Frank Miller completely loses the plot

[the G-man]

Actually, yeah, it does. If you believe that corporations are too powerful, don't enrich corporations.

It's especially egregious in the case of giant corporations that are also media companies, insofar as corporate media are one of their major targets.

[sidious618]

the G-man wrote:

---

CBS recently interviewed an expert who explained that most of what you suggest is arguaby more dangerous:

• Charles J. Kelly, a former Baltimore Police Department lieutenant who wrote the department's use of force guidelines, said pepper spray is a "compliance tool" that can be used on subjects who do not resist, and is preferable to simply lifting protesters.
  
  "When you start picking up human bodies, you risk hurting them," Kelly said. "Bodies don't have handles on them."
  
  After reviewing the video, Kelly said he observed at least two cases of "active resistance" from protesters. In one instance, a woman pulls her arm back from an officer. In the second instance, a protester curls into a ball. Each of those actions could have warranted more force, including baton strikes and pressure-point techniques.
  
  "What I'm looking at is fairly standard police procedure," Kelly said.

The fact that you're defending the pepper spray incident is fairly repugnant. You honestly think the police should be pepper spraying non-violent citizens? That's skirting a little too close to police state for my tastes.

[the G-man]

sidious618 wrote:

---

The fact that you're defending the pepper spray incident is fairly repugnant. You honestly think the police should be pepper spraying non-violent citizens?

If the police overreact in any situation, they should be disciplined and/or prosecuted. However, according to the expert I cited (and a number of court cases), the use of pepper spray against protesters isn't, per se, excessive force.

[sidious618]

the G-man wrote:

---

If the police overreact in any situation, they should be disciplined and/or prosecuted. However, according to the expert I cited (and a number of court cases), the use of pepper spray against protesters isn't, per se, excessive force.

Then that needs to be changed ASAP.

[the G-man]

sidious618 wrote:

---

Then that needs to be changed ASAP.

Not if more people would ultimately be injured, which seems to be part of the point of the CBS story I cited.

[Mr. Adventure]

Sounds like a great way to rationalize actions. We're pepper spraying you in the face to protect you.

[the G-man]

Of course, there's also restoring order and protecting society. Remember: the occupiers are the ones breaking the law in the first place.

[Mr. Adventure]

Why is it conservatives only distrust the government when it comes to tax and business regulation?

[the G-man]

Why is it liberals trust them with everything but public safety?

[Mr. Adventure]

Well that game can probably go all night. I just wouldn't unquestioningly accept what they say about public safety and to be fair it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. It just seems like it would be an easy stand to abuse which is what I'd be wary of.

[the G-man]

Mr. Adventure wrote:

---

Well that game can probably go all night....

Yep. Kind of makes you wish you hadn't started it, eh?

But, seriously, I'm fully aware that there may be situations where the police have overreacted. At the same time, I'm not going to automatically assume the use of pepper spray was unwarranted.

[Haggis and tatties]

sidious618 wrote:

---

Then that needs to be changed ASAP.

I can only agree with you here, i think spraying any dangerous chemical indiscriminately at anybody simply to move them alone is a step in the wrong direction for any law, i certainly would class the act as excessive, especially for people simply protesting peacefully.

[Sci]

the G-man wrote:

---

Of course, there's also restoring order and protecting society.

Oh, yeah, those kids sitting down on the ground are a real threat to public safety and order.

Remember: the occupiers are the ones breaking the law in the first place.

Yes. It's called nonviolent civil disobedience. That doesn't mean that any action taken in retaliation is therefore justified.

Or, tell me, would the police in Birmingham have been justified in pepper spraying Martin Luther King during his sit-ins? After all, MLK was committing a crime.

[Captaindemotion]

the G-man wrote:

---

Actually, yeah, it does. If you believe that corporations are too powerful, don't enrich corporations.

It's especially egregious in the case of giant corporations that are also media companies, insofar as corporate media are one of their major targets.

There is no avoiding the enrichment of corporations. Every time I buy a book, newspaper, watch a movie etc, I'm doing so, directly or indirectly.

One doesn't have to be against corporations and capitalism to think that executives paying themselves bonusses at a time when other people's standars of living is failing is obscene; one can be a capitalist or even a conservative and still think that the fact that lobbyists have politicians in their pocket is an affront to decency and democracy, as is the fact that politicians can vote in legislation that personally enriches them and organisations in which they have shares, without disclosing same to the electorate. Do you want to live in a country run by the likes of Silvio Berlusconi?

[Starkers]

Captaindemotion wrote:

---

There is no avoiding the enrichment of corporations. Every time I buy a book, newspaper, watch a movie etc, I'm doing so, directly or indirectly.

One doesn't have to be against corporations and capitalism to think that executives paying themselves bonusses at a time when other people's standars of living is failing is obscene; one can be a capitalist or even a conservative and still think that the fact that lobbyists have politicians in their pocket is an affront to decency and democracy, as is the fact that politicians can vote in legislation that personally enriches them and organisations in which they have shares, without disclosing same to the electorate. Do you want to live in a country run by the likes of Silvio Berlusconi?

Depends, do I get an invite to the bunga-bunga parties?

Of course the amusing thing is that Berlusconi was at least actually democratically elected (God alone knows how!) where as now there isn't a single elected official in the Italian govt!

But yeah, I'm pro Capitalism and I'm not anti anyone making money but some of the bonusses flying around are just plain ridiculous, and I like the idea of splitting the banks into highstreet/investment arms...it gets somewhat scary when people are saying levels of inequality will soon reach Victorian levels.

That said no one was complaining about the banks when they were handing out cheap loans/mortgages, and as corrupt as the whole system is people were a lot more accepting four or five years ago, and I do think people have to accept some level of accountability for the mess we find oursevles in.

Re the V masks, what I find amusing is that Fawkes is being held up as some kind of freedom fighter when he was effectively just a religious extremist terrorist. Imagine in 500 years time a bunch of protestors in Osama Bin Laden masks? (And I know V in the film was fighting a cruel dictatorship but most people just think it's Guy Fawkes and that he must be cool because he wanted to blow up Parliament and all the MPs-idiots!)