Girl Pepper Sprayed By Police


Off-Topic Discussions

201 to 250 of 444 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

*prefers all natural ingredients*

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Abraham spalding wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

Guantanamo springs to mind as just the most famous example, but not the only one, that being recognized as an enemy soldier indeed brings you privileges in war times

And some people will go to great lengths to avoid letting their opponents receive this status and the privileges that go with it

In peace time, apparently many things go and only your lawyer's wages might help you :-(

I think you meant Abu Ghraib as to prove that bad things can happen to those in custody, as far as I know there has not be mistreatment of people in Guantanamo (if the people there belong in custody is a separate issue I have no intentions of discussing at all).

I do not dispute that bad things have happened to people in custody but typically those that do the bad things do become recognized and prosecuted. I know that is cold comfort to their victims but beyond training, attempting prevention and punishment for those that do infringe I do not know what else the military can do.

I was thinking of the mere use of the previously unknown status of "enemy combatant" which was used for the Guantanamo inmates to prevent them from having the protections given to "enemy soldiers" (aka prisoners of war). Which ends up in people kept prisoners with no time limit without judgement. Which is something not possible according to the laws of war, nor the civil laws. Hence why it became such an incredible mess and headache for all US administrations


There are some people with strange ideas about what cops can do.

The short answer is cops CAN DO anything they want. And they fully expect you to behave whether you committed a crime or not. NOBODY is going to stop a cop from robbing you or killing you, they ARE the authority. Your only recourse is a law suit and the hope that you can convince a judge or jury that the story the police are feeding them is a lie. The fact that there is a thin blue line means they give each other the benefit of the doubt on all stories true or not. In MOST areas of the country this isn't an issue. People mostly get along and the police are respected. But in areas with a belligerent population (for whatever reason) the police can operate more as an occupying force. It's sad but they CAN DO it. How many of the downtrodden can afford to sue them in response? It isn't just a black issue either it's a poor issue. You are treated like dirt if you have no money.

Can it be fixed in those areas? No. Well yes but only if you catch it early enough. Once people start training their kids to resist and defy then NO AMOUNT of corrective measures can fix the problem. These areas will be lawless occupied zones till the population (cop and rioter alike) are forced to change though some massive outside thing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

There are some people with strange ideas about what cops can do.

The short answer is cops CAN DO anything they want. And they fully expect you to behave whether you committed a crime or not. NOBODY is going to stop a cop from robbing you or killing you, they ARE the authority. Your only recourse is a law suit and the hope that you can convince a judge or jury that the story the police are feeding them is a lie. The fact that there is a thin blue line means they give each other the benefit of the doubt on all stories true or not. In MOST areas of the country this isn't an issue. People mostly get along and the police are respected. But in areas with a belligerent population (for whatever reason) the police can operate more as an occupying force. It's sad but they CAN DO it. How many of the downtrodden can afford to sue them in response? It isn't just a black issue either it's a poor issue. You are treated like dirt if you have no money.

Can it be fixed in those areas? No. Well yes but only if you catch it early enough. Once people start training their kids to resist and defy then NO AMOUNT of corrective measures can fix the problem. These areas will be lawless occupied zones till the population (cop and rioter alike) are forced to change though some massive outside thing.

Well, I see you're firmly on the chicken side of the chicken and egg debate.

Is it even possible that it starts with the police acting like an occupying force and that's what creates the belligerence? Especially when it comes to black areas where the pattern often goes back decades to when the police were actually enforcing openly racist laws?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Aranna wrote:

There are some people with strange ideas about what cops can do.

The short answer is cops CAN DO anything they want. And they fully expect you to behave whether you committed a crime or not. NOBODY is going to stop a cop from robbing you or killing you, they ARE the authority. Your only recourse is a law suit and the hope that you can convince a judge or jury that the story the police are feeding them is a lie. The fact that there is a thin blue line means they give each other the benefit of the doubt on all stories true or not. In MOST areas of the country this isn't an issue. People mostly get along and the police are respected. But in areas with a belligerent population (for whatever reason) the police can operate more as an occupying force. It's sad but they CAN DO it. How many of the downtrodden can afford to sue them in response? It isn't just a black issue either it's a poor issue. You are treated like dirt if you have no money.

Can it be fixed in those areas? No. Well yes but only if you catch it early enough. Once people start training their kids to resist and defy then NO AMOUNT of corrective measures can fix the problem. These areas will be lawless occupied zones till the population (cop and rioter alike) are forced to change though some massive outside thing.

WOW.


mechaPoet wrote:

A couple of cops brutalized a black child?

Color me surprised.[/sarcasm]
Anyway, I don't see why this thread has so many pages.
By the way, are you all familiar with acrostics?

I see what you did there. :)


thejeff wrote:
Aranna wrote:

There are some people with strange ideas about what cops can do.

The short answer is cops CAN DO anything they want. And they fully expect you to behave whether you committed a crime or not. NOBODY is going to stop a cop from robbing you or killing you, they ARE the authority. Your only recourse is a law suit and the hope that you can convince a judge or jury that the story the police are feeding them is a lie. The fact that there is a thin blue line means they give each other the benefit of the doubt on all stories true or not. In MOST areas of the country this isn't an issue. People mostly get along and the police are respected. But in areas with a belligerent population (for whatever reason) the police can operate more as an occupying force. It's sad but they CAN DO it. How many of the downtrodden can afford to sue them in response? It isn't just a black issue either it's a poor issue. You are treated like dirt if you have no money.

Can it be fixed in those areas? No. Well yes but only if you catch it early enough. Once people start training their kids to resist and defy then NO AMOUNT of corrective measures can fix the problem. These areas will be lawless occupied zones till the population (cop and rioter alike) are forced to change though some massive outside thing.

Well, I see you're firmly on the chicken side of the chicken and egg debate.

Is it even possible that it starts with the police acting like an occupying force and that's what creates the belligerence? Especially when it comes to black areas where the pattern often goes back decades to when the police were actually enforcing openly racist laws?

Peaceful protest is what destroyed those bad laws. That is the path forward when the government places unfair rules. When people start into violence it just reinforces the negative responses. The rioters ARE just as much to blame as the cops who are being abusive. They are each opposite sides of the same hateful coin. Each one doing horrible things because the other side did horrible things. An endless cycle of violence in which BOTH sides are dirty and soaked in blood. OR are you trying to say it's ok for blacks to attack innocent white bystanders?

Where is your outrage over the treatment of these white children who were attacked?

Just do an internet search rioters are attacking innocent people. You are supporting this?

Edit: The side I am on is the one of peace. You fix problems with peaceful actions. You create problems with violent ones.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Aranna wrote:

There are some people with strange ideas about what cops can do.

The short answer is cops CAN DO anything they want. And they fully expect you to behave whether you committed a crime or not. NOBODY is going to stop a cop from robbing you or killing you, they ARE the authority. Your only recourse is a law suit and the hope that you can convince a judge or jury that the story the police are feeding them is a lie. The fact that there is a thin blue line means they give each other the benefit of the doubt on all stories true or not. In MOST areas of the country this isn't an issue. People mostly get along and the police are respected. But in areas with a belligerent population (for whatever reason) the police can operate more as an occupying force. It's sad but they CAN DO it. How many of the downtrodden can afford to sue them in response? It isn't just a black issue either it's a poor issue. You are treated like dirt if you have no money.

Can it be fixed in those areas? No. Well yes but only if you catch it early enough. Once people start training their kids to resist and defy then NO AMOUNT of corrective measures can fix the problem. These areas will be lawless occupied zones till the population (cop and rioter alike) are forced to change though some massive outside thing.

Well, I see you're firmly on the chicken side of the chicken and egg debate.

Is it even possible that it starts with the police acting like an occupying force and that's what creates the belligerence? Especially when it comes to black areas where the pattern often goes back decades to when the police were actually enforcing openly racist laws?

Peaceful protest is what destroyed those bad laws. That is the path forward when the government places unfair rules. When people start into violence it just reinforces the negative responses. The rioters ARE just as much to blame as the cops who are being abusive. They are each opposite sides of the same hateful coin. Each one doing horrible things because the other side did horrible things. An endless cycle of violence in which BOTH sides are dirty and soaked in blood. OR are you trying to say it's ok for blacks to attack innocent white bystanders?

Where is your outrage over the treatment of these white children who were attacked?

Just do an internet search rioters are attacking innocent people. You are supporting this?

Edit: The side I am on is the one of peace. You fix problems with peaceful actions. You create problems with violent ones.

You're blaming the BLM protests (and the proceeding ones), some of which turned violent, for police harassment and murder of blacks going back decades?

I take it back. This isn't even chicken and egg. This is straight up victim blaming. It's not a cycle of violence because for decades the overwhelming majority of the violence has been one-sided. I'm happy to condemn individual incidents in the last few years, but you can't just start there and blame both sides. Police abuse of minorities goes back throughout this country's history and it's not the fault of the minorities. You don't wipe the slate clean in 2014 and say "black people rioted so any police brutality after this is a reaction".
You're right that peaceful protests are more productive, though I could point at a lot of violence back in the 60s. We all learn about MLK, but we learn a whitewashed version of that history. We also forget how hated even he was at the time, not to even talk about the more militant black leaders.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I would also add to TheJeff's statement that a most of the BLM movement protests have been peaceful, as well as other efforts using the courts and social media. The media is just more likely to report a riot than a peaceful sit in or protest.


Aranna wrote:
Edit: The side I am on is the one of peace. You fix problems with peaceful actions. You create problems with violent ones.

Not quite true, the peaceful progressives DO make progress, but generally only after the situation has gotten so bad that violence has become rife and blood is spilled by both sides. The Martin Luther Kings are more dependent on the Malcom X's than they'd like to admit.

No one has ever given up power or oppression merely on the polite request to do so.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Also we've seen what peaceful protests have gotten us.

Colin Kaepernik is the most disliked man in the NFL.

For taking a knee.

he's received STEADY death threats. He's been called a N*GG*R, repeatedly by the same white fans who were cheering him a few years ago.

This is an organization where the fans have rallied around accused multiple rapists, domestic abusers, racists, homophobes and in one case an accused murderer.

The high school and college players who have done the same have received a steady stream of death threats.

Peaceful protests have been met with reporters and right wing radio hosts encouraging their listeners to RUN THEM OVER if they're in the street.

But tell me again how well peaceful protest works against an enemy that has no empathy.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

There's a cycle here.

People want only peaceful protest.

But peaceful protest that really doesn't impact them or inconvenience them in anyway. Otherwise it's "How dare they protest?!?"

So peaceful protest that doenst inconvenience or offend anyone, gets nothing done.

So the same systematic issues dont change OR they get worse.

But that's not their problem because unless the media is covering a riot they don't notice peaceful protests. Or community meetings. Or mothers and family members marching to protest the violence in their communities.

Then the wellspring of rage and frustration bubbles up after another police shooting, where yet again the victim gets blamed, so peaceful protests begin anew only to be ignored until violence happens so then people can go "look see? theyre nothing but savages! It's their own fault that this happens to them!"

And so on, and so on, and so...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I do not think peaceful protest was any simpler or easier in the time of Gandhi or Luther King.

In fact I think it was even more hopeless as it had not yet demonstrated its ability to empower societal change.

People want only peaceful protest because it has been shown to be effective. I do not remember any instance of violent protest that led to actual long-term changes in society.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

I do not think peaceful protest was any simpler or easier in the time of Gandhi or Luther King.

In fact I think it was even more hopeless as it had not yet demonstrated its ability to empower societal change.

People want only peaceful protest because it has been shown to be effective. I do not remember any instance of violent protest that led to actual long-term changes in society.

You should.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

There are some people with strange ideas about what cops can do.

The short answer is cops CAN DO anything they want. And they fully expect you to behave whether you committed a crime or not. NOBODY is going to stop a cop from robbing you or killing you, they ARE the authority. Your only recourse is a law suit and the hope that you can convince a judge or jury that the story the police are feeding them is a lie. The fact that there is a thin blue line means they give each other the benefit of the doubt on all stories true or not. In MOST areas of the country this isn't an issue. People mostly get along and the police are respected. But in areas with a belligerent population (for whatever reason) the police can operate more as an occupying force. It's sad but they CAN DO it. How many of the downtrodden can afford to sue them in response? It isn't just a black issue either it's a poor issue. You are treated like dirt if you have no money.

Can it be fixed in those areas? No. Well yes but only if you catch it early enough. Once people start training their kids to resist and defy then NO AMOUNT of corrective measures can fix the problem. These areas will be lawless occupied zones till the population (cop and rioter alike) are forced to change though some massive outside thing.

Id like to see you keep your "sad, but true" attitude if the police started targeting your neighborhood.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

There are some people with strange ideas about what cops can do.

The short answer is cops CAN DO anything they want. And they fully expect you to behave whether you committed a crime or not. NOBODY is going to stop a cop from robbing you or killing you, they ARE the authority. Your only recourse is a law suit and the hope that you can convince a judge or jury that the story the police are feeding them is a lie.

no-one is going to be okay living like this.

The last time this happened, things got ugly.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
I do not remember any instance of violent protest that led to actual long-term changes in society.

The american revolution?

John Brown moved the country towards the civil war and emancipation.

Malcom X's bad cop to Martin Luthor Kings Good cop.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
I do not remember any instance of violent protest that led to actual long-term changes in society.

The american revolution?

John Brown moved the country towards the civil war and emancipation.

Malcom X's bad cop to Martin Luthor Kings Good cop.

MLK was seen as an evil commie until X came along.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Heck, even the French Revolution (although I hope we don't see a repeat of that here.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
I do not remember any instance of violent protest that led to actual long-term changes in society.

The american revolution?

John Brown moved the country towards the civil war and emancipation.

Malcom X's bad cop to Martin Luthor Kings Good cop.

MLK was seen as an evil commie until X came along.

MLK was seen as an evil commie until he was good and safely dead. Then he could be recast as a saint, because it was safe to do so. He was hated by a huge chunk of white America. They celebrated his death.


More generally, peaceful protest doesn't do crap. Maybe movement building and only then if you're lucky.

Non-violent resistance and action isn't the same as peaceful protest. Non-violent resistance involves taking action, not just complaining. You need to hurt them, not just get attention. Strikes are the most obvious example - not violent, but a cost to the employer. Even boycotts - the bus boycotts and the lunch counter boycotts were successful Civil Rights examples. Deny them your money, unless they integrate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
I do not remember any instance of violent protest that led to actual long-term changes in society.

The american revolution?

John Brown moved the country towards the civil war and emancipation.

Malcom X's bad cop to Martin Luthor Kings Good cop.

MLK was seen as an evil commie until X came along.
MLK was seen as an evil commie until he was good and safely dead. Then he could be recast as a saint, because it was safe to do so. He was hated by a huge chunk of white America. They celebrated his death.

As I recall when he was shot, he had spoken to a labor meeting the night before. King was a labor as well a race advocate which earned him damnation from racists and capitalists alike.


Pan I lived in a poor neighborhood and while police presence was higher. There was no occupying efforts because nobody was rioting... See how that goes hand in hand.


thejeff wrote:

More generally, peaceful protest doesn't do crap. Maybe movement building and only then if you're lucky.

Non-violent resistance and action isn't the same as peaceful protest. Non-violent resistance involves taking action, not just complaining. You need to hurt them, not just get attention. Strikes are the most obvious example - not violent, but a cost to the employer. Even boycotts - the bus boycotts and the lunch counter boycotts were successful Civil Rights examples. Deny them your money, unless they integrate.

This is part of what I meant by peaceful protesting.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I do not. The occupying efforts don't begin with riots in my experience.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Jeff & BNW beat me to it. Millions of white people DESPISED Reverend King. He was targeted by the FBI, he/the movement was targeted by state & local governments, the deck was thoroughly stacked against him. Anyone trying to play the "black protestors should follow MLK's example" is willfully ignoring that *THEY ARE*.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Pan I lived in a poor neighborhood and while police presence was higher. There was no occupying efforts because nobody was rioting... See how that goes hand in hand.

Nobody was rioting because they weren't taking people off the street at random throwing them up against the wall and searching them.

Because when you do that in a white neighborhood the police department gets sued, the police get fired, and people don't try to justify it by saying that "well then you shouldn't have had anything illegal on you then"


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
thejeff wrote:

More generally, peaceful protest doesn't do crap. Maybe movement building and only then if you're lucky.

Non-violent resistance and action isn't the same as peaceful protest. Non-violent resistance involves taking action, not just complaining. You need to hurt them, not just get attention. Strikes are the most obvious example - not violent, but a cost to the employer. Even boycotts - the bus boycotts and the lunch counter boycotts were successful Civil Rights examples. Deny them your money, unless they integrate.

This is part of what I meant by peaceful protesting.

except, as history shows, it was not. People were beaten horribly, fire houses were turned on them, they were savaged by dogs. Almost all were thrown in jail and the court system was choked with proceedings against protestors. All with the blessing of the police department and the legal system. This was not peaceful movement many said it was.

Silver Crusade

theJeff said wrote:
Maybe movement building and only then if you're lucky

I wouldn't agree with that. Movements aren't built by luck, they're built by a s**tton of work. Bit of a distraction to the current thread though.


Aranna wrote:
Pan I lived in a poor neighborhood and while police presence was higher. There was no occupying efforts because nobody was rioting... See how that goes hand in hand.

That, I suspect, is because you didn't live in a black neighborhood, but a poor white one. There is a difference and that difference is shown in how the police treat the different poor inhabitants.

The occupation precedes the riots. There are still plenty of black urban poor areas where there haven't been riots (at least not in decades). Many of them see the same kind of policing. Perhaps eventually the flash point will get hit and them you can blame their problems on the ensuing riots.

Of course, if you decide up front that racism can't be a factor, you have to grasp at other explanations and if you see your poor neighborhood not under occupation and this other poor neighborhood being occupied, the obvious conclusion is that it's a difference in behavior between the two neighborhoods.

Silver Crusade

It is a difference! But the difference might well be...melanin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Could someone please explain how the whole "were they justified in detaining her" question has anything to do with why they pepper-sprayed her AFTER she was already detained, and a threat to precisely no one?


CrusaderWolf wrote:
theJeff said wrote:
Maybe movement building and only then if you're lucky
I wouldn't agree with that. Movements aren't built by luck, they're built by a s**tton of work. Bit of a distraction to the current thread though.

movements are bult by a s**tton of work but still tend not to work unless you get lucky


Freehold DM wrote:
Aranna wrote:
thejeff wrote:

More generally, peaceful protest doesn't do crap. Maybe movement building and only then if you're lucky.

Non-violent resistance and action isn't the same as peaceful protest. Non-violent resistance involves taking action, not just complaining. You need to hurt them, not just get attention. Strikes are the most obvious example - not violent, but a cost to the employer. Even boycotts - the bus boycotts and the lunch counter boycotts were successful Civil Rights examples. Deny them your money, unless they integrate.

This is part of what I meant by peaceful protesting.
except, as history shows, it was not. People were beaten horribly, fire houses were turned on them, they were savaged by dogs. Almost all were thrown in jail and the court system was choked with proceedings against protestors. All with the blessing of the police department and the legal system. This was not peaceful movement many said it was.

A "peaceful movement" or protest or non-violent movement generally means the movement itself refrains from violence and destruction, not that they won't be attacked.


CrusaderWolf wrote:
theJeff said wrote:
Maybe movement building and only then if you're lucky
I wouldn't agree with that. Movements aren't built by luck, they're built by a s**tton of work. Bit of a distraction to the current thread though.

You need luck to turn protests into a movement. That doesn't mean there isn't a s#&#ton of work involved, just that even that isn't enough.


bugleyman wrote:
Could someone please explain how the whole "were they justified in detaining her" question has anything to do with why they pepper-sprayed her AFTER she was already detained, and a threat to precisely no one?

The cop pepper sprayed her because she wouldn't let them close the door. Which is a horrible over reaction, it wouldn't have been that hard to get a second cop over to pull her legs away from the door.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

The door was closed when the pepper spray was used.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
The door was closed when the pepper spray was used.

No I watched the video, it wasn't.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
The door was closed when the pepper spray was used.

No it wasn't. She pulled back when they threatened her with the spray, and they get the door further towards closed, but not all the way. Then they spray her and you can see it close all the way just after the scream.

At first glance they move it enough the first time that it's easy to think it closes, but you can still see the angle.


Yes, because nothing helps a head injury like screwing with someone's ability to breathe....

(I have been peppersprayed twice. This is not theoretical)

She was in an accident. She needs to be detained for her own safety. Things that make her less safe than wandering off on her own are completely against the reason to detain her in the first place.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
I do not remember any instance of violent protest that led to actual long-term changes in society.

The american revolution?

John Brown moved the country towards the civil war and emancipation.

Malcom X's bad cop to Martin Luthor Kings Good cop.

MLK was seen as an evil commie until X came along.
MLK was seen as an evil commie until he was good and safely dead. Then he could be recast as a saint, because it was safe to do so. He was hated by a huge chunk of white America. They celebrated his death.
As I recall when he was shot, he had spoken to a labor meeting the night before. King was a labor as well a race advocate which earned him damnation from racists and capitalists alike.

THIS.

People wanted him dead already. But when it looked like he was going seriously unify and advocate for labor as well? That put him on the fast track for a bullet. Because you know you cant have poor / working class whites teaming up with black folk and kinda have them realize they're kinda in the same boat. They gotta break that sh*t up...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShinHakkaider wrote:


People wanted him dead already. But when it looked like he was going seriously unify and advocate for labor as well? That put him on the fast track for a bullet. Because you know you cant have poor / working class whites teaming up with black folk and kinda have them realize they're kinda in the same boat. They gotta break that sh*t up...

Since Bacon's Rebellion the policy in the states as been to keep the middle and lower class whites busy looking down to see that they have it better than some people so that they don't look up to see what the real source of their problems are. It continues to this day and is particularly prominant in this election cycle.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
At first glance they move it enough the first time that it's easy to think it closes, but you can still see the angle.

Alright. My bad Aranna.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
thejeff wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
The door was closed when the pepper spray was used.
No it wasn't. She pulled back when they threatened her with the spray, and they get the door further towards closed, but not all the way.

Close enough that her legs could not possibly have been blocking it any more... so they COULD have just pushed it closed without pepper spraying her. Thus, not 'just' an 'over reaction', but a completely unneccesary action.


CBDunkerson wrote:
thejeff wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
The door was closed when the pepper spray was used.
No it wasn't. She pulled back when they threatened her with the spray, and they get the door further towards closed, but not all the way.
Close enough that her legs could not possibly have been blocking it any more... so they COULD have just pushed it closed without pepper spraying her. Thus, not 'just' an 'over reaction', but a completely unneccesary action.

Possible. We can't see her legs, but my guess is that she'd braced her feet against the door, rather than having them actually blocking it. Not as easy as just pushing it closed, but they probably could have forced it, even without doing the obvious thing of going to the other door and pulling.

But by that point they were annoyed and frustrated, so they just sprayed the little brat who wasn't showing proper respect.

Completely out of line, whether she was blocking the door or not.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

So Gandhi and MLK were peacefully assassinated and the protesters were violent?

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Right, you're not protesting properly until you're martyred--the actions of those oppressing you are irrelevant! It doesn't matter that the cops & local government in Ferguson were colluding to shakedown their poorest, blackest residents--won't someone think of that burning CVS?!

If black people would just protest in a responsible manner, white people wouldn't justify the abuses that were occurring before the 'unreasonable' protest even started!


Knight who says Meh wrote:
So Gandhi and MLK were peacefully assassinated and the protesters were violent?

I'm not sure what you're intending with this piece of snark? Both men you're talking about were people who led peaceful protests in violent times, and met violent ends.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Knight who says Meh wrote:
So Gandhi and MLK were peacefully assassinated and the protesters were violent?

EXACTLY.

Peaceful protests arent going to stop you from getting shot in the face.

Or having hoses turned on you. (*Because you know there were a whole bunch of whites back then, just like now, who said it was the protesters fault for instigating and starting trouble).

Or having dogs turned loose on you (*Because you know there were a whole bunch of whites back then, just like now, who said it was the protesters fault for instigating and starting trouble)

Or as in the case of Medgar Evers SHOT IN THE BACK in his own driveway. and upon being taken to the hospital was denied entry BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN.

But people are determined to talk about how great peaceful protest is...


ShinHakkaider wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
So Gandhi and MLK were peacefully assassinated and the protesters were violent?

EXACTLY.

Peaceful protests arent going to stop you from getting shot in the face.

Or having hoses turned on you. (*Because you know there were a whole bunch of whites back then, just like now, who said it was the protesters fault for instigating and starting trouble).

Or having dogs turned loose on you (*Because you know there were a whole bunch of whites back then, just like now, who said it was the protesters fault for instigating and starting trouble)

Or as in the case of Medgar Evers SHOT IN THE BACK in his own driveway. and upon being taken to the hospital was denied entry BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN.

But people are determined to talk about how great peaceful protest is...

But.. but those people were racist and absolutely wro...oh wait...

2 leaders of the black lives matter movement were executed and set on fire, in the exact same way.

Darren Seals , Deandre Joshua, and four others.

201 to 250 of 444 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Girl Pepper Sprayed By Police All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.