Freedomain Radio

Well aside from introducing myself, this will be my first post on a real issue that kind of bothers me.  So through the first 50 or so podcasts I have listened to, Steph has mentioned the concept of self-defense.  What I have gotten from it so far is that he doesn't necessarily say that self-defense is bad, but condoning violence in the name of self-defense could be used as just another way to justify violence.  He also mentions that many situations that would potentially provoke the use of violent self defense is usually avoidable.  Am on the right track?

Anyways, I still go to Infowars.com and read many of the stories there.  A lot of their focus is now on the mass protests going on at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado.  There have been many reports all over the media as a whole saying protesters have instigated violence, and others linked through Infowars that say quite the opposite.  So today, I came accross this video posted there today from Rocky Mountain News showing a police officer smacking a women down to the ground, and calling her a bitch.  Later, what looks to be the same women, is being interviewed, when suddenly, police officers grab her from behind and take her away.  Here is the clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfISlq1gzK8&eurl=http://www.infowars.com/?p=4171

Now, I know the video is short, and I don't like to jump to conclusions, but my first instinct is to get angry with the police officer for smacking a women half his size down to the ground.  I posted the video on Facebook to see what others think, and the first argument I get is something like "She was an idiot, she deserved it".  (A good friend of mine said this)  I never buy this "violence against idiots" argument because being an idiot is subjective.  Besides, I would never smack anyone in the face just for yelling in my face even though I may find it really annoying.  Now going back to the self defense thing, maybe this could have all been avoided if the women hadn't gone to the protest in the first place.  And I'm certaily not saying she should have fought back because she would obviously lose.  But this is where things get muddy for me.  Should people even bother protesting against the state or arguing their position with police officers?  It was reported well in advance that there would be crowd control officers there, so maybe the fact that violence occured at all is no use debating in the first place.  I just thought that this situation might be a good start in provoking discussions over the use of force with those I know.  What are everyone elses thoughts on this?

From what I've seen and heard I don't think it is even worth the effort to protest and argue with police. Protests rarely get any attention from the news anymore. The only reason to even protest is to get your message out and hope others join but since the message you're trying to sell doesn't get spread it tends to be a waste of time.

Also, with the police they don't really care. A few months ago some police officer killed a woman that was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The police officer only got a few month suspention. Police can get away with almost anything that would get "citizens" in trouble. I doubt anything will happen to the officer that hit the woman.

On a side note. I sometimes go to break.com to look at videos and there is occasionally a video of a police officer beating someone and 95% of the comments are like the one your friend said. "She deserved it!"

Why would you expect anything else? In most violent situations, people will immediately express sympathy for the aggressor to maximize their chance of survival. Why do you think people chant out in approval during a beating?

Violence is unjustifiable, but I suspect that people who attend protests primarily do so in order to be beaten and to be arrested. In turn, they provide justifications for greater police crackdowns. It is no secret to anyone that going to a protest will put you at great risk of physical harm. It's justified by the completely and utterly false notion that mass protests win "freedom," when they most often do the absolute opposite in any historical example that I can think of.

The fact that state schools promote this idea, that protests produce change, indicates just how corrupt the process is. These teachers prepare their students to be billy-clubbed and tasered by the police for no reason at all other than to grow state power. It's not a conscious process, but it has a nauseating logic to it.

I'd have to agree. My government professor today was talking about why we had the government we have today. He said the reason we have it is because no one else has fought to remove it. Basically, he was saying you have to protest/fight in order for the government to change and if you want it to change you should do that.

It made me and my brother sick.

that_z_dude:

Anyways, I still go to Infowars.com and read many of the stories there.  A lot of their focus is now on the mass protests going on at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado.  There have been many reports all over the media as a whole saying protesters have instigated violence, ...

An acquaintance of mine said when he was protesting @ the RNC in New York a few years ago. He saw people there that he deemed 'insighters'.  He said they were obviously cops in bad get-ups trying to get people to do illegal things.  The one was guy was yelling "I'm gonna set this trash can on fire! Who's with me?" but no one would back him up so he walked away.  I'm not sure how much truth there is in this but it wouldn't surprise me.

I participated in a protest at my university before the Iraq war. The people I was with were all a bunch of pinko leftists, and I can tell you none of them were violent in the slightest. Then again there weren't that many people so it wasn't exactly a "mass protest", and there were no cops to come and start hitting people.

maybe there are some violent people who come to protests to get rowdy and violent, but the majority of them are in police uniforms.

I mean there were weeks of non-violent protests in tiananmen square before the police and military came in and started shooting.

anyhow, one thing I noticed in the comments on the video people saying that power goes to the cops head. it's not power, it's the argument from morality. ie. "These commy pinkos want to let the terrorists win, so I'm a good person if I knock a little sense into them."

just like the government forces in Tiananmen square "these people are trying to destroy our country, so I am good if I shoot them."

anyway here's a funny video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO5WoLnOOlU

Yes, I definitely feel the same way about protests being unproductive.  I too have participated in a few regarding eminent domain abuse, none of which ever became violent, or even ended the abuse of eminent domain.  But the fact of the matter is, people don't change their minds over signs in the street.  They either agree with you, hate you, or don't know what the hell you're talking about.  I'm sure we all realize that.  But I guess my main concern was not that violence DOES occur at protests, but whether or not discussing this particular topic with others and using the argument for morality is even worth debating. 

Like I said before, I more or less posted that video on Facebook to see what, if any, responses I would receive.  I totally see the amoral act on the cops part, but many will turn around and say that the protesters are being amoral and stupid for even going.  And if the protesters are going because they actually seek out the violence, is this too an amoral act?  This is where things get muddy for me.

J-William:

just like the government forces in Tiananmen square "these people are trying to destroy our country, so I am good if I shoot them."