Ray Dillinger wrote: On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
the protection afforded by Black Blocs is quite thin (just indict them under organized crime or gang laws),
The similar clothing is enough to charge with gang membership and invoke RICO. Also, the 'black bloc' tactic has 'premeditated' written all over it. I'd say these kids haven't provided more protection for themselves; on the contrary, they've raised the stakes. The cops will have to arrest *more* people in order to deal with the bloc, but the people arrested when it happens are going to be charged with more serious crimes, like racketeering, conspiracy, and membership in a corrupt organization, than if they'd stuck with the simpler tactics. And most of what they might otherwise have claimed as defenses are going to crumble under that 'premeditation' thing.
That's irrelevant -- the fedz, and even state courts, are already giving the heaviest sentences to protesters of anytime in our history. And you obviousely have never taken part in any street actions. They've got a good idea -- one of the tactics used by cops for quite awhile is to have undercover agents in the crowd who spot the *real* troublemakers, leaders, etc. and then often an "affinity squad" will target that individual. By making it very difficult to differentiate any individuals, that whole cop tactic becomes useless. The other part of the bloc is that by staying together in a tight group, they can grab arrestees from the cops more easily. We used to have groups of two or three who worked together this way, more is better.
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, A. Melon wrote:
They've got a good idea -- one of the tactics used by cops for quite awhile is to have undercover agents in the crowd who spot the *real* troublemakers, leaders, etc. and then often an "affinity squad" will target that individual. By making it very difficult to differentiate any individuals, that whole cop tactic becomes useless.
So there will be joint prosecutions, with each of the Bloc-ers receiving indictments for *all* of the "operations" performed. I also think such aggressive demonstrations will make the police even more trigger-happy than they are now.
The other part of the bloc is that by staying together in a tight group, they can grab arrestees from the cops more easily. We used to have groups of two or three who worked together this way, more is better.
The only logical conclusion I can see to skirmishes between black-clad anarchists, going on "street operations", and governmental riot control forces, is that the police are eventually given the right to just gun the protestors down, irregardless of whether they have *done* anything. Unless the Bloc actually has enough muscle to overthrow something before then, which I highly doubt, their raising the stakes seems fairly unwise. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:decoy@iki.fi, gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, A. Melon wrote:
They've got a good idea -- one of the tactics used by cops for quite awhile is to have undercover agents in the crowd who spot the *real* troublemakers, leaders, etc. and then often an "affinity squad" will target that individual. By making it very difficult to differentiate any individuals, that whole cop tactic becomes useless.
So there will be joint prosecutions, with each of the Bloc-ers receiving indictments for *all* of the "operations" performed. I also think such aggressive demonstrations will make the police even more trigger-happy than they are now.
They have probably discussed this, and are willing to deal with it. After all, given the state of the American Press, this would be P.R. Suicide for the Police.
The other part of the bloc is that by staying together in a tight group, they can grab arrestees from the cops more easily. We used to have groups of two or three who worked together this way, more is better.
The only logical conclusion I can see to skirmishes between black-clad anarchists, going on "street operations", and governmental riot control forces, is that the police are eventually given the right to just gun the protestors down, irregardless of whether they have *done* anything. Unless
Maybe in Finland, but here in the US, the government official that gave the orders to shoot a crowd of protestors would *not* be working much longer. -- http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense.
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, petro wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, A. Melon wrote:
After all, given the state of the American Press, this would be P.R. Suicide for the Police.
It would, unless enough fear of these people can be spread among the general population. If you can make the people scared enough of X (whether X is anarchists or anybody else), the people won't protest when you start killing X. The US government, and various police forces, have used this principle extensively in the last decade or so; whenever they want license to kill X, they first demonize X in the press hoping to get lots of people scared of X. The problem with this approach is that when a lot of people, or people whom the scared people know, have gotten killed, people start to get scared of X where X is the police and their bosses.... Bear
After all, given the state of the American Press, this would be P.R. Suicide for the Police.
It would, unless enough fear of these people can be spread among the general population. If you can make the people scared enough of
Naw, it still wouldn't matter. Who lost their job over the Waco massacre? Who was even repremanded? Took a while, but eventually the gov managed to gloss it all over. No problem. Well, maybe something of a problem, but nothing time wouldn't cure, and no one had to resign, or even get in hot water. The distant echos of Ruby Ridge still reverberate, but in the end, nothing is comming of that either.
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, petro wrote:
The only logical conclusion I can see to skirmishes between black-clad anarchists, going on "street operations", and governmental riot control forces, is that the police are eventually given the right to just gun the protestors down, irregardless of whether they have *done* anything. Unless
Maybe in Finland, but here in the US, the government official that gave the orders to shoot a crowd of protestors would *not* be working much longer.
(Actually the police here have far more stringent requirements for even drawing a gun than they do over there in the States. But that's not really the issue.) The issue is escalation, and we know entirely well that there's been a lot of that in the last twenty or thirty years. We already have riot control measures (such as promiscuous use of OC dispensers, barricading entire city centres, and watercannons) which couldn't have been applied a few decades ago. It also seems that some of those measures are now beginning to be applied to peaceful protestors, a worrysome and relatively new development probably motivated by tough-on-crime attitudes. The police are already given broad discretion in their use of force. (For instance, to stop a fleeing suspect.) I fear that the mechanisms which brought us dedicated riot control forces could very well grant the police a catch-all licence to kill when "threatened" by a group of protestors. The Bloc attire and their interest in direct action constitute a highly plausible threat. So could any larger crowd of angry people who refuse to disband, if people ever start to think of protestors merely as "anarchists" or "hooligans". Of course I'm fully aware that this has nothing to do with the way US law enforcement is supposed to work. But it seems that people care increasingly little about the Bill of Rights. At least the trend has certainly been for the worse, with bigger protests, lots of cops around, force being used more often, and intense, largely unfavorable media attention towards the protestors. Extrapolating from this to wider police powers is no great feat of the intellect. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:decoy@iki.fi, gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, petro wrote:
The only logical conclusion I can see to skirmishes between black-clad anarchists, going on "street operations", and governmental riot control forces, is that the police are eventually given the right to just gun the protestors down, irregardless of whether they have *done* anything. Unless
Maybe in Finland, but here in the US, the government official that gave the orders to shoot a crowd of protestors would *not* be working much longer.
(Actually the police here have far more stringent requirements for even drawing a gun than they do over there in the States. But that's not really the issue.)
But is there as much scrutiny and backlash when they do? Here in the US, it is getting to the point where cops in larger cities won't even bother to deal with certain crimes in certain neighborhoods, as they are afraid that even if they do everything by the book, they will get fucked. From http://www.nationalreview.com/dunphy/dunphy.shtml "One officer, 17-year veteran Eric Michl, put it this way: "Parking under a shady tree to work on a crossword puzzle is a great alternative to being labeled a racist and being dragged through an inquest, a review board, an FBI and U.S. Attorney's investigation and a lawsuit." And it is certainly the case that any one who gives the orders to fire into a crowd will face some sort of civil suit (whether right or wrong, when there is big bucks at stake, the suit will be brought).
The police are already given broad discretion in their use of force. (For instance, to stop a fleeing suspect.) I fear that the mechanisms which brought us dedicated riot control forces could very well grant the police a catch-all licence to kill when "threatened" by a group of protestors. The Bloc attire and their interest in direct action constitute a highly plausible threat. So could any larger crowd of angry people who refuse to disband, if people ever start to think of protestors merely as "anarchists" or "hooligans".
In this country, that discretion is being severely narrowed. There is a case in Seattle (IIRC) where a black man was (allegedly) *DRAGGING A COP WITH HIS CAR* and was shot dead. People got upset at the police for this. -- http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense.
After all, given the state of the American Press, this would be P.R. Suicide for the Police.
It would, unless enough fear of these people can be spread among the general population. If you can make the people scared enough of
Naw, it still wouldn't matter.
Who lost their job over the Waco massacre? Who was even repremanded?
The biggest difference is that the WTO protesters are protesting a great evil, while the people at Waco *were* the great evil. (no, I don't believe that, but if you've got half a brain, you'll see my point). -- http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense.
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, petro wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, A. Melon wrote:
After all, given the state of the American Press, this would be P.R. Suicide for the Police.
It would, unless enough fear of these people can be spread among the general population. If you can make the people scared enough of X (whether X is anarchists or anybody else), the people won't protest when you start killing X. The US government, and various police forces, have used this principle extensively in the last decade or so; whenever they want license to kill X, they first demonize X in the press hoping to get lots of people scared of X.
The thing is, with the WTO protests, there isn't one X to demonize, and with anything from rifle-rounds to water cannons it isn't only the black bloc that's going to be hit. It's going to be the Pretty Little Hippy Chick who was Just Protesting Indonesian Sweat Shops. It's going to be the 40 something truck driver who was protesting the unsafe Mexican Trucks on the US highways. Sure, they'll get some of the Black Blockheads, but large crowds are chaos, and as soon as the shooting starts, things are going to get massively stochastic. -- http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense.
--
The only logical conclusion I can see to skirmishes between black-clad anarchists, going on "street operations", and governmental riot control forces, is that the police are eventually given the right to just gun the protestors down, irregardless of whether they have *done* anything. Unless
Maybe in Finland, but here in the US, the government official that gave the orders to shoot a crowd of protestors would *not* be working much longer.
(Actually the police here have far more stringent requirements for even drawing a gun than they do over there in the States. But that's not really the issue.)
In Sweden, Gothenburg, police fired into a crowd. Arguably they had just cause. But US police, facing similar circumstances in Seattle, did not fire into the crowd. I do not wish to suggest that Swedish police are a bunch of stormtroopers. They are not. But the general trend is that the more disarmed the population, the more apt the police are to open fire. That is not merely a matter of lawsuits and stuff, but an inevitable consequence of human nature. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 4iw0kec3tTganQD7q8TbMH65nUr1tb215CbMEpSe 4trpBI/H5aOzqrzz0E7uz8A4I3JaK7CESp34reD6j
So, the Seattle crowd was better armed than the Swedish crowd? It makes a nice theory, when do you present your argument behind it? On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
In Sweden, Gothenburg, police fired into a crowd. Arguably they had just cause.
But US police, facing similar circumstances in Seattle, did not fire into the crowd.
I do not wish to suggest that Swedish police are a bunch of stormtroopers. They are not. But the general trend is that the more disarmed the population, the more apt the police are to open fire. That is not merely a matter of lawsuits and stuff, but an inevitable consequence of human nature.
-- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (7)
-
A. Melon -
cubic-dog -
jamesd＠echeque.com -
Jim Choate -
petro -
Ray Dillinger -
Sampo Syreeni