Issues of a Domestic Nature (READ WARNING ON PAGE 1 BEFORE POSTING)

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Out of the Rafters at the Q

Out of the Rafters
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
8,231
Reaction score
13,423
Points
123
Peaceful march in Omaha. Cops were marching alongside protesters in what appeared to be solidarity. However, as soon as the protest made it to a bridge, the police barricaded the other side and trapped the protesters. They then declared the protest unlawful and started arresting everybody.

This person on the bike is a local politician running for the state legislature who openly supports defunding the police in Omaha:


Sure looks like he's being specifically targeted by the police for retaliation because he dares speak out against them. Gang mentality runs deep.

Another protester, who was arrested and jailed Saturday, 28-year-old Cole Christensen, shared a photo of the welts from his pepper ball wounds on Facebook; he was shot while standing near Vondrasek. He told VICE News he had asked police officers multiple times why they were arresting people on the bridge, before being slammed to the ground and zip-tied himself.

“I know for damn sure that I was not once warned before they walled us off on that bridge and said, ‘You are being detained,’” Christensen said.
He was charged with resisting arrest, obstructing a peace officer, obstructing the highway, and failure to disperse. While he was in jail, he said one correctional officer took photos of him on his cell phone and mocked him for his effeminate voice.



Omaha Police Capt. Mark Matuza told the Omaha World-Herald that the protest was stopped because it “leaned toward the potential of getting violent,” @Man Called X more proactive arresting! I guess they shouldn't have looked like they had the potential to be violent. Any idea what that coded message could mean in Nebraska?


Source
 
Last edited:

Man Called X

Sexton Island
Joined
Jul 22, 2006
Messages
16,293
Reaction score
20,677
Points
135
Peaceful march in Omaha. Cops were marching alongside protesters in what appeared to be solidarity. However, as soon as the protest made it to a bridge, the police barricaded the other side and trapped the protesters. They then declared the protest unlawful and started arresting everybody.

This person on the bike is a local politician running for the state legislature who openly supports defunding the police in Omaha:


Sure looks like he's being specifically targeted by the police for retaliation because he dares speak out against them. Gang mentality runs deep.

Another protester, who was arrested and jailed Saturday, 28-year-old Cole Christensen, shared a photo of the welts from his pepper ball wounds on Facebook; he was shot while standing near Vondrasek. He told VICE News he had asked police officers multiple times why they were arresting people on the bridge, before being slammed to the ground and zip-tied himself.

“I know for damn sure that I was not once warned before they walled us off on that bridge and said, ‘You are being detained,’” Christensen said.
He was charged with resisting arrest, obstructing a peace officer, obstructing the highway, and failure to disperse. While he was in jail, he said one correctional officer took photos of him on his cell phone and mocked him for his effeminate voice.



Omaha Police Capt. Mark Matuza told the Omaha World-Herald that the protest was stopped because it “leaned toward the potential of getting violent,” @Man Called X more proactive arresting! I guess they shouldn't have looked like they had the potential to be violent. Any idea what that coded message could mean in Nebraska?


Source
Once again, fuck the police and anyone supporting this kind of shit.

As for the coded message about leaned toward the potential for getting violent, that's an obvious "You want to protest, this is what is going to happen to you." More fucking rhetoric by an asshole on a power trip. Just looking at Matuza's picture tells me he got his ass beat constantly growing up.

But hey, this isn't tyranny, it's law and order! *insert more generic bootlicker comments*
 

Zeus69

Secular Humanist
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
2,999
Reaction score
3,477
Points
101
Omaha Police Capt. Mark Matuza told the Omaha World-Herald that the protest was stopped because it “leaned toward the potential of getting violent,” @Man Called X more proactive arresting! I guess they shouldn't have looked like they had the potential to be violent. Any idea what that coded message could mean in Nebraska?
Quick peek of happenings at Omaha PD via basement-cam:

E08A0BCA-8A98-40DB-96FB-7D7B917B69AF.jpeg
 

Lee

Gold Star Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
25,724
Reaction score
31,596
Points
148
How do you figure? It seems like the Feds are backing down, that is what the protesters wanted, so if they decide to burn stuff down, it shows that the Fed was wrong to leave. You cant protest and ask for one thing, then when you get it, keep acting bad. I think this is going to be up to Portland to protect these at all costs. Will be interesting how it works out.

I am hoping that the protesters do slow down(the rioting part), and don't do anything but peaceful protest. It will go to show that Trump and the Feds were wrong for getting involved. I hope this is the message from everyone.
First I find it wrong and scary that the Feds and a private mercenary group have gone into Portland. I am just using your message to respond in general, not directly at you.

I do agree it would be bad for the Fed building to be burned, I don't think there is ANY justification for arson. 2 wrongs do not make a right, and we have known that for years.

I also find it interesting that the most violent protests is coming from the most white major city and most of the violence seems to be coming from white people? Do we agree on this? Why do we think that is? Just generally opening up the conversation a bit.
 

Lee

Gold Star Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
25,724
Reaction score
31,596
Points
148
I agree. "They have insurance" is a stupid reasoning to justify something.

The rates for all properties in that area will increase. The fat cat always gets his meal. The little guy always feels the squeeze.

I do not feel that threats to property justify liberally attacking thousands of people. You want to arrest only the people who did something wrong? Go for it. You want to shoot rubber bullets and tear gas at peaceful protesters, the Wall of Moms, and everyone else? Nope--there's no legal justification for that. You don't get to assault innocent individuals because it's inconvenient for you to pick out specific people that you want to arrest.
I actually think the crowd should point out the violent protestors like they did in HK. Violence doesn't help anyone at this point....the message is out there loud and clear. The federal building is needed, its not attacking Trump, it is wasting tax money as it will need to be repaired, the troops there are wasting tax money...that is on Trump though.
 

Out of the Rafters at the Q

Out of the Rafters
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
8,231
Reaction score
13,423
Points
123
First I find it wrong and scary that the Feds and a private mercenary group have gone into Portland. I am just using your message to respond in general, not directly at you.

I do agree it would be bad for the Fed building to be burned, I don't think there is ANY justification for arson. 2 wrongs do not make a right, and we have known that for years.

I also find it interesting that the most violent protests is coming from the most white major city and most of the violence seems to be coming from white people? Do we agree on this? Why do we think that is? Just generally opening up the conversation a bit.
I think it's a misnomer to claim that Portland has the most violent protesting.

They've had some of the most fervent protests around. They've been in the streets in the thousands for two straight months at this point.

They've certainly had the most consistent level of police violence inflicted against them. Kids are going out to protest with their parents in full gas masks, because everyone knows they're getting tear gassed. Like, chemical weapons are being used against the US population to deter people from using their right to protest and for a lot of people, it's just the new normal in America.

Violence begets violence, but I still would say that for the sheer amount of protesting occurring in the city, there isn't much violence on the part of protesters. Sure, it's a non-zero amount, but it's not like the city is burning or anything.
 

Out of the Rafters at the Q

Out of the Rafters
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
8,231
Reaction score
13,423
Points
123
I actually think the crowd should point out the violent protestors like they did in HK. Violence doesn't help anyone at this point....the message is out there loud and clear. The federal building is needed, its not attacking Trump, it is wasting tax money as it will need to be repaired, the troops there are wasting tax money...that is on Trump though.
I agree with protesters should police themselves. I think most of us have called for that from the beginning. I know I did. It would be beneficial to all.

However, I don't think that's feasible. One person throws a bottle or chucks a can or sets off a roman candle... what happens? The four people around that person grab the individual and attempt to detain the individual? Maybe try to drag that person through the throng of protesters towards the cops?

1) How do you see that playing out with the other protesters that see someone being dragged towards the police?
2) What do you do when the police start shooting because they see the four people attacking one person as "violence breaking out in the protest"?

At the end of the day, if the people whose job it is to arrest violent actors are the ones acting violently, why should there be expectations that anyone else act better? I mean, as an idealist, I'd love for it to happen--I just think it's one of those things that doesn't work in practice.

Also, if you think the HK protesters policing themselves is widespread and the norm, I don't think that's accurate.
 

Lee

Gold Star Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
25,724
Reaction score
31,596
Points
148
I agree with protesters should police themselves. I think most of us have called for that from the beginning. I know I did. It would be beneficial to all.

However, I don't think that's feasible. One person throws a bottle or chucks a can or sets off a roman candle... what happens? The four people around that person grab the individual and attempt to detain the individual? Maybe try to drag that person through the throng of protesters towards the cops?

1) How do you see that playing out with the other protesters that see someone being dragged towards the police?
2) What do you do when the police start shooting because they see the four people attacking one person as "violence breaking out in the protest"?

At the end of the day, if the people whose job it is to arrest violent actors are the ones acting violently, why should there be expectations that anyone else act better? I mean, as an idealist, I'd love for it to happen--I just think it's one of those things that doesn't work in practice.

Also, if you think the HK protesters policing themselves is widespread and the norm, I don't think that's accurate.
I dont think HK protestors policing themselves is the norm, I am saying when possible, the protestors should try. I get it isn't 100% possible, not even sure anywhere near 50% possible, but like it or hate it, police are a 100% necessity in society and the protests should be to help improve the police and not eliminat4e them. I think most of the crowd gets that, but there is an extreme part of the crowds that forget that and really wouldn't mind anarchy, but be careful what you ask for on that end.
 

Out of the Rafters at the Q

Out of the Rafters
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
8,231
Reaction score
13,423
Points
123
I dont think HK protestors policing themselves is the norm, I am saying when possible, the protestors should try. I get it isn't 100% possible, not even sure anywhere near 50% possible, but like it or hate it, police are a 100% necessity in society and the protests should be to help improve the police and not eliminat4e them. I think most of the crowd gets that, but there is an extreme part of the crowds that forget that and really wouldn't mind anarchy, but be careful what you ask for on that end.
Nobody is actually pushing for the policy that our future should contain zero people who arrest people who commit crimes. You understand that, right?

Because based off your language, I feel like you don't.

Even in antifa circles, I don't think you can find many who would agree with your take. At least, I haven't met many who feel that way.

The people who push for anarchy aren't exactly people you have to worry about taking seriously. I think there are interesting aspects of anarchy, but it's not like it's a serious option in this country.
 
Last edited:

Man Called X

Sexton Island
Joined
Jul 22, 2006
Messages
16,293
Reaction score
20,677
Points
135
Nobody is actually pushing for the policy that our future should contain zero people who arrest people who commit crimes. You understand that, right?

Because based off your language, I feel like you don't.

Even in antifa circles, I don't think you can find many who would agree with your take. At least, I haven't met many who feel that way.

The people who push for anarchy aren't exactly people you have to worry about taking seriously. I think there are interesting aspects of anarchy, but it's not like it's a serious option in this country.
I'm probably the only person here that would argue for anarchy, but I'm also smart enough to realize it would never work in today's society. Outside of small collectives, it would be ineffective.
 

Jack Brickman

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
31,404
Reaction score
39,753
Points
148
I'm probably the only person here that would argue for anarchy, but I'm also smart enough to realize it would never work in today's society. Outside of small collectives, it would be ineffective.
As you've said yourself, for anarchy to be viable you need decent people capable of conducting themselves like mature adults who act responsibly and in the best interests of the whole community.

Nothing about that sounds like the USA.
 

Blink

Situational Stopper
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
142
Reaction score
250
Points
63
As you've said yourself, for anarchy to be viable you need decent people capable of conducting themselves like mature adults who act responsibly and in the best interests of the whole community.

Nothing about that sounds like the USA.
I would argue that pretty much any governing system works under those parameters. But that's never happened, and it never will. Given enough opportunities, someone will always find a way to exploit the system, no matter which one.
 

Jack Brickman

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
31,404
Reaction score
39,753
Points
148
I would argue that pretty much any governing system works under those parameters. But that's never happened, and it never will. Given enough opportunities, someone will always find a way to exploit the system, no matter which one.
I think government exists because people have shown over time that they can't police themselves. Yes, people will do their best to exploit governments as well, but ultimately we're not a species that is capable of doing the right thing en masse, and so we need some sort of governing body to provide us with laws and consequences for breaking them.
 

Lee

Gold Star Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
25,724
Reaction score
31,596
Points
148
Nobody is actually pushing for the policy that our future should contain zero people who arrest people who commit crimes. You understand that, right?

Because based off your language, I feel like you don't.

Even in antifa circles, I don't think you can find many who would agree with your take. At least, I haven't met many who feel that way.

The people who push for anarchy aren't exactly people you have to worry about taking seriously. I think there are interesting aspects of anarchy, but it's not like it's a serious option in this country.
I know you dont want to eliminate the police, but there are some that do...its not prominent, but the way some of the movement talks, its not very conducive to improving police, just eliminate the police.

But no, not on here, and not many. The one thing that absolutely needs eliminated is the big blue wall. If a fellow police officer is beating and assaulting someone, you cannot protect them, but need to turn them in and do the right thing. I really think the biggest issue is the code of silence,
 

The Improv House

Top