saying, Eric, is that we SHOULDN'T have laws which
    > prohibit picketting and protest, . . .
    
    Not only shouldn't we have laws that prohibit picketing and protest, we
    do have laws that forbid the government from making such laws.
    
    > . . . and that free access and private property rights SHOULD be
    > abolished.
    
    I didn't say that.  But when a person is making a nonviolent protest
    that is illegal because it trespasses or commits some other unethical
    act, the police should respond commensurately.  E.g., carry them away.
    Take their property in compensation for damage caused.  But don't break
    their bones.  If the police department made a police not to arrest
    pickpockets, would you support shooting to kill them on sight instead? 
    If not, why would you support breaking bones of nonviolent protestors
    when the police department made a police not to carry them away?  That
    policy is the police department's fault, not the protestors'.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .71:
    
    > So, what the bottom line of your argument is that if a criminal breaks
    > the law, which by the way is unethical,but he doesn't commit it in a
    > violent fashion, all a police officer should be able to do is ask him
    > to come with him to jail and not use any force to take the offender
    > into custody. 

    Is the only way you can win an argument by making up lies about the
    other side?  That's what you've done.  Argue YOUR bottom line, not
    mine.  If you have questions about my side, ask, but don't make up
    falsehoods.
    
    I didn't say the police shouldn't use any force.  I said the force they
    used seems inappropriate.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    I was only trying to get a handle on where you were coming from, you
    stated that the protestors weren't violent so the police were the
    aggressors which i take to mean that if a criminal doesn't offer any
    violence, then if the police do their force is excessive. If i
    misunderstood your meaning then i apologize, but i don't see these
    wrist restraints any worse than handcuffs, which have also been known
    to break wrists if the handcuffed party tries to struggle.

	"wrist restraints"?  did you read .0?

    
    The item described in note .8 sounds alot like nunkuks(sorry about
    spelling) and if those officers are trained in the proper use to limit
    physical damage and used to persaude an uncooperative crimanal to act
    in a desirable fashion and to refrain from further breaking the law
    then i haven't any problem with the use of the item. I honestly do not
    believe the officers went in to break this protest up planning on
    breaking anyone's wrist.