-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Ohio Protester Arrest Done Right
- Thread starter j706
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I would give the Officers a 9.2 on this arrest. There was a decided lack of jackbooting. Other than that...
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
Sorting through this could be more fun than a barrel of monkeys!
1. We don't have a lot of context. We have a minute and a half of video that does not enlighten us to anything that may have happened before it started which could be anywhere from nothing involving the arrestee to his having participated directly in criminal activity.
2. Peaceful protest is a constitutional right. I understand 'peaceful' to mean non-violent and not to mean that one is required to package his thoughts in a manner which would meet Judith Martin's approval. I would further point out that guilt by association is not an acceptable standard (i.e., determining a given individual not to be peacefully protesting because of the actions of others in the general area).
3. I noticed the conspicuous absence of any effort to stop the man from closing the distance (i.e., telling him to stop) before the spraying.
4. My first guess is that we are seeing a display of exasperation rather than self-medication. People do reach the point where IDGAF sets in regarding potential consequences. Then again, he may have been higher than a Georgia pine.
5. I am disturbed at the amount of force used on someone who so far as I could tell did not offer any physical attack or resistance after the police responded to him.
6. I see the usual trend developing in which most people's opinions form up around their personal sympathies regarding the participants, generally a more or less rigid inclination to believe that the police are automatically right because they are the police or to believe that they are automatically wrong because they are the police, or conversely anyone who is 'disorderly' is automatically a threat because he is 'disorderly' or he is automatically a hero for being 'disorderly'. Personally, I have known police who range from people I feel comfortable trusting completely to people who need a long fall with a short rope, and I have known 'malcontents' who range from people who are fed up with perfectly legitimate grievances which never get any better to people who are simply an argument and/or fight looking for an opportunity to happen.
Further in this vein, we have a lot of variation in opinions on how such a situation is handled 'right'. Some would tell us that it is handled properly if 1., the Constitution is respected, 2., violent outbursts requiring direct attention are handled with minimal damage to all parties involved, and 3., the situation is handled within the context of the presumption of innocence (i.e., not handing out beatdowns in response to a perception of the general situation rather than the individual's own actions). Others will tell us that it's all good as long as Team Blue goes home without injury. Others yet will insist that every cop in the situation can go home in a box as long as no 'protester' even if he is a thug who should be shot and fed to the buzzards gets so much as a scratch.
7. Speaking of respecting the Constitution, the officer demanding that media personnel go to the designated media area should have been fired immediately. There is no asterisk in the First Amendment. I can understand the reasonable demand for media personnel not be place themselves in a position of interfering with actual police work (i.e., being within arm's reach during a fracas) but demanding that nonparticipant observers go to a location which is generally far enough away that they might as well have stayed home is not acceptable. Further, I have a serious problem with observers often being given grief over having media credentials to the satisfaction of agents of law enforcement.
In the end, I am left not knowing whether the man who was arrested had done nothing beyond 'contempt of cop' or has just finished setting fire to a building, five cars, and two police officers. I know nothing about his personal character, and similarly know nothing of the character of the officers involved aside from the one who needs sent to remedial First Amendment training after he is fired. What I do know is that generally the positions taken after the fact will hinge either on the efficiency of the police actions (as opposed to the righteousness of those actions) or else will hinge on the action's compatibility with the political narrative. One particular critical element which seems to be overlooked is the rule of law rather than the rule of man. Compliance with reasonable and constitutional laws should rest at the lowest common denominator on fear of reasonable consequences for breaking those laws. If it rests on the fear of the persons of the police, particularly to the extent that people feel the need to be deferential beyond refraining from breaking the law, one or more persons need removed from law enforcement. If there is not sufficient fear of reasonable consequences to prevent criminal activity, like arson and vandalism in the case of riots, then there are some people who need removed from society. When it is all said and done, I see this breaking down according to team loyalty rather than rule of law or any other type of objective principle. I especially dislike this when significant elements of both sides often appear to represent a threat to those living the lives that properly belong to free citizens of a republic.
Just for a bonus, I will remind everyone that much of the trouble we have with violations of our rights becoming accepted is that the 'test case' is often something like this in which a person of questionable nature receives a response that is itself questionable but no one raises the question because the person involved does not evoke sympathy as it would had, say, a grandmother carrying home a bag of groceries been pepper sprayed and roughed up for making an unflattering remark to an officer who for some reason was on the receiving end of her displeasure. There is a reason why the left couches most all of its pushes against our rights against a backdrop of puppies, kittens, and children, and often we suffer because the first few people whose rights are trampled do not gather the emotional responses that puppies, kittens, and children typically receive. My point is that it is dangerous to overlook anything based on one's emotional reaction to the participants. It is easy to not care that the rules get bent a little if that is what it takes to get to someone we really want dealt with, but it is also easy to forget that if we allow it once there, it will be allowed again, and eventually allowed against us with years of precedent behind it. Now, get moving. The 'First Amendment Area' is that way.
1. We don't have a lot of context. We have a minute and a half of video that does not enlighten us to anything that may have happened before it started which could be anywhere from nothing involving the arrestee to his having participated directly in criminal activity.
2. Peaceful protest is a constitutional right. I understand 'peaceful' to mean non-violent and not to mean that one is required to package his thoughts in a manner which would meet Judith Martin's approval. I would further point out that guilt by association is not an acceptable standard (i.e., determining a given individual not to be peacefully protesting because of the actions of others in the general area).
3. I noticed the conspicuous absence of any effort to stop the man from closing the distance (i.e., telling him to stop) before the spraying.
4. My first guess is that we are seeing a display of exasperation rather than self-medication. People do reach the point where IDGAF sets in regarding potential consequences. Then again, he may have been higher than a Georgia pine.
5. I am disturbed at the amount of force used on someone who so far as I could tell did not offer any physical attack or resistance after the police responded to him.
6. I see the usual trend developing in which most people's opinions form up around their personal sympathies regarding the participants, generally a more or less rigid inclination to believe that the police are automatically right because they are the police or to believe that they are automatically wrong because they are the police, or conversely anyone who is 'disorderly' is automatically a threat because he is 'disorderly' or he is automatically a hero for being 'disorderly'. Personally, I have known police who range from people I feel comfortable trusting completely to people who need a long fall with a short rope, and I have known 'malcontents' who range from people who are fed up with perfectly legitimate grievances which never get any better to people who are simply an argument and/or fight looking for an opportunity to happen.
Further in this vein, we have a lot of variation in opinions on how such a situation is handled 'right'. Some would tell us that it is handled properly if 1., the Constitution is respected, 2., violent outbursts requiring direct attention are handled with minimal damage to all parties involved, and 3., the situation is handled within the context of the presumption of innocence (i.e., not handing out beatdowns in response to a perception of the general situation rather than the individual's own actions). Others will tell us that it's all good as long as Team Blue goes home without injury. Others yet will insist that every cop in the situation can go home in a box as long as no 'protester' even if he is a thug who should be shot and fed to the buzzards gets so much as a scratch.
7. Speaking of respecting the Constitution, the officer demanding that media personnel go to the designated media area should have been fired immediately. There is no asterisk in the First Amendment. I can understand the reasonable demand for media personnel not be place themselves in a position of interfering with actual police work (i.e., being within arm's reach during a fracas) but demanding that nonparticipant observers go to a location which is generally far enough away that they might as well have stayed home is not acceptable. Further, I have a serious problem with observers often being given grief over having media credentials to the satisfaction of agents of law enforcement.
In the end, I am left not knowing whether the man who was arrested had done nothing beyond 'contempt of cop' or has just finished setting fire to a building, five cars, and two police officers. I know nothing about his personal character, and similarly know nothing of the character of the officers involved aside from the one who needs sent to remedial First Amendment training after he is fired. What I do know is that generally the positions taken after the fact will hinge either on the efficiency of the police actions (as opposed to the righteousness of those actions) or else will hinge on the action's compatibility with the political narrative. One particular critical element which seems to be overlooked is the rule of law rather than the rule of man. Compliance with reasonable and constitutional laws should rest at the lowest common denominator on fear of reasonable consequences for breaking those laws. If it rests on the fear of the persons of the police, particularly to the extent that people feel the need to be deferential beyond refraining from breaking the law, one or more persons need removed from law enforcement. If there is not sufficient fear of reasonable consequences to prevent criminal activity, like arson and vandalism in the case of riots, then there are some people who need removed from society. When it is all said and done, I see this breaking down according to team loyalty rather than rule of law or any other type of objective principle. I especially dislike this when significant elements of both sides often appear to represent a threat to those living the lives that properly belong to free citizens of a republic.
Just for a bonus, I will remind everyone that much of the trouble we have with violations of our rights becoming accepted is that the 'test case' is often something like this in which a person of questionable nature receives a response that is itself questionable but no one raises the question because the person involved does not evoke sympathy as it would had, say, a grandmother carrying home a bag of groceries been pepper sprayed and roughed up for making an unflattering remark to an officer who for some reason was on the receiving end of her displeasure. There is a reason why the left couches most all of its pushes against our rights against a backdrop of puppies, kittens, and children, and often we suffer because the first few people whose rights are trampled do not gather the emotional responses that puppies, kittens, and children typically receive. My point is that it is dangerous to overlook anything based on one's emotional reaction to the participants. It is easy to not care that the rules get bent a little if that is what it takes to get to someone we really want dealt with, but it is also easy to forget that if we allow it once there, it will be allowed again, and eventually allowed against us with years of precedent behind it. Now, get moving. The 'First Amendment Area' is that way.
You should try that recipe with a little cayenne pepper added.... It bet it would be outta' sight!
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
I believe that the Department of Education has accepted pepper spray as a vegetable, similar to its acceptance of pizza as a vegetable.
Twangbanger
Grandmaster
- Oct 9, 2010
- 7,104
- 113
(** deleted as essentially not worth discussing **)
Last edited:
My thoughts exactly.
Peter Potamus
Marksman
I love happy endings!
I agree. The left provides paid protesters to incite the riots and keep them at a high fever pitch. Violence and confrontations with police are the goals. Then everyday people get caught up in the delusion of grandeur that they are urban heroes for pushing police past their human limits.
It is akin to the payday scam that the thugs here in Indy made popular a couple of years ago.
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
Cameramonkeywww.thechosen.tv
Members online
- jhopson
- bkflyer
- dieselrealtor
- Michigan Slim
- radar8756
- DoggyDaddy
- Ingomike
- ISP 5353
- BroodXI
- drm-hp
- TJ Kackowski
- Cameramonkey
- JimH
- dmeadlo
- wildcatfan.62
- BSUrugger
- Creedmoor
- Cavman
- chezuki
- xwing
- 1nderbeard
- meyer4589
- Living
- bobzilla
- sdunsworth
- peterock
- Bybo
- Doug
- wtburnette
- Scott357
- blainepoe
- llh1956
- Gabriel
- cosermann
- BeDome
- EODFXSTI
- henry0reilly
- littletommy
- Colt556
- nettinyahoo
- maxipum
- Bstarkey_46947
- OneBadV8
- CheeseRat
- maceace
- JAL
- cmann250
- Snapdragon
- rdbs505
- dsol
