walter_strong5 Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 <p>In case you folks haven't been paying attention, for at least the last century the Brits have been slowly sinking into a state of complete idiocy. <br> Read Pat Buchannan's book to see how they lead the world into two "world wars". Their immigration policy is even more stupid than our's, if you<br> can believe such a thing. England is really a pathetic nation, terminally ill with the cancer of liberalism. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walter_strong5 Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 <p>"A police officer thinking this law applies to you is one thing. Getting a judge to agree with that is a different matter entirely." My guess is that<br> would not be at all difficult in Britain.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damon DAmato Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 <p>By the way ND, Eric, and Joe</p> <p>With all the commotion, I never told any of you how much I appreciate that you got those photos. Documents like those are so important.</p> <p>ND-- I was watching the crazyness on the youtubes and Democracy Now, and I know it must have been more than a little unerving with everything that was going on there. I can see how close you are to those guys. You have a couple of great shots there.</p> <p>Joe, how did you come to be in Gaza? Was that photo recent? Is it incredibly dangerous to be walking around with a camera there, or did you feel welcome as someone who could get their story out, or somewhere in between?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luca_stramare2 Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 <p>Unfortunately, I'd agree with Sarah's point. Any history book will tell you that at the end of WWI, Germany was left with a high war debt. The economic crisis of 1929 made things worse. Inflation was so high that at a certain point restaurants were asking to be paid in advance, because the bill at the end of the dinner was higher. Then Hitler came and started to fix things one at a time and this was what most of the German saw. Inflation went back to normal rates, the economy restarted, unemployments rates dropped, Germany started having a position among other nations, the motorway network was being buildt, industry was flourishing... government was even promising a car to every German.<br> As Sarah said: "Perfectly sane, ordinary, everyday people followed Hitler's lead to a very insane end". Why? Because when they realized that the recovery of the nation was obtained at the expense of their own freedom and that the government had other plans in mind, it was too late to stand against the govermnent. In the period between the two wars, both Italy and Germany went from democracy to dictatorship, but the change did not happen overnight. It was a slow drift, day by day the ordinary people was trading a bit of his/her freedom in exchange for a bit less chaos and prosperity of the country. Until they left the point of no return behind and they realized what they have been dragged themselves into. This is a lesson we all must learn.<br> Sorry for the OT.</p> <p>Coming back to the topic of this thread, there are two things that I would like to point out.<br> The first is that I believe that police forces shall be made accountable of their behavior. We all know that in every court the word of a policeman has a higher value than the one of a common citizen. By not allowing people to take pictures or videos of the police in action, a county is basically dropping a curtain, preventing journalists, but also common citizens, from documenting any (hopefully occasional) behaviour beyond the lines. And, unfortunately, we all know that the only way to spot such misbehaviour, more often than not are images taken by people who were there. Just to give an example, not so many years ago, pictures taken by people here in Italy, allowed to demonstrate that some municipalities were using speed radars to raise money at the expense of passing drivers, for example placing a temporary 30 mph speed limit on a street where you are normally allowed to run 55 and a speed radar 10 yards after, conceived behind a parked van. If taking pictures of police forces in action was prohibited, it would had never been possible to bring this misbehaviour to the attention of the press or to demonstrate to the court that the speed ticket you got was not valid.<br> The other is related to the people taking pictures. I understand that the risk of getting into troubles by taking pictures in Trafalgar Square is close to zero. But it is not zero, as I said, common sense is not to be given granted. And even if one poor person gets into troubles for innocently taking a picture of a train station, a shopping mall or whatever, and being considered doing something 'likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism', for me that's one person too much.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonmestrom Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 <p>Funny how these threads often evolve, you can learn a lot about people and their way of thinking.</p> <p>NO, we are not living in a police state nor does the above amendment, misguided and foolish as it is, do anything to bring that about. Please keep this all in a proper context. Bringing the prewar Third Reich into this is hardly appropiate to say the least.<br> Also it's hardly a slippery slope. Once ratified it will merely lead to more incidents as described and lead to a lot of misunderstandings before dying a silent death.</p> <p>What is a slippery slope IMO is the PA. Wile it may not affect your daily life in a overt way (yet) it's implications are farreaching. That however has nothing to do with any censorship of the media. As I see it, and I said it before, this is for a large part selfimposed.</p> <p>Paranoia is what's really threatening our way of life and this thread is a nice proof of that. Funnily enough there was a documentary on our national TV yesterday night about the Dixie Chicks. When they made a negative comment about GWB a few years ago they got banned and one of their songs which was one of the hottest in the US at the time dropped from the charts virtually overnight. While instigated by a right wing movement they got banned. That's the really worring part. If the vox populi stops thinking then we have a slippery slope. As for Sarah's comment to Brad, I understood what she meant immediately but the vox populi is for the most part subject to what media reports and it's them that should get their finger out. That will achieve a lot more than a mere public outcry.</p> <p>Another example of paranoia and related to photography happened a few years back, coincidentally in London. A planned exhibition of Robert Mapplethorpe's work came under a lot of critique because there where some photo's of nude children. At that moment pedophilia was hot in the news and there was a public outrage about these photo's.<br> So more than anything else it's not state control but a paranoid vox populi that rules our society, at least for a large part. But maybe most important of all politics has become reactive instead of proactive. Sure, some politicians may have their own hidden agenda but mostly public exposure and votes is what rules nowadays.</p> <p>Stating that the above amendment will lead to a police state is ludicrous. The mere fact that you are able to give your opinions freely here is proof against that. If you want state control look at China where they control internet acces.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshua_croft Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 <p>Have to agree that is a little extreme, although in general I agree with what is being done to combat terrorism. If your clean you have nothing to hide anyway......</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fullmetalphotograper Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 <p><b><i>Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759</i></b><br> <p>This reminds of a simple poem and why we all need be concerned:<br> "In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;<br> And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;<br> And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;<br> And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."<br> Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davebell Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 <p>Walter Strong wrote: " In case you folks haven't been paying attention, for at least the last century the Brits have been slowly sinking into a state of complete idiocy. <br /> Read Pat Buchannan's book to see how they lead the world into two "world wars". Their immigration policy is even more stupid than our's, if you<br /> can believe such a thing. England is really a pathetic nation, terminally ill with the cancer of liberalism"</p> <p>Walter, care to explain your ramblings. Don't just make sweeping statements, give us examples of why you think the above? For your informatio, Britian is liberal. That is the way I like it. I live in London and it is brilliant living with Iraqis, Afghans, Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis, Africans (where I originally hail from), people from every European nation, in fact a very very multicultural society. By the way England is not an isolated nation, just one part of Britian. The police in Britian don't carry guns. The whole ethos of policing is very different to the USA where they have nothing else to fall back on but their bug blazing guns. In Britian the police are, in my opinion, much better equiped and trained to deal with issues on the street without resorting to instant violence or needing to draw a gun as a show of force. But the USA is a gun crazy nation, whereas owning a gun in Britian is illegal unless you have a special collectors license or for sports shooting, or farmers. We all get on just fine without them. You will find this same tolerant attitude in Britian's soldiers as demonstrated in the currently ongoing, unjustified wars.<br> Its fine to criticise other nations but temper your language and don't be insulting. Lastly, don't think you are sleeping on a bed of roses, your country is not exactly a bed of roses.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davebell Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 <p>And, this whole thing is just paranoia. It is very obvious that you will not be thrown in jail unless you are proven guilty of doing something illegal. Wandering around London or wherever snapping away will never land you in prison. I certainly am not worried. Let the scaremongerers perpetuate these fears, the rest of us can carry on as usual. Calm down everyone, it will be alright!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 <blockquote> <p>In case you folks haven't been paying attention, for at least the last century the Brits have been slowly sinking into a state of complete idiocy.</p> </blockquote> <p>I'll have you know that we've been doing it a lot longer than a century.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 <blockquote> <p>Wandering around London or wherever snapping away will never land you in prison. I certainly am not worried. Let the scaremongerers perpetuate these fears, the rest of us can carry on as usual. Calm down everyone, it will be alright!</p> </blockquote> <p>Absolutely. Some people are mistakenly cautioned and/or arrested for all sorts of crimes. If you are innocent, it works out right in the end - usually with an apology.</p> <p>And as I pointed out earlier, the chances of it happening to you are miniscule. Some people hear about some crime or problem then assume it will automatically happen to them. I'm 99.999999% certain it will not!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longname Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 <p>You don't have to be thrown in jail to have your behaviour affected. Being questioned and detained is enough to make you think twice next time you're about to trip the shutter. At least for me it is.</p> <p>I don't think it's a matter of photographers being taken off to secret camps in droves. It's more a question of how far those in power are willing to go. Now it seems that they can have an excuse to detain and question people who take pictures in public of police officers.</p> <p>As for bringing up fascist Europe, I think it is appropriate to show how far a police state can go. One could bring up the detainment of U.S. citizens of Japanese descent during World War II as another example. Police states are a relative thing, you can only judge it for yourself. I personally think that things aren't as bad as some people make them out to be, but like Sarah said we're on a slippery slope.</p> <p>One could argue that China is a safe and productive country with many happy citizens. So what's so bad about living in that kind of police state, where the government and those in power are always right? Where there isn't any wrong doing by those who police the populace. Where you never hear about the wrongdoings of those in power.</p> <p>I forget where I heard this but: "Have faith in human decency, just don't tempt it." And I think that applies to both sides of the argument. One can't assume that the government is always in the right, nor that the private citizen that feels wronged is always the victim.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarah_fox Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 <p>"Have to agree that is a little extreme, although in general I agree with what is being done to combat terrorism. If your clean you have nothing to hide anyway......"</p> <p>That's true in theory, but not in practice. In practice it's more a matter of whether law enforcement officers like you. Case in point: Here in my area of Virginia there was an incident with the "hula hoop lady," a woman with mild/moderate traumatic brain injury who enjoys hula-hooping (for fitness, I believe) on the grassy median of a public roadway. Someone apparently complained about noise (I suppose from people beeping their horns at the popular figure), and the police were dispatched. They apparently did not like her manner of talking, which is very abrupt, so they decided to arrest her. They demanded she put her arms behind her back, which she physically could not do because of the injuries she had sustained. When she tried to tell the cops she was unable to do this, they tasered her repeatedly and arrested her.</p> <p>The hula hoop lady reminds me of a very good friend of mine who is rather unconventional in her own respects. She was stopped for an alleged traffic violation. Being the argumentative sort of person she is, she argued with the cop about it, thus pissing him off. He grabbed suddenly for her arm, which startled her. She flinched. Her flinch was "resisting arrest," and she was hauled into jaul. Charges were dismissed, but her experience left a profound psychological scar and all but destroyed her deep religious faith. (God had left her to suffer at the hands of evil people, even though she was a very good and devout person.)</p> <p>I was almost a case in point myself: I once had an elderly neighbor whose porch light was flashing on and off, on and off. Concerned that that was a distress signal (as there are special light switches that do this), I went over to check on her. She was home-bound, so I knew she was inside; however, she didn't answer her door. So I called 911. Long story short, her porch light was malfunctioning, and she was OK. When I saw the cop leaving her residence, I identified myself as the concerned neighbor and asked her if the woman was OK. Very pissed, the cop questioned me at length about why I was wasting the police dept's time and almost... aaaaaalmost arrested me having called 911! Horrified, I started crying, and I think that was the only thing that saved me.</p> <p>The sad fact is that police use technicalities to harrass, terrorize, and arrest people they do not like. This law in the UK will be another such technical tool in their arsenal. So if they find you an unlikeable sort of person (too young, too strange, too scruffy, too nonconforming, too foreign, too dark-skinned, too argumentative, too much like that person they hate, or otherwise too "too", then they might be able to run you into jail because of that camera hanging around your neck. What's more, if/when that rogue cop has got you on the ground, beating/choking/smothering/shooting you, the folks in the crowd will be too terrified to pull out a camera and document it, or else they'll be next. And finally, everyone in that crowd and everyone who hears about the incident will hear a very clear message -- a terrorist message, if you will: "Don't F**K with police officers, because they will do the same thing to you as well!" And THAT is how it works.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Stone Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 <p>Claiming that the US is a police state is so ridiculous as to be laughable. We have some people here that want to be allowed to do whatever suits them without any attention from the authorities charged to protect society. That, in spite of the fact that that they know full well that there are those intent on our destruction, and that they are attempting to impede the ability of those authorities to do their job. Some of those with such intent are US citizens with a very warped sense of right and wrong. <br> We saw pics posted here of police readied against rioters, but no pics of the destruction the rioters caused, or any accounting of the to cost to the taxpayers to deal with these morons. The poster speaks against the police, but not one word against the threat from rioters. That person is either ignorant, or has an agenda. <br> Some people are throwing out insults, then claiming that they didn't mean them that way. Who would not be insulted to be accused of supporting Hitler? This from people who don't even know the person that they're accusing. That is exactly how hate and distrust gets started, and it's exactly how the seeds of societal breakdown are sewed. </p> <p>The police are charged with protecting society, and that is best done by preventing problems, as opposed to dealing with them afterward. Who do some here think they are that they should not be questioned if they arouse the suspicion of the police by acting in a manner that draws that attention? </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonmestrom Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 <p>Sarah your conclusion is an overly bleak and generalized comment which I think is not compliant with what's really happening.</p> <p>Carl, I would agree that the comment you referr to is most unfortunate to say the least. Although I knew what was meant, having a slightly different historical context (which doesn't mean I agree btw) an apologie was offered so there's no need for any of us to comment further on it. I don't think there was any malicious intent and if there is anything more that needs to be said about it it's up to them.</p> <p>Let's get back to something that we are supposed t know a bit more off, which is photography.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarah_fox Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 <p>"Let's get back to something that we are supposed t know a bit more off, which is photography."</p> <p>Yeah... Agreed...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luca_stramare2 Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 <p>Once again, I agree with Sara and Al. While I understand that the chances of having a bad time are very low, as Sara said: it is a <em>"technical tool in their arsenal. So if they find you an unlikeable sort of person (too young, too strange, too scruffy, too nonconforming, too foreign, too dark-skinned, too argumentative, too much like that person they hate, or otherwise too "too", then they might be able to run you into jail because of that camera hanging around your neck. What's more, if/when that rogue cop has got you on the ground, beating/choking/smothering/shooting you, the folks in the crowd will be too terrified to pull out a camera and document it, or else they'll be next".</em><br />Then, maybe, a judge will take your case and will say "we're sorry". Meanwhile your vacation has been spoiled, your business meeting cancelled and your company angry at you, your life overturned and your details filed. Too much a price for a few pictures.<br> I believe that such a law needs to be opposed in the first place, without thinking "well, everybody has a camera, I don't look so strange, it won't happen to me..." and I thank you all the British photographer that are taking care of this. To me it is a matter of principle.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milbourn Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 <p>I am a photographer in the UK and I have been stopped from photographing in the street by security guards. I came to no harm, but they were big heavy people and they were not very clever so it was quite scary as it was difficult to predict what might happen. Since then there have been situations where I have decided not to take photos and I look over my shoulder much more often. The point is that I have become more fearful about something that I have not been worried about for the last 40 years of photography. A particular problem seems ot be that it is enthusiasts that are targeted, for instance if using DSLRs or tripods. People taking the same pictures with compacts or mobiles are left alone. I feel a lot more relaxed in mainland Europe where the same level of official pranoia does not appear to exist.<br> The point of the clamp down is that you don't have to harrass or detain many people to make everyone else cautious. Photography is not so important to most people that they are prepared to die in a ditch to defend it. As they say, a policeman is created inside your own head. As someone has pointed out the objective risk from terrorism is far less than it was in the seventies from IRA bomb and bomb scares were a regular event.<br> The weaknesses of the UK consitution make dealing with the situation quite difficult. There is no independent supreme court or written constitution. Both parties in the 2 party system are in favour of reducing civil liberties.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthur_kerns Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 <p>The real use of this ,"Anti-terrorism," approach isn't really about terrorism. Stopping shutter-bugs is only a piece of what adds up to a proliferation of control through fear. As previously stated the chances of being caught up in a terrorist attack is about the same as winning the lottery. So why the big to do? The persons attacked aren't the concern of either the law or the terrorists. It's the control,power and money lost by those in power that is their concern. And on the other is the wanton use of violence to gain control, money and power. It's been this way,the poor die for the rich to get richer,fatter and greedier,in every war ever fought. Talk to someone who knows about the holocaust,and see that the German government took away the peoples guns to ,"protect," them. Don't be fooled by what adds up to a practically non-existent threat to lose your freedom for safety.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 <p>hoo boy, the hornet's nest has been stirred, that's for sure...</p> <p>"So the Oakland police, who actually exhibited a huge amount of restraint, should have let even more locally-owned businesses and vehicles get trashed and burned in the downtown? What is it exactly that you find troubling? How would you have handled the situation (which you seem to know little about). It wasn't the police that enraged the "rioters." And the "rioters" were not the people peacefully protesting the BART shooting (which wasn't by the Oakland police, BTW); but were from out of town.'</p> <p>um excuse me Brad, but were you there? if not, you dont know what you're talking about. I was in downtown oakland on 1/7/09 and witnessed the events with my own eyes. the majority of businesses that were trashed-- closer to 30 than the 300 reported by media, actually--happened only AFTER 200 cops in riot gear surrounded the protestors and began pushing them away from downtown, beating them with nightsticks on the way regardless of whether they had actually committed any vandalism or not.</p> <p>the fact that you have to ask why this is troubling says a lot about you.</p> <p>Peter A, sorry, but your point of view is completely invalidated by your use of the phrase "towel-heads." in case you don't know, that's both racist and ignorant, besides not even being accurate to describe a group of white, asian, latino, and black people protesting a police shooting. by your definition, a towelhead appears to be anyone who resists the onset of a police state.</p> <p>Carl, you wrote: "We saw pics posted here of police readied against rioters, but no pics of the destruction the rioters caused, or any accounting of the to cost to the taxpayers to deal with these morons. The poster speaks against the police, but not one word against the threat from rioters. That person is either ignorant, or has an agenda."</p> <p>i actually do have some pics of the damage caused, which are kinda boring, and i have to say the damage is fairly minor: a smashed car windshield here, a broken window of a bus stop shelter there.sorry, no Molotovs lobbied into police cars. all in all, fairly lightweight for a 'riot,' which is why it's more like a rebellion. unfortunately, in this case, it seems certain that without the threat of further riots, the calls for accountability would not have been heeded by the DA, the Mayor of Oakland, the BART board of directors, and the state Attorney General, who all got the message that injustice had been done and the community was rightfully mad as hell and at the breaking point, and that if they didnt do somethign about it, they would look as complicit as the officer who shot that kid.</p> <p>i'm not condoning the use of violence whatsoever; i'm just saying in this case it proved effective in getting the powers that be to get off their butts and take decisive action, i.e. charging the cop with murder, calling for a citizen review board for BART police, demanding the resignation of the BART police chief, etc.</p> <p>so what was the threat from 'rioters', exactly? as i said, the damage was fairly minor, and far less in actuality than what the media reported. without the 'riot', its quite possible criminal charges would not have been brought against the murderous cop. and BTW, not a single business was damaged after the store-owners put up signs with pictures of Oscar Grant in their window, signifying solidarity with the cause...</p> <p>so i guess the real threat is disrupting business as usual for the police--who are rarely charged with crimes even for shooting unarmed suspects without justification--and calling attention to the concerns of the community. if you're against that, you're for a police state.</p> <p>about Orwell: thanks to him, we have the phrase "Big Brother" to describe a government where invasive regulations have replaced individual citizen's rights...kind of like what we saw in the US post 9/11, and to a certain degree, in England as well. he may have been inspired by Stalin, but there were plenty of Nazi supporters in the UK, and Thatcher's government was more than just a tiny bit facist. obviously, GO intended 1984 to be a cautionary tale of what could happen...the fact that his vision has come close to actual reality is fairly chilling. if you dont like that example, you can always look at Pink Floyd's the Wall, a rock opera which is ostensibly about a drugged-out rock star but is really about about the rise of facism in England (e.g. the National Front) and the use of "thought control" (among other things) in the education system. we shouldnt have to wait "until the hammers batter down your house"" or the internment of immigrants, etc. to raise a stir... which is where street photography in a documentarian sense can be a powerful tool for change before it's too late.</p> <p> </p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael s. Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 <p><em><< ... The police represent order ... <strong>period</strong> . ...>> [Key part of quote omitted. Emphasis mine.]<br /> </em></p> <p>Life would be much simpler if that were always true. Police are asked to represent order, sworn to represent it, empowered to represent it, daily counted on to represent it, and paid to represent it. And in turn, in democratic societies, we ask police to put their lives on the line to do so, for pay and honor that most would consider far too little and far to infrequent given the risk involved.</p> <p>And of course, it's not <em>exclusively</em> <em>order</em> the police are supposed to represent. Where there are protests -- noisy and unpleasant at times and often about disturbing subjects, but protected by a Constitution or core democratic principles in many places -- police are supposed to ensure the rights of the protestors.</p> <p>But sometimes they don't. They engage in mass arrests without justification or they arrest observers or others, or both, leading to problems:</p> <p>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/28/AR2007022801985.html "Washington Post" article</p> <p>Sometimes they attack the wrong folks. In the linked Jan. 28, 2009 article from the "British Journal of Photography," for example, there is this report:</p> <p><em>" ... Last week, Icelandic police fired pepper spray on photojournalists as they were covering protests in front of the country's parliament building. ... "</em></p> <p>And sometimes -- most notoriously in the US at the 1968 Democratic Convention in my old hometown, Chicago, police themselves become the rioters -- a conclusion reached not by me, but by the Presidential Commission appointed to study the evidence.</p> <p>But even with those incidents in mind, I think it's wrong to say that in the US, or the UK, or in Iceland or other democracies, people live in a "police state." And I believe it's very wrong to compare even those events I've mentioned, or others more lethal, with the Holocaust -- a distinct historical chapter in which police and others were empowered and directed <em>by</em> <em>government</em> (don't forget that part) to engage in mass atrocities over a period of years. I don't think analogies like those advance our discussions here.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 <p>speaking of the cost to taxpayers, who do you think will end up paying for the $25m civil suit filed on behalf of Oscar Grant's family? it's not like that will come out of ex-officer Mehserle's own pocket. Carl, let's put things in perspective: your mock outrage reveals a substantial amount of willful ignorance at not wanting to understand what is actually happening here. what about Oscar Grant's daughter, who will grow up without a father because some cop couldnt tell the difference between a SigSauer and a Taser and/or panicked in the heat of the moment, violating all guidelines covering the use of deadly force? if police dont follow their own rules and cannot be held accountable for their actions, then, yes, you are living in a de facto police state, and that reality will hit home sooner or later for you...hopefully sooner than later.</p> <p>it's interesting how many folks here have issues with the term "police state," as if only an extreme example could validate such usage. news flash: denial is not a river in Egypt.</p> <p>interestingly, Brad tried to illustrate his refutation of the police state analogy by making a comparison to the Holocaust, which besides being in poor taste, has only confused the issue. the thing is that mass facism, death camps, etc., begin with the erosion of civil rights and individual freedom, which raises concerns for those who care about such things. This is what connects photographers in England with protestors in Oakland. the overall point should be that as citizens, we have a right to document the world in which we live, and also that one major reason police dont like being photographed (or videotaped) because it could prove they are doing something they're not supposed to do, i.e. violating the civil rights of those they are supposed to protect and serve.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 <p>Just to be clear to my UK thinking mind. Bart is a US town right? Nothing to do with The Simpsons?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 <p>sorry for the confusion, steve. BART is a public transit agency located in the San Francisco Bay Area.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonmestrom Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 <p>Eric, I don't have an issue with the term police state as such but in this discussion its meaning has gotten out of context. I agree the amendment which has started this discussion needs to be adressed and condemned but ill-perceived as it is, it hardly constitutes the beginning of a police state. I've said it before, the introduction of the PA and the implications it has on individual rights are more far reaching than this and still, nobody could make a reasoned case that the US have turned into a police state. Overstating the case isn't helpfull in any discussion.<br> Lastly I think this discussion has outlived its usefullness because arguments have become repetitive and circular.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now