This is what happens when people stop standing up for their rights

[dansutton]

<p>i'm a little confused. people seem to be saying that gaza is a police state which killed 1500 of its citizens recently. also, orwell was critical of his own government as well, although these works are less popular than the one's criticizing other forms of government. </p>

[joe_gallo]

<p>It's true Orwell was writing about Stalinist Russia in 1948. But he no doubt intended his novel to be a cautionary tale for the future of all societies...<br>

I knew I forgot to qualify something... thanks for filling in the blank Russ. Why else would he set it in England? There would be no impact if it was set in Russia...<br>

Anyhow, considering that bill and Obama's call for a Civilian National Security Force that will be separate and "just as well-funded as the military" makes you wonder what kind of change we're in for?<br>

Best we stay tunded and don't get complacent about having an "honest" man in the White House...<br>

Take up thy camera and walk!</p>

[davebell]

<p>Peter A wrote: "to that sad sacked dumbed down irrelevant country of yours".</p>

<p>Peter, I didn't realise they allowed children on this forum. Aren't you meant to be playing with your toys instead of insulting other countries? Grow up.</p>

[dansutton]

<p>also, people seem to be saying that gaza, as a police state, just recently killed 1500 of its citizens, which is confusing to me. also, orwell was very critical of his own state, yet these works never attained the popularity of those works that criticized others.</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1659336">jimmy english</a> , Feb 05, 2009; 07:27 p.m.</p>

<p>NOT ONE COMMENT ON THE BASIC ISSUE!<br /> The entire issue of "terrorism" is being mishandled. Terrorism is a tactic employed by your enemy. Beating your home population up is not fighting that enemy. Until you can bring yourself to name the enemy in a non euphimistic way (not politically correct) and rid your country of them you will have to cower in fear.</p>

<p>this is funny. "terrorism is a tactic employed by your enemy." this seems like the basic strategy for any form of violence. you descry your enemy as terrorists, and then get carte blanche to employ any tactic of your own. I'm assuming that jimmy english here means naming then enemy, without euphamism, as muslims or arabs, however he wants to lump or generalize them, and then this author seems to go on and suggest that ethnically cleansing america is the only solution. hmm, a final solution to the problem? nicely done.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Brad, an unarmed, completely compliant kid was executed by a cop for no apparent reason. Was the cop arrested for this act of murder? No. Just what about that do you NOT find troubling?</p>

<p>The fact that there was a riot and that it admittedly had to be controlled is incidental to the brutal act that provoked the riot AND the failure of the police to apply justice to their own in the same way they dealt it out to the kid. If the kid had pulled a gun and shot a cop, do you think he would have been arrested? Don't you think the law was unequally applied? Also why were cell phones confiscated? Did the witnesses no longer have the right to possess their cell phones? (Thank god the cops missed one of the cell phones.) It's when law enforcement is above the law and brutalizes the public, riding roughshod over their presumed rights that I think we can say we have a police state -- at least sometimes and in some parts of the country. That might not be your definition, but it's certainly mine.</p>

<p>If the cop had been arrested, indicted for first degree murder, tried, and most likely convicted, just like regular person, then I don't think there would have been a riot, and I wouldn't be arguing that the incident is evidence of a police state.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> Brad, an unarmed, completely compliant kid was executed by a cop for no apparent reason. Was the cop arrested for this act of murder? No. Just what about that do you NOT find troubling?</p>

<p>Which has nothing to do about the photo above being discussed. Or the BART shooting in anyway supports the notion that a police state exists. Perhaps you feel that BART's policies and procedures are designed and codified from the highest levels of government to systematically oppress and murder people riding their trains and these shootings occur regularly. My take, otoh, is BARTs training and screening practices for police officers is poor.</p>

<p>>>> Was the cop arrested for this act of murder?<br /> Yes.</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>I don't know how many contributing here has actually been to a police state but it is terrifying in its banality. In the beautiful country of Burma I often met locals in the street who won't talk to you for more than a couple of minutes because they may be picked up and asked about the conversation and why the spoke to you; a family who invited me in for tea and would talk in a near-whisper in case there was an eavesdropper outside despite the fact that a tropical rainstorm was beating down on the corrugated tin roof. What struck me was not so much the number of people arrested (Lord knows that idea is bad enough) but the <em>fear</em> it engendered - <em>what if</em> that person is a government informant? W<em>hat if</em> that advertisement is a trap for people whose inclination is to criticise the government? <em>What if </em>my words are twisted by someone who doesn't like me or is trying to curry favour with the local police.<br>

Those people who say 'I don't mind surveillance because I have nothing to hide' are missing the point. The best policemen is fear. Fear of the unknown is what keeps people in line, and the problem with the powers police are being given is that they are vague and hazy so they can be interpreted erratically and people don't know where they stand. And we see this more in many areas of society: people afraid to discuss cnocerns about immigration because they will be branded Nazis; people afraid to take pictures of children playing in case they are branded paedophiles; people becoming afraid to photograph public buildings just in case a policeman detains him because he thinks he is obeying the wishes of his paymasters (the Government who introduced the laws).</p>

<p>So do I have a fear of the legislation? Nope.<br>

Do I fear the outcome that people who have to enforce it and second guess the intentions because if he leaves it alone and something does happen his neck is on the line? You betcha!<br>

And that is the first step to a police state.</p>

<p>Are we there yet in UK (and/or US)? Not quite. But it is developing.</p>

[ukpa]

<p>NOT ONE COMMENT ON THE BASIC ISSUE!</p>

<p>The basic issue is <strong>censorship</strong> of the media. If the police can arrest photographers and videographers covering any event at which police are present, then they are severely limiting, if not compromising entirely, the ability of the media to report on events which the authorities may decide are 'not in the public interest' to be published or broadcast.</p>

[steve m smith]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Peter A wrote: "to that sad sacked dumbed down irrelevant country of yours".<br>

Peter, I didn't realise they allowed children on this forum. Aren't you meant to be playing with your toys instead of insulting other countries? Grow up.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think he's broken them all.</p>

 

[carlosmiller]

<p>Brad,<br>

It's funny every I stumble into one of these discussions, you're guaranteed to be there waving your pro-police flag.<br>

Not all of us live in San Francisco where police are generally nice compared to other cities.<br>

And not all of us have a habit of schmoozing with police by handing them free portraits whenever you see them.<br>

http://www.citysnaps.net/blog/?p=167</p>

<p> </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>>>> Was the cop arrested for this act of murder?<br />>Yes.</p>

<p>Not before rioting broke out. Not for almost a couple of weeks. Again, I ask how the kid would have been treated if he had shot the cop, instead of vice versa.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> It's funny every I stumble into one of these discussions, you're guaranteed to be there waving your pro-police flag.</p>

<p>Now, that is funny, Carlos. That really comes off as a desperate attempt to obfuscate the issue under discussion; which is if are we living under a police state. Surely you must have an opinion rather than stirring things up and not adding anything of your own?</p>

<p>FWIW, I'm no more pro-police than I am pro-plumber. I snap and hand out prints to all sorts of people on the street that I expect to see again. Dancers, vendors, bums, artists, journalists, CEOs, retailers, and police... It's a nice gesture that people like. </p>

<p>>>> And not all of us have a habit of schmoozing with police...</p>

<p>IMO, most photographers I see are afraid of schmoozing with <i>anyone</i> on the street. Something I enjoy doing with <i>everyone</i>, not just police.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> Not before rioting broke out. Not for almost a couple of weeks. </p>

<p>It took too long - no argument there. But please get back on track, you still have not supported your claim that we are living under a police state with anything other than just a bunch of talk; such as your belief the above Oakland photo fairly reflects a police state situation ("However, I think the incident and his photographs do accurately and fairly reflect a police state."). </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Honestly, Brad, I'm sure you perceive Hitler's fascist state to be way over the top, just like the rest of us, but I bet if you were a German in the third reich, you'd have been an enthusiastic supporter of the fuhrer. Some people are going to toe the hard "conservative" line no matter what, and I don't think they can be convinced of much of anything conflicting with their hardline beliefs. I believe I've stated my case. You're unconvinced, and nothing I can say will persuade you. Nothing more really needs to be said, eh?</p>

[joe_gallo]

<p>It's true Orwell was writing about Stalinist Russia in 1948. But he no doubt intended his novel to be a cautionary tale for the future of all societies...<br>

I knew I forgot to qualify something... thanks for filling in the blank Russ. Why else would he set it in England? There would be no impact if it was set in Russia...<br>

Anyhow, considering that bill and Obama's call for a Civilian National Security Force that will be separate and "just as well-funded as the military" makes you wonder what kind of change we're in for?<br>

Best we stay tunded and don't get complacent about having an "honest" man in the White House...<br>

Take up thy camera and walk!</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> but I bet if you were a German in the third reich, you'd have been an enthusiastic supporter of the fuhrer.</p>

<p>I beg your pardon? That's got to be one of the nastiest things I've heard from another in a long time. But, I suppose when you're out of gas on logic and being able to back up claims, a cheap shot is better than nothing.</p>

<p>>>> Some people are going to toe the hard "conservative" line no matter what,</p>

<p>Huh? Are you refering to me? It has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative (and I'm extremely liberal, not that it matters to the discussion). But on being accurate with respect to claims and evidence to support the claims made.</p>

<p>>>> I believe I've stated my case.</p>

<p>No, you've stated your belief. But have backed it up with nothing or examples that supports the view of now living under a police state. You really should do a small bit of research on what that means</p>

<p> </p>

[Carl Stone]

<p>The police represent order, and rioters represent anarchy, period. </p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>@Bill Graham:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The basic issue is <strong>censorship</strong> of the media.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I ahev beleived for a long time the biggest problem is not censorship <em>of</em> the media but censorship <em>by</em> the media. The papers/news outlets refusing to print the proper stories and do proper investigative journalism for a whole variety of reasons: political expediency, not upsetting certain groups to maximise profits, the time and money it costs to genuinely investigate a story. With a compliant set of numpties like that you don't need draconian laws.</p>

[benjamin_johnson]

<p>People who are willing to give up freedom for the sake of short term security, deserve neither freedom nor security - Benjamin Franklin</p>

[jimmy_english]

<p>The basic issue is NOT censorship of photographers. That censorship is part of a heightened & unwise increase in security brought about by the fear of another terrorist attack. YES -- the swamp that the terrorsts swim in should be drained(population)(removed) ! It is the only way to retun us to our pre 911 mindset and freedoms.</p>

[bobar57]

<p>Wacth this:<br>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKl2sEN4yNM&NR=1<br>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z86z2WlqJws&feature=related<br>

 

[peteradownunder]

<p>I am suitably chastened by the combined wisdom and logic of the loony left. Enjoy the New Deal coming from those you are so enthusiastic about today - soon enough you will end up chocking on your own preferences - it will be lovely to watch (again). Oh do invite those screaming towel heads into your homes and make sure your childrens' life mission becomes to right every wrong on the planet... make a list of the stuff that isnt 'right' and start working on it ..keep me posted!</p>

<p> </p>

[alexander_ghaffari]

<p>Hey everybody, you have to look at the bright side of moving toward facism...sweet uniforms for all!<br>

With communism, we all get free fuzzy hats!</p>

<p>Oh well, back to being oppressed...it is a full-time job.</p>

[longname]

<p>"screaming towel heads"..... wow...<br>

I'm on whatever side Peter A is against. :)</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Brad, if you feel my comment was nasty, you're not understanding my intent. Perfectly sane, ordinary, everyday people followed Hitler's lead to a very insane end. That's the scary part of it. That's the slippery slope. There is nothing extraordinarily "different" about the German mindset, and that sort of insanity can happen anywhere, potentially even in the US or UK. I personally feel you would have been a follower. That would make you like... er... half the population. It was not my intent to insult, and if you understood my comment that way, I apologize.</p>