After Cell-Phone Switch-Off, Anonymous Promises BART Protest 258
According to the San Francisco Appeal, the cellphone service shut-down that the BART system imposed Thursday (by disabling transponders which allow cellphone communications in the underground portion of the system), besides drawing rebukes from various civil liberties groups, has generated plans for a protest Monday organized by Anonymous.
Oh, they can fuck right off. (Score:4, Insightful)
People have the right to protest all they want, but:
1) BART has no obligation to assist them in doing so. BART had every right to turn off their equipment. Do these protesters expect to have the police drive them to the protest as well?
2) If the protesters are interfering with mass transit, they're just being assholes. Yes, it's sad that someone got killed. No, this doesn't mean that tens of thousands of people should have their schedules fucked around with.
The fact that this is such a big deal in the first place shows that these aren't real protesters anyway. They're just a bunch of spoiled SF kids thinking they're activists. Real activists wouldn't let something like not having internet access during the protest get in their way.
Re:Oh, they can fuck right off. (Score:4, Insightful)
2) If the protesters are interfering with mass transit, they're just being assholes. Yes, it's sad that someone got killed. No, this doesn't mean that tens of thousands of people should have their schedules fucked around with.
Not only that... but if protesters are interfering with mass transit, they are committing a crime and should be arrested, if they do not leave/disperse when ordered to by officials.
There are legal means of protest. And assemblies are legal, in some but not all public areas.
Once you enter an area that requires a ticket or that is private property, you are no longer in a public venue for free unhampered expression; you are in an area for paying customers.
And property owners (including the government) have a right to not allow protests on their private property.
Re:Oh, they can fuck right off. (Score:4, Interesting)
Once you enter an area that requires a ticket or that is private property, you are no longer in a public venue for free unhampered expression; you are in an area for paying customers.
Buy the lowest cost ticket, enter the ticketed area. Simply dont board any trains. If I remember correctly BART tickets do not expire with time. And its only the distance (stops) that matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
how many more privately owned towers are out there
Er, all of them? Does anyone know any govt owned cell network/tower?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing that iamhassi meant to say something along the lines of, how many third party cell towers exist. As in cell towers not owned by the service provider. Or cell towers that can be turned off on a whim by a third party.
I also guess that you knew that when replying with the sarcastic comment. (Sarcasm) Thanks for being so helpful! (/sarcasm)
Re: (Score:2)
The protestors should be arrested
Do you honestly think arresting people would have met with any smaller number of complaints to BART than turning off cell phone towers did? I can absolutely see headlines about the horrible BART police arresting innocent, peaceful protesters.
I think the protesters put the BART authorities in a no-win situation. Based on everything I have read and heard, the protesters were planning to be disruptive and attempting to coordinate in a way to avoid the police. Had BART done nothing, I think they would have
Re: (Score:2)
But to anybody who has ever experienced an actual Police State, that statement is flat out insulting. Especially since the Police weren't even involved.
Too true - Police states don't tend to treat security guards with much respect either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Upon throwing the knife he became unarmed.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm from San Francisco. That guy had more than one knife on him. He rolled the dice the moment he threw the knife at the officer. Nothing to read here, move along.
Re: (Score:2)
No, upon throwing the knife he demonstrated clear intent to use lethal force.
Sorry, but as much as I distrust police in many situations, this appears to be a justified shooting.
Now that I've seen the video, this whole protest business seems foolish. But the protests about BART cutting off cell service are still valid in my opinion, and should proceed.
Re: (Score:2)
Upon throwing the knife he became unarmed.
Security couldn't have known if he had no more weapons or not, they would have to assume he did.
He threw a knife and bottle at officers, that proves in fact he was an armed man, attempting to kill members of the public, an imminent danger, and that's what matters.
As soon as a perpetrator attempts to use deadly force to resist officers; officers have a right to defend themselves and the public, which includes responding to deadly force with deadly force.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose the GP thinks that once he threw his knife he was out of weapons, and therefore no longer represented a risk. (Neglecting to mention the other officer was injured by the knife.)
So this whole bringing a knife to a gun fight this is a pretty good recipe for suicide by cop, it would seem.
Re: (Score:2)
An officer (in his judgement) being threatened by a suspect, in most police forces, is one of the key requirements for use of deadly force. If you think that an officer should somehow kung-fu-ninja disarm a suspect you've been watching too many bad Steven Segal movies.\
Everyone knows if you pull a weapon on a cop, things are going to go really bad for you in a hurry.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it is well known that trained professionals can usually talk the person down, but police tend to oppose receiving that sort of training.
Re: (Score:2)
How is the police officer to know the guy is no longer armed? He threw a bottle and a knife; does he have something else? The police responded to the threat to themselves and BART patrons.
The penalty for assaulting a police officer with a weapon is jail, not death. Penalty infers an arrest, charges and a trial, however the p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I added the word "deadly" after the fact, without re-reading the whole sentence. But the police are required to respond and defend themselves and the public when threatened.
Actually, numerous court decisions have upheld that the police and government have no legal or Constitutional obligation to provide protection to the public. An example of this would be Warren v. District of Columbia:
Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is a U.S. Court of Appeals case in which three rape victims sued the District of Columbia because of negligence on the part of the police. Two of three female roommates were upstairs when they heard men break in and attack the third. After repeated calls to the police over half an hour, the roommate's screams stopped, and they assumed the police had arrived. They went downstairs and were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, and forced to commit sexual acts upon one another and to submit to the attackers' sexual demands for 14 hours. The police had lost track of the repeated calls for assistance. DC's highest court ruled that the police do not have a legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals, and absolved the police and the city of any liability.[2]
The police could have simply retreated or ignored the threat if they chose to do so, and there would be no judicial means of recourse against them. Even in cases of gross negligence, the police cannot be found liable for
Re: (Score:2)
You're mistaken on who the idiot is here. Police have every right to use deadly force if a threat is perceived to be deadly in nature. If a cop is standing in front of your car and you start the engine and put it in gear, you can and should be shot. Throwing knives is most certainly a threat that can lead to death.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, I wasn't aware that the penalty for throwing a knife at police is execution without a trial.
This is not a punishment or an execution; this is defense of the officer's person and the public. A shot perp might or might not survive, depending on where they are hit. The officer did not go over to the shot person's fallen body and pump his head full of bullets.
If an assailant walks up to any citizen who is carrying a firearm, throws a bottle at the person and misses, pulls out a throwing knife, thr
Re: (Score:2)
I will acknowledge that a small object, longer than it is wide, somewhat silver in color, crossed from somewhere off the left side of the screen behind the cop and landed on the platform near the upper right corner of the screen.
You mean, one of the two knives?
The CNN video [policeone.com] and news coverage is very clear about what happened. The 911 caller said the man was armed with multiple knives. BART officials and several police officers all confirmed this, the man was uncooperative. He was hit with a taser TW
Re: (Score:2)
And when the goverment has finished selling just about all of the public land, train stations, bus stations you'll get to enjoy your lack of freedom to speak in those oh so not public places, you know
There are plenty of places to peacefully assemble legally. For example, on a consenting party's private property, or, with the proper permit, the public areas outside the train station, public parks, libraries, etc.
Train stations and Bus stations exist to provide a specific function. There is no right
Re: (Score:2)
2) If the protesters are interfering with mass transit, they're just being assholes.
Agreed, however...
1) BART has no obligation to assist them in doing so. BART had every right to turn off their equipment.
...the BART authorities did have an obligation to keep that equipment turned on for normal, paying riders. We're not talking about a private business here; BART is a public, government-run facility and those transponders were paid for by our taxes and fares. They were shut off out of needless and stupid paranoia and it wouldn't have helped prevent an unlawful protest even if one did materialize, so it inconvenienced riders including me for no benefit whatsoever.
And yes, the inconvenience w
Re: (Score:3)
""There are areas in the BART system that are designated free-speech areas. We support that," BART spokesman Jim Allison said."
wow bart, really? Your damage control sucks, you dug yourself a hole and now you've jumped in and started burying yourself. "Free speech? Oh yeah, I've heard of that, its a good idea sometimes, but only when you stand over there inside the 'free speech' area."
Re:Oh, they can fuck right off. (Score:4, Insightful)
Please explain to me why a society in which protesters are allowed to effectively shut down my transportation to blare their political statements is morally superior to one in which they can assemble in the nearby concourse where everyone will be able to hear what they're saying and read their signs just as well. Also, please post your address, so that I can setup a protest in your living room. (certainly you would not dare to designate a private area restricted from public expression!)
Re: (Score:2)
Limited "free" speech is not free at all.
Privately owned "public" transportation/space is not public at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BART is a government agency and as such is bound to follow the constitution, whether or not it's a wise idea in a particular instance.
Either protesters have the right to peaceably assemble on public property or they don't. And I'm not personally sure I see the difference between a protest on a street corner or in a park and one that happens in a publicly owned train station.
Re: (Score:2)
The protest on the street corner doesn't disrupt the use of the street for other people. This protest would have kept normal people from using the subway.
Re:Oh, they can fuck right off. (Score:4, Insightful)
Because in your little sit quietly and be beaten society, the Civil Rights Movement failed and black people still can't vote!
Like my dad always says, it's the minority that is kicking over fences that makes the peaceful protesters seem reasonable and get people to talk to them. Without them, the peaceful protesters will themselves be labelled as extremists and be ignored.
Re: (Score:3)
Why stop at keeping me from getting to work and contributing to society? You could push me in the mud, slash my tires, kidnap my dog, leave flaming bags of poo on my doorstep... there are all sorts of ways to inconvenience me. And I do wholly admit that this is an effective way to draw attention to pet and minority views that otherwise I wouldn't give the time of day to. Nobody would recognize the names 'Anders Breivik' or 'Al Qaeda' if they contented themselves with politely handing out pamphlets. I su
Re: (Score:2)
There see to be some problems with understanding civil disobedience in the above posting
Why stop at keeping me from getting to work and contributing to society?
People have every right to keep you from getting to work .... if they are willing to bear the consequences. In this case that could e.g. be a short detainment by police (carrying people of the station) and a civil penalty [correct word?] for breach of domestic peace [another word looked up in the dictionary] or similar. Expect the police to take a few hours to clear the area and the courts to take weeks to months to get
Re: (Score:2)
Punishment for a crime isn't a transaction. We may say that someone "pays for his crimes" but that's a figure of speech--we don't say "it's okay to commit rape if you pay the jail time fee". It's supposed to indicate that we disapprove of the activity--period--and the punishment is an expression of our disapproval.
By your reasoning I could, oh, sell contaminated food and it would be okay as long as
Re: (Score:2)
You guys call the front of the bus the "free speech area"? In the southern U.S. we just call it "the front of the bus".
Re:Oh, they can fuck right off. (Score:5, Informative)
Not really. BART is NOT a private corporation. Those repeaters are NOT private property. It was/is financed through sales taxes levied by the local government.
They have no more right to shut down cell service to block free speech than the post office would to refuse to deliver flyers mailed by a protest group.
They DO have a right to insist that any protest be carried out in an orderly manner and that it not endanger the safety of others.
They sure like the benefits (like tax funding) they get from being a quasi-government body (www.bart.gov), so they will just have to deal with the downside.
Re: (Score:2)
There are people, anarchists and others who just like to smash shit up and loot stores, who will take advantage of any public gathering to try and escalate it into a riot. We saw this with the WTO riots in Seattle, the G4 and G8 summits in Genoa and Toronto, the Stanley Cup riots in Vancouver and the recent riots in London. It's unfortunate, but the fact remai
Re: (Score:2)
It may have played a part in the decision, but that doesn't make it an acceptable Constitutional action.
If you WANT things to devolve into chaos, a good way to start is to cut off communication between organizers. It seems that a repeated tactic is to provoke protesters until someone acts in anger, then start cracking skulls.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a government organization, BART *IS* required to act in a Constitutional manner. A number of citizens believe that shutting off the repeaters would be an unlawful prior restraint on speech that is protected under the 1st amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't have to be 100% tax supported to make BART a government organization and thus bound by the 1st Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Not their schedules! Oh noes! What's BART security beating a guy to death compared to peoples schedules?
I hope anonymous shuts BART down for an hour or so, just to let them know that control can work both ways.
Re: (Score:2)
I was just thinking about that - them disabling 911 surely exposes them to liability? Anyone else tampering with 911 services, even one prank call, can get you arr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And suppose a flying dragon was harnessed by the protesters and they dropped peanut butter and jelly sandwiches down to all the people who had been pushed onto the tracks.
"Suppose" my ass. You want to make up hypotheticals to support your agenda. I'm sorry friend, but protests that (gasp!) "disrupt peoples' schedules" are an honored part of American political history. There is no indication that th
Re: (Score:2)
This is funny "We will not tolerate censorship." Anonymous doesn't like censorship unless it is them doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
So, a BART employee murders a guy in col
Re: (Score:3)
A cop murdered an unarmed man and got off with barely a slap on the wrist.
Unarmed.
Except for the vodka bottle he threw at the police (which I believe hit one of the officers in the head).
And the knife he subsequently pulled on them before they finally shot him.
I wish the police would take out more of the stabby, drunken, crazy assholes we have wandering our streets. Like the crazy bitch who stabbed the cashier at a pizza place near my apartment to death one night a couple of years ago. Us neighbors all en
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh, they can fuck right off. (Score:4, Informative)
The video next shows the knife coming near the officer, hitting the side of a train and ricocheting to the platform, where it came to rest. The officer then fired his gun, the video indicates. Rainey said three shell casings were recovered on the station platform and indicate that the officer fired three shots. He said the preliminary indication is that Hill was struck by all three shots, but he cautioned that the investigations have not been completed and there has not yet been an official determination of how many shots were fired and how many times Hill was hit. The knife that Hill allegedly threw at the officers was 8 inches long, including a 4-inch blade, Rainey said. A second knife of the same size was also found on the platform and investigators believe Hill was armed with that knife as well, Rainey said. He showed photographs of both knives to reporters.
Re: (Score:3)
"And since when does throwing a bottle deserve death?"
It's Niven's 1. law: "Don't throw shit at an armed man!"
Re: (Score:2)
Unarmed you say? Do some research.
Re:Oh, they can fuck right off. (Score:5, Informative)
I'm disproving myself:
1.) Cell phone service was not disrupted directly following the shooting. (Which would have been worse!)
2.) The shooting I'm thinking of is Oscar Grant III, which was two years ago and probably resolved by this point.
I apologize, I flew off without actually knowing what the hell was going on, instead extrapolating from the admittedly limited information and summaries I was seeing on Twitter and taking in the wrong order and the wrong way. I was totally desynched from the truth. My fault.
Re: (Score:3)
I think a *LOT* of people are getting these mixed up.
well.. obviously, yes, as generally these "protests" are formed based on half-truths and misremembered lies.. but this one particularly.
this dude wasn't murdered, he was killed. justifiably killed. sucks, but don't go throwing knives at cops. don't care who you are, if you throw a knife at a cop and there is the slightest chance you may have another knife on or near you -- your ass is gonna get shot. cops get paid putting their lives on the line, bu
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose we'll just have to wait and see what the eye witnesses say, but based on what I can find..
In every police killing I remember hearing about the story changes a number of times in the next few months. There was a case of man shot and killed by police in London a few years ago. The first story to come out was that a dangerous and known criminal pointed a shotgun at the police who had no choice but to shoot first to disarm the lunatic.
The final version was thet this man was walking home with a table leg in a bag that his friend had just repaired. Someone assumed it was a gun and called the police. W
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Many people would argue that internet access is a right, not a privilege. Indeed, at least one Scandinavian country (I forget which one) has enshrined this principle into law. Also, given that the German Constitutional Court deemed access to television a right a few decades ago, I would suspect that they would rule in an analogous way regarding internet access today.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you should have your phone service because you paid for it, shouldn't the BART customers have their train service because they paid for it? The aim of the protestors was to disrupt these customers' service, after all.
Re:Oh, they can fuck right off. (Score:4, Insightful)
You sir are an idiot. I paid for my phone service to deny my that service is a breach of contract. As long as I have paid for my phone service I have a RIGHT to use it providing i use it within the terms outlined in the contract with my provider. To deny me that right is the same as stealing something I paid for and is a breach of contract.
No I think you are the idiot. BART simply shutdown a feature that they normally provide their passengers. You're acting like BART is actively preventing the telco from providing you service. You don't have a contract with BART to use their cell repeaters.
You have a contract with the telco provider, who obviously is failing to provide coverage underground. Read your contract and you'll notice there is absolutely no guarantee of service at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Protesters in San Francisco were protesting a police shooting of an armed, drunken and enraged crazy dude who threatened BART Police officers. As a result, the protesters were slightly inconvenienced for a short period of time by having their iPhones and Blackberries off-line within the very narrow confines of the underground portions of the BART system while lawfully exercising their unimpinged democr
Smooth move.. (Score:2)
..shuting off cell-phones to get rid of angry protesters?
It really won't stop anybody from organizing protests, it only affects the underground system, and makes things more chaotic.
But while BART isn't as effective as Muammar, they seem to work through the same PR firm. Real clever. That will teach those kids a lesson
What's the plan: "The beatings will continue until morale improves?"
Barring access to emergency services (Score:2)
Barring access to emergency services on purpose.
that's the real effect of it. the first time I read about this was "what the fuck? open season on mugging?". I mean, public transports have been going just to the opposite direction in general in past years, like offering WIFI etc while in transit. so on purpose making cell service worse is.. eh, it's just a stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid show of power by some committee jockey in BART.
they better hope no-one had a stroke or something similar..
anyways - now the
busy month for ANONYMOUS (Score:2)
How about protesting ... (Score:4, Interesting)
How about protesting outside station entrances? It is doubtful that the cellular providers would disable service at street level. Protesters also wouldn't disrupt physical transit service, though they can still make their point by disrupting individual commuters.
Most important of all: it doesn't endanger the lives of people, since platforms can be a dangerous place.
I remember hearing stories from a friend in a third world nation. When the government did something wrong they started destroying the trains in protest. The thing is, that destruction meant bugger all to the government (they don't use trains) so it really only made the lives of the protesters and the people who they claimed to represent worse. Which is exactly the sort of thing that Anonymous is doing. While it isn't quite that extreme yet, it could be within a few years if protesters keep upping the ante.
Re: (Score:2)
Platforms can be dangerous places, however if the protest causes things to become unsafe, that's what the police are for. One has a right to peaceably assemble, which implies that one isn't causing an unnecessary safety hazard.
A few people with signs or shouting slogans is hardly going to cause dangerous conditions on the platform of any station that's in compliance with the local fire code.
The backstory - for those not in the US (Score:2)
Maybe everyone in the US knows the backstory but i didn't so I googled it. Here is what I found:
On the 3 July 2011 a BART ( Bay Area Rapid Transport ) police officer shot dead Charles Hill ( 45 ). It appears Mr Hill was drunk but other than that stories vary wildly. No version of the story states Mr Hill had a gun, some versions say he was acting in a threatening manner with a bottle of drink. The controversy appears to be due to a police officer shooting an unarmed man when he had and should have used a ta
Was that part of the fare for BART? (Score:2)
We Decide Where Your Constitution is in Effect (Score:2)
"There are areas in the BART system that are designated free-speech areas. We support that," BART spokesman Jim Allison said.
The zones in which the Constitution is "officially" in effect are shrinking more and more. I don't seem to recall anything being in there about selective application of Constitutional protections at all (It's "officially" in effect 100% of the time in 100% of the country - it's not like a smoking zone), but ever since the idea started at political events - forcing those who want to ex
When will Anonymous2 shut down Anonymous? (Score:2)
This is the problem with vigilantism. It starts out with a target many agree with, and then just starts looking for targets.
Anonymous, you're now just another garden-variety thug. Proud of yourselves? Time for a new group to shut you down.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I condemn their DDOS, but I would surely support them if they were to call for a sit-in protest (just as in this case). Too bad, I live 200 miles from the nearest BART station. 'They' may be Anonymous, ?chans,or anybody, I would support them.
Agreed. I don't agree with most of the things they do but if I lived closer I would join them in this fight. This was a smart call by anon, I hope they stage more protests for this kind of thing, might make the public think more positively of them since it certainly improved my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. The fact is, we have been in a pacified state of getting nothing done for decades now. We have arrived from the 80s and 90s, a time of "plenty" into the present days which are definitely not a time of plenty. These protests are over-due and so long as they can remain peaceful, there is a chance that positive change can happen without revolution. I just hope people in positions of leadership are old enough to remember the lessons of the 60s and 70s.
Protesting in public places, even public transit
Re: (Score:2)
For some reason... on seeing 'Anonymous' doing so much... I begin to think there are more than one groups that call themselves anonymous... and possibly a bunch of hoaxes from attention-seekers
Re: (Score:2)
You can never be sure that "Anonymous" is the same group of people every time, it can be different groups with different and even conflicting interests.
And then there are professional rioters that rides on any suitable group just for the pleasure of destruction - those rioters should be brought to justice by their victims.
Re: (Score:2)
Protesting shootings and demanding accountability is why we have actual reputable civil liberties groups that specialize in this sort of thing.
Besides, the only people who suffer from protests held in a mass transit system are the people who are trying to get to work and keep the job they're fortunate to have.
Re: (Score:2)
The first point of protest should be the BART office, not the public transport channels they operate. If the employees of the head office are prevented from entering/leaving that will leave a considerable impact in the news too. Serve the protests to those that are responsible.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you been reading the comments around here? Did you notice that everyone is justifying the cop for their actions? Even saying that A COP IS REQUIRED TO KILL SOMEONE who is threatening him.
I've seen that a lot from american people. Excess 'respect' for the police. Fear, actually. And when you're afraid of the cops, you're fucked.
But they seem to forget that they're not robocop. They do
Re: (Score:2)
And lastly... YOU DON'T NEED TO SHOOT SOMEONE TO DEATH GOD DAMN IT, you can shoot him in the leg, shoulder, arm, whatever. Cops know about that. You don't need to execute someone that was just pointing a knife at you. Hell, if all he had is a knife, you could have maced him and he was out. I honestly don't know how people can not only justify the execution of a man by police, but also protests. Claims like "oh but it was private space". Sure, you know what? For what it's worth they could have also go through your phone and delete your pics too...
You've been watching too many Chuck Norris movies. In movies the good guys (after being shot at and missed multiple times) expertly shoot guns out of people's hands and disarm thugs with a soda straw while doing cartwheels and back flips. In the real world, police officers are trained that when you shoot, you aim for the centre of mass (chest) and shoot to put them down as quickly as possible. The intent is not to kill (that is often the result), but to stop the threat quickly.
Put yourself in the posi
Re: (Score:2)
YOU DON'T NEED TO SHOOT SOMEONE TO DEATH GOD DAMN IT, you can shoot him in the leg, shoulder, arm, whatever. Cops know about that.
You have been watching too many movies.
Shooting someone in the leg is still lethal force (since it's still possible for them to die that way), but also says "I didn't think I was actually justified in using lethal force". Intentionally shooting someone in the leg is, therefore, a very bad thing.
Either you have the right to use lethal force, in which case you need to use the meth
Re: (Score:3)
Here's a tip for those in California - did you know that you white folks are in the minority there? Sleep well...
What a bunch of crap. About 80% are white [wikipedia.org]. And thanks for you concern, I do sleep well, irrespective of the racial demographics of the state I am in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Besides the GP's statement was alluding that blacks are the majority (the rant that blacks are evils followed by something that states whites are a minority)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This isn't the main event, it's just the warmup (Score:4, Informative)
There's two things going on that aren't the same thing at all. One is the protests over police using black people for target practice, the other is the looting that takes place during the "riots".
The government keeps making excuses for the actions of their police officers; he was just doing his job, too bad that black person got in his way. This will continue and we'll see more of these protests
The other thing is the looting - this is (to put it simply) those who are just barely getting by taking the opportunity to grab up some of those consumer goods they could never afford to buy.
This is a symptom of the extreme imbalance in income distribution in the US (and England). Explain it however you want, the black and brown folks know that they're getting the dirty end of the stick and they aren't accepting those stories. They're kept in their place most of the time, but when things get protesty they'll come out and get some of what the "rich folks" have.
Of course, the "authorities" says that every protester is a criminal and they're busily putting "those people" back in their place. They'll never admit that it's the actions of their enforcers that start these protests - and they'll never admit that it's the greed in the upper class that creates the tensions that drive the riots and looting.
Those "upper class" folks are very aware of this and they're busily building taller fences, hiring more guards, and loading up on weaponry. They lean on their government friends to "keep things under control" and they do their best. Did you think that monitoring phone and email traffic was to stop terrorists? Maybe it's to keep track of groups forming that might present a threat to the established order in this country?
You'll keep hearing stories about how this is all about bad people - and as long as you keep believing that and supporting those who benefit from keeping those people in their place - you'll just postpone the date and increase the intensity of the "correction".
Here's a tip for those in California - did you know that you white folks are in the minority there? Sleep well...
Wow shut the fuck up.
This latest string of BART protests are still about the death of one Charles Blair Hill, a white homeless drunkard who threw a vodka bottle at a pair of passing police officers and then pulled a knife at them. He was shot as he prepared to throw the knife. I know I'm going to get modded down for this, but I'd say the idiot had it coming. It was clearly an act of self defense by the officer(s) involved.
People see "MAN KILLED BY POLICE" and instantly go into RAGE PROTEST RIOT LOOTING mode and blame the DIRTY PIGS for all of life's ills. Or people like you go and call them RACIST AGAINST THOSE BLACK AND BROWN FOLKS and then subtly threaten us white California residents by telling us we're in the minority. Maybe you were trolling, idk.
Re: (Score:2)
The guy certainly was provoking a response, and deserved one, but I'm not so sure leading with a lethal response was in order. He wasn't even capable of doing anything lethal. He was actually throwing his weapons away (albeit in a drunken act of aggression that could hurt someone). Had they bopped him with their batons and arrested him, I wouldn't have the slightest question about the appropriateness.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The guy certainly was provoking a response, and deserved one, but I'm not so sure leading with a lethal response was in order. He wasn't even capable of doing anything lethal.
Anybody is capable of doing something lethal (especially when they're impaired by substances), and Hill was charging with a knife. A determined attacker standing 21 feet away can have a knife in your body within a second and a half, and the way Hill started fucking with those cops as soon as they exited the train shows he had some motive.
That being said, I think it would have been better for the officer to draw and use his Taser rather than a firearm. The reason for choosing a gun is unknown to me, but it w
Re: (Score:2)
According to the witness reports, he was NOT charging and was moving "like Frankenstein". That sounds fairly incapable to me. A sloppy drunk determined attacker standing 21 feet away will be lucky if he doesn't fall down and piss himself within a second and a half.
I'm certainly not defending Hill's actions, I just don't see why a lethal response was justified. The Taser would have been a better choice. Perhaps some would still complain, but that's beside the point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This isn't the main event, it's just the warmup (Score:4, Informative)
There's two things going on that aren't the same thing at all. One is the protests over police using black people for target practice, the other is the looting that takes place during the "riots".
Here's a tip for those in California - did you know that you white folks are in the minority there? Sleep well...
Um, dude? The man who was shot, Charles Hill, was not black.
He was, however, intoxicated, violent, and armed. He threw a vodka bottle at two police officers and then attacked one with a knife. The police (or pigs or whatever the PC term is now) shot him in self defense. There's partial video of the incident—he was out of camera range, but the video shows the bottle flying at the officer who is in the picture. It happened very quickly: the officers saw Hill, he threw the bottle at them and charged brandishing a knife, and the police shot him all in under a minute. It's the kind of situation no one wants to have happen, but not because the police are some sort of racist murderers waging class warfare: rather, because no one wants knife-wielding drunks rampaging in the subway.
Are the pigs guilty of keeping the black man down and put "those people" in their place because they didn't decide to hug and sing kumbaya with the drunk white guy trying to stab them? Probably, in the minds of some people. I would say that you can see their pictures here: http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/2931/bart-protest-delays-evening-commute/ [fogcityjournal.com] , but they at least have a photo of Charles Hill and seem cogent enough, despite trying to climb on top of the BART trains, to know enough about the case they're "protesting" at least to realize that Hill isn't black.
Re:It would seem that (Score:2)
you house your garden gnomes better than most of us over here!
break into your car and destroy your garden gnome
Re: (Score:2)
In the U.S. the government would also be angry with the shut down. Of course, in the U.S. we (the NSA) monitor cell phone calls and would track people by listening in for calls regarding security personnel locations. We would then use this information to jail the most active people so the outbreak would quietly go away.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just rationalizing the issue. I've worked security on days where there was a major protest around the building, and cell phones are just not that big of a deal. If you work around the public you're going to get surveilled, it's just going to happen. And most crowds large enough to worry about aren't nimble enough to make much use of the information anyways.
If you haven't made adjustments to the procedures afterwards to account for that you're screwed, phones or no phones.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like a good idea (if you can trust tweeter). Maybe someone already did that. Not sure how much you can process this in real-time from twitter. I imagine there could be a bunch of typical signatures depending on what's happening. Say, for example, if there's a protest, it could grow slowly and move slowly (and at some point vanish). If it's a mayor event (blackout) it could reduce very fast, maybe with seconds variation from one place to another. If it's a tsunami, it could grow inland. Would be
Re: (Score:2)
I'm lovin' it... if it encourages any of the nerdier nerds, I think if you just built this with a REST API, the lower-level nerds (like me) would be happy to throw together front-ends for the unwashed masses... +1 for the idea...
In addition, just wanted to mention, WHO DIDN'T SEE THIS COMING?!?!?
Right, you shut down internet access ANYWHERE in this country, and ZOMG, Anons are pissed!
People forget that the internet is serious business.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for this, now I know that MyCleanPC is run by spamming shitsacks, and to recommend against it if anyone brings it up.
Re: (Score:3)
Is there a version for Linux?