Friday night in Oakland was clear proof that the government is simply trying to get us used to living in a police state. It had nothing to do with protecting property. The dispersal order was coming from Schenley Plaza, where there is no property to protect other than the grass. I was watching from in front of the library when the dispersal order came at about 10:45. The kids dispersed. The left the "immediate vicinity," as ordered by police. Some went to the Cathedral lawn, where they were arrested. Some went down by O's, where they were sprayed. Some when back to the dorms, which the police tried to raid only to be stopped by the University Police. I know some of the kids who were arrested and I can guarantee that the ones I know didn't riot after the Superbowl or leave broken beer bottles in the street. The party kids and the political kids are two different tribes.
On Friday night there were no G-20 leaders in the neighborhood to protect. Schenley Plaza was still open. The kids there weren't acting unlawfully. What made it an "unlawful assembly" other than an arbitrary and baseless decision by the police? Why should the students who disperse but continue to watch from a block or two away be subject to arrest? Why should people who have come to the perimeter only to witness and record events be pepper sprayed? This was a simple matter of getting people to accept arbitrary curtailments of their freedoms. It had nothing to do with the kids' behavior or even their politics. Police broke up an orderly anti-Fed demonstration in the Strip District also.
Giving the police arbitrary powers to prevent us from assembling and to arrest anyone who watches them should not be one of the demands of a "pro freedom" movement.
Titus
Monday, September 28, 2009
Titus North, former candidate for Mayor and US Congress on the Pitt situation on the G-20 weekend
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Adam F wrote:
Regarding the bike girl's "apology", I felt the same way when I read the headline... "why the hell would she apologize?" Then when I watched the video I realized it was just typical media spin. Her exact words were:
"If I did hurt anyone with my bike -- which I hope I didn't -- I apologize"
That's not exactly an apology. She says she apologizes IF SHE DID HURT ANYONE. It's conditional, and she didn't hurt anyone. When she "threw" the bike it was from a couple feet away and the whole thing didn't even get airborn. She didn't even slow that giant cop down or even hit him at all. He had a vest and helmet on, easily parried, and immediately NAILED HER IN THE HEAD with his nightstick right before two other big ogres violently slammed her to the ground by her head. She clearly wouldn't have done anything in the first place if they weren't cross checking her with their nick sticks while she was obeying their order to disperse. But of course the story the media told was GIRL THROWS BIKE AT POLICE, not GIRL MEAKLY THROWS BIKE AFTER BEING UNNECESSARILY ASSAULTED, POLICE PARRY AND BRUTALLY BEAT HER, so of course while painting her as the bad guy they want to emphasize the "apology". Most people will just read the headline and it will only further play into the biased myth of her attackign police when ti was the other way around completely.
The inexcusable actions of a few provided an excuse for overreaction as to the rest. In his "community organizer" days Barack Obama himself most likely would have been out there, at least to witness and record what was happening.
Post a Comment