|
Post by laurel on Jun 27, 2010 18:18:30 GMT -4
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 27, 2010 18:40:20 GMT -4
The problem is that a good portion of the "protestors" aren't protestors. They're more like the kind of people who like to start riots during soccer matches.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 27, 2010 19:29:59 GMT -4
The problem is that a good portion of the "protestors" aren't protestors. They're more like the kind of people who like to start riots during soccer matches. I was wondering if the police in Pittsburgh make a lot less money than our Toronto cops...
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jun 27, 2010 21:10:57 GMT -4
The problem is that a good portion of the "protestors" aren't protestors. They're more like the kind of people who like to start riots during soccer matches. I guess it was too expensive for them to travel to South Africa.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jun 28, 2010 14:54:59 GMT -4
The "Black Bloc" rioters remind me of the people who join this forum just to provoke me into banning them. The Black Bloc went to Toronto to provoke the police into doing something that they could then complain about. Anarchists: "They used tear gas and rubber bullets! See, they're evil!" Sane people: "Yeah, well you were destroying private property and throwing rocks at police officers... what did you expect them to do about it?" The rioters at past events like this are responsible for creating the need for the fences and riot police in Toronto. If they didn't have a violent history then you'd probably be able to peacefully protest right outside of the building where the conferences were being held. I have no problems with the way the police handled things in Toronto this weekend. They showed a great deal of restraint under difficult circumstances. Maybe a few innocent people got mixed up in it, but blame the Black Bloc idiots, not the police.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jun 28, 2010 15:35:08 GMT -4
I'm not really qualified to question the police, but according to this article, "Four people were detained in the middle of the night as they emerged from a manhole near the 10-foot fence sealing off the area where the Group of 20 rich and developing nations are meeting. Police said they were urgently sealing sewer access near the zone." I have to wonder why they didn't do this beforehand. I have heard about manhole covers being welded shut in places like Times Square on New Year's Eve for precisely this reason, to keep someone from crawling out of a sewer and causing trouble. It kind of sounds like an oversight. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37957421/ns/world_news-americas/
|
|
|
Post by archer17 on Jun 28, 2010 17:17:57 GMT -4
...I was wondering if the police in Pittsburgh make a lot less money than our Toronto cops... Heh, maybe I'll ask next time I get pulled over...then again, maybe I won't. Pittsburgh is obviously not Toronto. There was never a need for a billion dollar plan here or 10000 security personnel (and I'm not so sure Toronto needed all that). We are just a "small market" type of city with a geographical advantage Toronto lacks - our downtown is surrounded by rivers on 3 sides. The anarchists had only a couple ways to get into the downtown area and the bulk of security was assigned there. Pittsburgh had under 900 cops total leading up to the summit so most of the 4000 or so cops deployed weren't natives. As it turned out, the 4000 cops and coinage was overkill.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jun 29, 2010 0:04:12 GMT -4
Why do you guys call the protesters anarchists? It always seems to me that the protesters at these events are pro-big-government, anti-corporate, socialist types. That is, kids who don't want to have to work for a living after Mom and Dad kick them out of the house.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 1, 2010 11:54:42 GMT -4
Anarchists: "They used tear gas and rubber bullets! See, they're evil!" Would they have preferred mustard gas and lead bullets?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 1, 2010 16:56:00 GMT -4
Apparently they are evil because the ones that caused the trouble weren't really anarchists, but Police pretending to be them so that then they could crackdown on the rest of the protesters. How can you tell? 1) They were all wearing similar looking black boots 2) They were wearing backpacks to cover up their guns 3) Their hoodies were too new looking 4) They had their shirts tucked in! And if you don't believe me, there's a youtube video out there that's sure to convince you
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 1, 2010 18:20:28 GMT -4
Anarchists: "They used tear gas and rubber bullets! See, they're evil!" Would they have preferred mustard gas and lead bullets? Actually, yeah, I think they would have. Anything that makes the police look like they overreacted or were too heavy-handed makes the anarchists happy.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 1, 2010 18:29:38 GMT -4
I just heard a protester from Montreal defend the destruction and vandalism. He said "from our point of view it wasn't violence... it was our way of expressing ourselves."
So, does that mean if I want to go burn down that guy's house as a form of protest I am justified?
I think that is the core of the problem. They believe their the right to free speech allows them to commit criminal acts, as long as it is in protest of something.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 1, 2010 23:50:54 GMT -4
so if the police used real bullets they could say that it was their way of expressing themselves too.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 2, 2010 11:14:52 GMT -4
I just heard a protester from Montreal defend the destruction and vandalism. He said "from our point of view it wasn't violence... it was our way of expressing ourselves." Nice excuse to let the droogies have a little of the ol' ultra-violence, isn't it? Real horrorshow.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jul 2, 2010 14:02:30 GMT -4
I just heard a protester from Montreal defend the destruction and vandalism. He said "from our point of view it wasn't violence... it was our way of expressing ourselves." So, does that mean if I want to go burn down that guy's house as a form of protest I am justified? I think that is the core of the problem. They believe their the right to free speech allows them to commit criminal acts, as long as it is in protest of something. And thanks to them, non-violent protesters get stigmatized.
|
|