I'm too cool to Post
26th June 2000
The videos are little biased, but footage doesn't lie. And this is a preemptive response to those who say this is anti-American:
You are a fucking idiot. The point of freedom and having a democracy is to be able to protest about anything you wish. Not to be a flag-sucker who does nothing but support whomever is in office like a lemming and spew bile about how these protesters are "libtards" and "brainless hippies". End of story.
EDIT: Somebody add another "p" to oppressive please.
something to believe.
19th February 2005
I don't understand why they would have the Republican National Convention in a state as liberal as Minnesota.
I've also been a little astounded as to how the governor got elected; Minnesota has a pretty long history of being a little blip of Blue, you might say.
The Old Man
4th September 2004
Jeffro;4554261 protest about anything you wish.
Anything does not equal any way. A lot of these protesters are acting illegally by blocking traffic and doing other dickish things, in which case it is the police's responsibility to restore order.
I didn't make it!
If I had watched these videos, and not been an American, I'd have to say it looks like a “police state” similar to say china's or elsewhere. As an American, and understanding a little bit more about who's in the second video, it's startling to say the least.
I’ve researched I-witness a little bit elsewhere and these guys don’t seem to have done anything illegal in anyway. The very name suggests what they do. They witness and record protests. They don't actively participate in them to the degree that Seinfeldrules suggested. Blocking traffic or disturbing organized conventions, they’ve done neither. They video tape from a distance without interfering in any of the proceedings. The fact that their video tapping sessions were directly and solely responsible for the dropping of more then 400 false arrests from the 2004 protests shows that they're doing what they do very well. Which is probably why this year they were completely shutdown before they could even get going.
Voice of joy and sunshine
26th May 2003
Removing evidence from the scene of a crime is illegal IIRC. In that direction lie all manner of happy charges such as attempting to pervert the course of justice, obstructing a police officer, interfering with an investigation, and so on depending how the officer in question wants to cut the issue up.
I chose an eternity of this
6th January 2005
Particularly the second one is frightening: the way I understood it, they broke in through the attic of another address because they didn't have the right address on the search warrant. Either way, they are harassing critical journalists with no real justification.
Wanna go Double Dutch?
9th December 2003
The video titles seem rather biased.
The first and third video are a bit too short and lack information. By the looks of it some person got arrested for crossing a line (perimeter) that was sealed off. Now I don't know if such a perimeter also applies to active jouranlist but by the looks of it this women (a journalist or not?) crossed into this perimeter ingoring warnigns and thus was arrested. This sounds reasonablke enough even though we can debate about the need or sillyness of this perimeter in the first place.
The second video is more complete but it's a bit vague why the police surrounded the house and wants to search it. If they arrested those journalist for no reason at al (them not removing items from a "crime scene" or something) it would eb wrong to arrest them. The warrant thing seems to have been handled wrong though by police (the resisdents not being able to calmy read through the entire warrant) and the police then going in via the house next to it and using a door inside the house to gain entry to the house they where after.
As for the last video: As said it's a bit unclear and seems to lack information. I can not say whether this was a silly preemptive strike (blockade) against potential (illegal) protesting/protestors or if the people in that bus have been know to violate the law and thus as know law breaks at protesters not being allowed to protest i certain areas (much like hooligans can get a stadium ban and not be allowed near a stadium for some time and facing the possibily of arrest of they ignore the ban).
GF is my bext friend *hugs GF*
26th July 2004
oh i just might drop the hammer on this one, police being oppressive? did you see those jerkoffs all dressed in black with mask and bandannas covering there faces. breaking sht and rocking things at the cops. i would love to have been one of those riot cops for just a min so i could pummel one of them with a nightstick, also they started fighting back with the cops so there for they can use the force necessary to end the problem. and it seems everyone they arrest is usually in black the others they just tell or warn. if this was NYPD those peps would of got there faces smashed in and then thrown into the back of a cop car for being ugly.
Gettin' real tired of you ducking me, man...
29th December 2004
One important thing to keep in mind is where the videos come from. Much like the Rodney King video all those years ago in LA, video can be cut, spliced, and edited to make a specific point. In the case of Rodney King, the video that was replayed over and over on the news lasted 30-45 seconds, showing only the segment most damaging to the police officers. The full video showed King being belligerent, resisting officers who tried to effect his arrest, and cursing at and striking officers. See the difference?
In this case, there are multiple reports of protesters puncturing car tires, overturning public trash cans, obstructing traffic, and throwing objects and liquids at convention delegates.
Even so, spokesmen for the police have characterized the group that caused the disturbance as a 'splinter group' of the actual protesters. From CNN (Police fire chemical agents, projectiles at RNC protesters - CNN.com)
"The arrest of the "anarchists" came after almost 5,000 protesters marched peacefully outside the site of the convention. Walsh said they were part of a "splinter group" of the main body of protesters. He said he would not characterize their activity as a protest. I think they did a disservice to those that came here to protest," he said. Five police cars were among the property that was damaged, Walsh said"
As is usually the case, the few bad apples are giving all the protesters a bad name.
Revenge was here.
3rd August 2002
In my opinon when a person is breaking the law and refuses to obey the police, they are nearly 100% fair game for the officer to use whatever means needed to regain control.
I agree that the first video didn't show much but it didn't seem all that bad.
The second one, I don't understand why they(Police) even came to the house without the warrant.
The third one starts with the lady saying the 17 year old lost her House... excuse me but 17 year olds CAN'T own a house.
On the flip side to my first statement, I agree that Police can be bullies...If that's the case....DON'T RESIST OR FIGHT WITH THEM....they will win!! Take them to court later.
The comment earlier about being free to protest anything. That's true but only within the law...When you attack Police or cause other problems outside the law you no longer have the right.
It appears (my guess) that the Police had tips about Video 2 that they(protesters) were planning to be violent.