Today on DU, I learned that police officers are being oppressed by hippies.

[Lilith Velkor]

With that in mind, why is it that I keep seeing posts about cops beating up, tazing and/or shooting people who seem to be targeted due to their ethnicity or a disability? I mean, since being a cop is exactly the same experience, couldn't we say that they are just, you know, lashing out at the unfairness of a society that permits such hateful bigotry to be aimed at them?

Like that nice officer at that cafe who was told to take his coffee and GTFO. That's discrimination and it's a really bad thing to be a hated minority, even though as a member of said minority, the nice officer could have shot that hippie dead on the spot and do not a minute of jail time. No no no, whether a group has power or not has no bearing at all when it comes to discussing bigotry and prejudice and all that evil shit.

I'm so glad my eyes have been opened on this subject, and I'm ready to do whatever it takes to right the injustices done to the wealthy AND the cops. Who's with me?

[damntexdem]

1. Yes, it's true -- it's been going on for decades.

And it still occurs, even in the absence of hippies in recent decades.

[Lerkfish]

2. errr.. what?

I guess I missed this.

[boppers]

59. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8509347

[Catherina]

3. I am. And while we're at it, I would like to give my unconditional support

to corporations because they know best and it's right and proper for our federal authorities to grovel in subservience to profit.

Rec'd

[Lilith Velkor]

14. That's the spirit!

WE SHALL OVERCOME. :patriot:

[JonLP24]

4. Nice

:thumbsup:

[piratefish08]

5. K&R

[immune]

6. I'm in

:evilgrin:

Let the games begin.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. It's just like what happened to black people.

Worse, even.

[no limit]

8. You know this mexican kid broke in to my apartment this one time some years back

So I guess if I follow your logic I should put up a sign on my property that reads "No Mexicans Allowed!".

Because we should judge an entire group of people because of the actions of a few. The whole guilty until proven innocent thing. Amirite?

[HuckleB]

9. Mexican kids are given the power and the responsibility to protect the public?

Who knew?

[11 Bravo]

12. There are a shit-load of Mexican cops on the LAPD.

Maybe he should just exclude them from his property.

[HuckleB]

15. Is that a numerical term, or just a logical fallacy?

:shrug:

[readmoreoften]

32. Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle. One very common among conservatives.

Cops went into a location and were thrown out.
A mexican went into a location was thrown out.
Cops are mexicans.

[HuckleB]

37. +1

[no limit]

17. What does that have to do with anything?

Do you honestly believe we should not have a police department?

I'm no fan of the police in general. Just as I'm not a fan of wall street brokers. But in the end it's an occupation. Do some cops do really fucked up shit? Obviously. Do some wall street brokers crash the economy while collecting giant bonuses? Obviously. Do some mexicans break in to houses and steal shit? Obviously. But you can't take that and automatically assume everyone in that group does it, at the very least that makes you a total dick.

There are cops that are good people who wanted to make a living helping people. There are some wall street brokers that are good people (I know hard to believe) and don't rip off their clients and crash entire economies. Obviously the majority of mexicans are good people just like everyone else. Yet you want to profile one group while not profiling other groups. Funny standards you got there.

[HuckleB]

20. If you want to rehash it all, see the previous threads.

I'm not going to discuss a matter with someone who chooses to ignore part of the equation because it's not convenient for your preconceived notions. If you want to realize that power and responsibility play a part in the equation, and if you want to acknowledge that Portland Police have a huge issue with the Portland public right now, then we can talke. If you choose to discuss only within a fantasy vacuum. I'm not going to waste my time there.

[no limit]

29. You do realize that the cop on the Portland streets doesn't make the policy, right?

Maybe you should ban politicians from your premises instead.

And you do understand that the actions of some cops is not reflective of the entire group, no? If I pulled up the court website here in New Mexico I'm sure there would be a lot of people with mexican names that got arrested last night, if I used your dumb logic that means all mexicans are like that.

Also, I assume you wouldn't want the military anywhere near you, right? Secret Service agents? FBI agents? IRS collectors? How about Cencus Workers? They have a lot of power too (well the last one is only applicable if you're a RW nutjob).

[HuckleB]

36. No one realized any of those things.

:eyes:

What logic are you trying to attribute to me, btw?

Oh, and thanks for offering up the red herring in your post title and in your assumptions rant.

That's quite the post.

:rofl:

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

199. total bullshit

If you don't understand the difference between racial prejudice and the distrust of police officers, you need to get the f*ck back to high school right now.

What a load of horseshite.

[texastoast]

10. Some of those cops killed kids for nothing, sort of like the SS

And I will never forget it. Yes, the hippies were disrepectful of the white man's way (for a while), and it didn't go over really well with law enforcement.

Only when cops realized they had a PR problem did they even attempt to start programs to enforce behavioral modification of the worst bullies on the force, and the concept of best practices came into play.

There are bad eggs everywhere and it has nothing to do with the "ethnicity" of being a cop. There are wonderful policemen and other law officers and there are some shits. Just like everything else.

With that badge comes enormous responsibility to be the best human you can be in the worst of circumstances at times. And the good ones do it because they truly want to help people. And the shits do it because they feel safer behind the gun.

[Lilith Velkor]

31. GODWIN!!11!!!

:spank:

[USArmyParatrooper]

55. Never mind the legalities

and never mind whether or not he should have booted the cop before or after he had already paid. The act itself, for no other reason than because he's a police officer, makes him small and pathetic. It would be beautiful irony if someday he's getting the shit kicked out of him and that same police officer shows up to save his ass.

[WolverineDG]

11. no, they're being told to leave AFTER placing an order & paying for it

if this joint really didn't want the cops there, they would have refused to take the cop's order & money.

dg

[HuckleB]

16. Yes, that would have been best.

On the other hand, the place isn't used to having a cop in there. Initially, they may not have thought about what they wanted to do. They apparently had time to watch a conservative suburbanite praise the cop for some time. That may have been the impetus for them to do something. Anyway, I really think that is just a distraction from the heart of the matter.

[WolverineDG]

26. If the cop was making a scene & making disparaging remarks about the clientele,

then the owner would have been right to kick him out. But no, he was talking quietly with a patron who spoke to him first. Sorry, if the owner had a problem serving cops, he shouldn't have taken his money.


dg

[HuckleB]

41. Ah, so you were there then.

Who knew?

I hope it didn't ruin your trip.

[WolverineDG]

43. If he had made such remarks, why didn't the owner say so?

It's not like he wasn't given ample opportunity.

dg

[HuckleB]

101. Remarks?

Who said anything about remarks?

:rofl:

[WolverineDG]

125. try these

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8515308&mesg_id=8515590

and then your response here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8515308&mesg_id=8516250



dg

[HuckleB]

137. Thank you for proving my point.

You brought up the remarks, so you must have been there. No?

WOW!

:wow:

[WolverineDG]

206. No, you're just being obtuse nt

[HuckleB]

230. Uh huh.

:rofl:

[USArmyParatrooper]

57. Yeah, I can imagine their shock and horror

to find out police officers drink coffee.

[HuckleB]

102. Awesome looking red herring!

I hope it tasted good.

:rofl:

[Lilith Velkor]

18. Yes, exactly like those lunch counters down South

...used to serve black people and then tell them to GTFO.

It's awful, just awful. :cry:

[WolverineDG]

24. they weren't served at all

at least the racists acted in accordance with their beliefs, as despicable as those beliefs are. These alleged "anarchists" didn't. If they really do feel all cops are abusive & not welcome in their establishment, they wouldn't take their money.

dg

[Lilith Velkor]

28. Such a shame that leftists don't have the integrity racists do.

I weep for my country, that it has such villains who are inconsistent in their oppressive, hateful bigotry.

[WolverineDG]

33. It's more about living up (or down) to the principles you say you believe in

and if you're not willing to lose $1.50 on a cup of coffee to a cop, then you're not being honest about who you are & what you believe.

You're just an immature brat throwing a temper tantrum.

dg

[Tsiyu]

53. I don't believe some of the things said on these threads

On one hand you have gone to great lengths to demonize "an immature brat throwing a temper tantrum."

To reiterate: You have gone out of your way to turn some coffeeshop owners into Klan members over asking a person to leave their business.

Now, what could these people do to ruin this cop's life?

If all they did was ask him to take his beverage elsewhere, he really wasn't harmed. I doubt he was there to socialize, worship, or perform any improvisational poetry.

In their capacity as human beings, they had no other power over him.

On the other hand...

you have also gone to great lengths to portray the law enforcement officer as a "victim" of these horrible awful bigots, even thought they really had no power or authority to do anything to ruin his day beyond the next few awkward minutes socially.

Yet he was not a victim, not at anyone's mercy, quite capable of defending himself against any attack and also well able to summon assistance.

His "tormenters?"

They could very much have their day ruined by this uhum gentleman. In a second, he could have totally destroyed their happy moment at the coffeeshop.

Whether evidence matters to you, or whether or not you, personally, have any common sense, is irrelevant.

The rest of us see cause and effect: Cop = Brutality

Cop = Brutality

Cop = Brutality

Cop = Brutality

Cop = Brutality


over and over just like that and we are going to be very fearful when we see a Uniformed Overlord in our 'safe spaces.'

We didn't cause this reaction in ourselves. We are human. We are programmed this way.

If the bear eats your sister, you don't particularly like it when the bear comes back around.

It's how you survive. "If I don't want to die...I will avoid the bear."

In this case, given the violent, volatile nature of the cops, these people were merely acting in their own defense.

The cop can kill them in that town and get away with it. Not the same can ever be said for the coffeeshop owners.

If you really, truly cannot see the difference, you are either not very experienced in life or you think the uneven power dynamic should just be eaten by the powerless like a Big Shit Sandwich.

[USArmyParatrooper]

60. If you're a simple minded reactionary

Sure, then "Cop = Brutality." But more reasonable people that live in reality realize the vast majority of police officers never brutalized anyone. They also realize that police officers put their lives at risk to provide an absolutely necessary service to society.

[LooseWilly]

80. Uhh, I think you meant "revolutionary", not "reactionary"

"reactionaries" love the cops... like you do. "Reactionaries" self-associate with the Powers That be, and thus can rest assured that the police "provide an absolutely necessary service" to them and theirs... because the job of the police is to enforce the rules established by the Powers That Be... it is only the "revolutionaries", the outsiders who are not affiliated with the Powers That Be, that learn from a young age that we are not the ones that the police put their lives at risk for, and the services that the police provide are not provided to us, but upon us.

If you don't know what I'm saying... it just means you're an insider- and the police are there to serve and provide your ilk... those of us who are not insiders, on the other hand, know very well what "Cop = Brutality" means...

[USArmyParatrooper]

96. Excellent

Then you're officially announcing that you will never utilize police services in the future for any reason?

Didn't think so. Quite the revolutionary!

[LooseWilly]

105. Stupendous...

I will only utilize police services when necessary for job-associated licensing, or when required for traffic incident reports.

Otherwise, sure... I'll officially renounce the utilization of police services now and forevermore.

Ironically, the only time the police were ever of any use to me is described here: http://www.smartasspress.com/home/metro_index/un_neighborhood_watch
I used them as a threat to shake down a drug dealer... and ironically, not only did they never show up when I called them (which I knew in advance would be the case), but I got a recording when I tried to call them back to tell them to forget about it, because I'd sorted my problem out without any need for them to show their faces.

Only an extremely soft suburbanite would think that the police do fuck all other than traffic enforcement... and hassling hippies... and, if they have enough numbers to overcome their terror- they'll even occasionally hassle "playuhs".

[USArmyParatrooper]

112. OK, so let me get the straight

You're walking down the street with your mother (or sister, or whoever you want to add), five big guys jump on her and begin attacking her. You're not going to call the police? Under no circumstances will you ever dial 9-11?

I hope I don't catch a rash because I'm allergic to bullshit.

[LooseWilly]

117. If I'm walking down the street with my mother... then I'm carrying an urn of ashes...

If five big guys really wanna jump on an urn of ashes, I don't see as calling the police will make fuck all of a difference... assuming the cops would even bother to ever show up.

As a matter of fact, no matter who I'm walking down the street with... if five big guys jump on her or him or just on me... calling the cops ain't gonna make fuck all bit of a difference... because the five aren't liable to wait around for five to twenty five minutes after the event for the police to show up. If the police show up 2 minutes after they've all left, then all they'll do is take a report, and then pretty much forget about it (unless someone dies... in which case they might actually go out and ask some people some questions, before they forget about it).

Rather, I keep an eye out when I'm walking down the street.... and odds are pretty good that I'll notice five assholes that are looking for someone to jump on, and I will adjust my behavior so that neither I, nor my dead mother, nor anyone else I am with, will be the one that they jump on... rather I'll leave it to someone like you who thinks that the cops will save the day like some sort of 50's Cavalry riding around the corner in the nick of time- to get jumped on. Good luck with help from the cops in that case, by the by.

You obviously didn't take the time to read the story I linked. After reading it, if you think I really have any use for the cops except as a tool for bluffing, you're obviously clueless.

I've called 911 several times in my life... and every fucking time, it has been a waste of time and cell phone minutes. No, I'm not calling again unless I need them to take some routine report, like a traffic accident report.

[USArmyParatrooper]

121. Yeah, OK

Throughout my life I've called the police for a multitude of reasons, and every single time they've shown up, and for serious matters they showed up promptly. They're required to by law.

As far as never calling them for any emergency of any kind? Yeah, the rash is starting. You're lying and you know you're lying.

[LooseWilly]

132. "They're required to by law."? Yeah, and torture is a war crime and has to be prosecuted

... whenever there is evidence, according to a number of international treaties that the US has ratified.

Grow the fuck up- sounds like someone's got a case of the "supposed'tas".

Tell you what... go to Oakland CA, East-side... go to the corner of 98th Avenue and Edes, and smile nicely at the "fellas" working the corner in front of the liquor store there, gateway to the Sobrante Park neighborhood, and call 911. Tell them anything you want... and see how long it takes for them to show up. I'd be real careful what you say though, or be sure to smile real wide when you say it... because those boys on the corner might well shoot you and be gone long before the cops show if you say something that rubs them the wrong way.

Or go West-side... go to 12th Street and Willow, and play the same game.

You'll learn a new definition of "prompt" right quick. And a new definition of required as well.

And no, I don't bother to call them anymore... because there's just plain no point. You think I'm lying? My address isn't hard to find... come around and hassle me and see if I call the cops.

What you don't seem to grasp is that, for some of us, calling the cops is liable to result in us getting hassled by the cops, rather than assisted. I drove a taxi in Oakland for 10 years... and in that time I lost a shitload more money and time to the cops than I did from all the dealers, thugs, pimps, hookers, and hustlers combined. Fuck the police...

[USArmyParatrooper]

133. Wow..

Sounds like you've been listening to too much N.W.A. I'm from the Bay Area. The threshold for response times in harder neighborhoods is definitely most definitely higher. They have a lot more shit to deal with and unfortunately have less funding for staffing. It's quite the dichotomy.


Go south a little bit to say, Sunnyvale and call them for a simple break-in in progress. You KNOW damn well they'll be there inside of five minutes. What if you're walking down the street in San Jose and you see two guys trying to rape a girl. Are you going to refuse to call the police just to prove a point?

[LooseWilly]

141. I'm not gonna call the cops in San Jose either... cause I've never seen it matter.

I've never seen them respond when called. I've never been anything but hassled by them when they do happen by. Why would I call the cops, rather than try to do something myself?

And let's just just ahead in your wacky list of scenarios... if I'm on University Avenue in Palo Alto, broad daylight, and I see some terrorists setting up a nuclear bomb... no, I'm still not gonna call the cops. You know why? Because that's a bullshit scenario, just like your bullshit "you're walking down the street and you see two guys trying to rape a girl". It's bullshit, and it's not how things happen... and the cops aren't liable to show up until it's all over and done with anyway... and what'm I doing in your bullshit scenario while the cops mystically rush to the rescue?...

Only someone who's been living in Sunnyvale, or some such idyllic suburban paradise, could be so delusional as to think it would make a difference.

Ok, here's a scenario where I could see the police making a difference. There's a crew that's trying to rob a bank... but some citizen decides to be heroic, and slows the bank robbers down enough so that someone outside could call the cops. In that scenario I believe the cops would show up quickly— do you know why? Because the scenario involves a bank... the problem is- I don't give a shit if they rob a bank.

In other words... the only targets that I can imagine the cops responding quickly enough to protect, are targets that I don't care to exert any effort to protect... so, once again... fuck the police.


**Edited to add** And NWA is an LA based band... try Ditgital Underground (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byIkY9qsTdU) and Too $hort (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izB85LUlygE) ...

[USArmyParatrooper]

147. YEP, uh huh, BS scenario

Yeah, my scenario of walking down the street and witnessing a rape in progress was totally bogus.

http://www.truecrimereport.com/2010/01/anferney_fontenet_15_rapes_wom.php

Anferney Fontenet, 15, Rapes Woman on Busy Toledo Street; No One Stops to Help

But clearly you're going to stick to your story about never calling the police for any emergency... ever.. even though you yourself don't believe it.

[LooseWilly]

163. Did you even read the story? It mentions that several called 911...

I know... maybe you didn't make it all the way to the second paragraph... that two sentence first paragraph was maybe just too exhausting?

Here it is for you, nonetheless:

Though several drivers called 911, no one bothered to stop and help the woman. One driver slowed down and beeped. Another turned around to come back to the scene just as the boy was running away.

Hmm... you notice it says that "several drivers called 911"? You'll notice police didn't magically appear? You'll notice that that is exactly what I said... that everytime I've called 911 it's been "a waste of time and cellphone minutes"? (post #117) Maybe you'll recall that I said "Why would I call the cops, rather than try to do something myself?" (post #141)

Seems to me, you just proved all of my points with your nifty example. I will admit that the cops seemed willing enough to listen to the neighbors in this story... but since the neighbors aren't me... I'm not surprised. And since the neighbors aren't part of the Red and Black cafe. And... ohhhhh Goooollllllllllyyy... with their help the neighbors were able to catch the sophisticated 15 year old who raped the poor victim- a rape that wouldn't've been successful if people had done something about it themselves rather than relying on a call to 911.

Uhh, I hope you have better stories to cite in order to convince me that the police aren't worthless??

[USArmyParatrooper]

166. Oh, I see the misunderstanding

You thought I was under the impression that police "magically appear"? No, I realize that they drive cars and don't have teleportion machines.

Unless you have some information about their response time from the time the calls went out to the time they were on the scene? Uh, no you don't have that information. BTW, the rapist is in custody. How did that happen?

If I post links to crimes in progress stopped due to 9-11 calls will you conceded? I'm guessing not.

[LooseWilly]

169. Really? You're going to ignore that the 911 calls didn't stop the rape?

You're going to ignore the fact that, had citizens done something rather than rely on the police... the rape would've been prevented? You're going to turn, instead, to the fact that the police eventually showed up and that neighbors were able to lead them to someone to arrest? You're going to ignore the fact that the neighbors could have, had they felt so inclined, found the kid themselves and done something about it... without any need for the cops... except that— had they done so the cops would've arrested them!

And then you're going to try to convince me that the cops were somehow "instrumental", rather than "incidental", in the playing out of this incident?

Calling the cops is useful mostly only if you have paperwork that needs to be filled out. Otherwise... they just get in the way. At best.

They probably give better public relations to you Sunnyvalians though...

[USArmyParatrooper]

170. I will make you a deal

I concede that 9-11 calls don't (and can't) stop a crime in progress every time.

Will you concede that 9-11 calls do stop a crime in progress some of the time?

[LooseWilly]

174. Sure... I saw 911 stop a crime in progress once...

A fare in my taxi was trying to run a scam at Wells Fargo... when Wells Fargo called 911 five cops showed up, converged on the bank, and brought my fare out in handcuffs.

When I pointed out that the guy owed me $50 in cab fare, the cops just shrugged, and pointed out that, if the DA charged him with something regarding his attempt to scam Wells Fargo, the evasion of cab fare would probably be dropped as irrelevant.

Sure enough, when I asked one of the cops involved a couple of weeks later, he told me that the ADA hadn't bothered to charge the guy for fare evasion. Mother fucker still owes me $50. I'll never see that money.

When Wells Fargo called 911 though, the police were prompt and showed up in numbers to "stop a crime in progress".

Yeah, 911 calls will stop a crime in progress some of the time... if the "victim" has enough pull. The rest of us can fuck off...

[USArmyParatrooper]

177. Boy you dance

If I show you links to crimes committed against ordinary people being stopped after ordinary people call the police, then will you concede?

[LooseWilly]

182. I'm a friggin' Dancing Queen... and so are you.

Hmm... if I show you links to crimes committed against ordinary people NOT being stopped after ordinary people call the police, then will you concede?

I'll throw out my example and yours as a simple first two.

When you come up with a third... I'll "struggle" to come up with a third as well... and so one. We'll see who wins... How's that sound to you, Sunnyvale?

[USArmyParatrooper]

185. Umm... have you been following?

I already DID.

I conceded that not all crimes in progress do (or can) be stopped every time by dialing 9-11.

Will you concede that crimes in progress sometimes do get stopped by dialing 9-11, even when ordinary people are involved?

[LooseWilly]

191. I concede I can imagine instances of crimes involving ordinary people being stopped by 911 calls...

On the other hand... I can also imagine space aliens coming from an alternate dimension which we think of as the future returning to the "present" in order to mutilate cattle on the off chance of discovering something in bovine genitalia that will solve their "futuristic" reproductive problems.

In other words... I've got a pretty "fertile" imagination.

What I do notice is that, after your failed attempt to throw some sort of absurd daylight rape case out as an example of some sort of police wonder-working, you haven't been throwing out any more documented examples of the cops working any wonders... or even competently managing their jobs. Ironically, you now seem to be hoping that I'll concede that the police aren't completely useless... corporate services aside... because... I feel sorry for them? feel sorry for you?... or maybe just so that I won't feel like I'm being so thoroughly robbed when my tax dollars go to pay for cops and their overtime while teachers are laid off????

Sure, I'll concede that it is conceivable that some crimes are occasionally stopped by dialing 911, despite the fact that mere citizens are involved... if the citizens are lucky/blessed/smart enough to call at a time when a cop is nearby, available, not on break, not tied up with traffic enforcement, not busy having lunch, not in court, not busy trying to work out testimony for an upcoming court case, not drunk, not feeling too lazy to respond, and doesn't get lost on the way... I'm sure that when it all comes together then crimes are stopped by calling 911. Hell, I'd bet it happens at least 2 or 3 times a day somewhere in the country. Maybe even 4 or 5 times on a good day. Nationwide.

I suspect people win the Lottery with nearly the same rates of success, nationwide.

Hell, at this point the police aren't even worth a fuck. Forget about the police... and life will make more sense. Just pretend they don't exist, and everything becomes better...

[USArmyParatrooper]

195. You're intentionally being obtuse

http://www.mysouthwestga.com/news/story.aspx?id=464224
Moultrie Police stopped a burglary in progress after the homeowners called for help.

Whew! It's a good thing they weren't you. And by the way, I know you don't believe the police prioritize traffic stops over felonies in progress. You say you believe it but you're lying. Even as you type your response to this you know you're lying. If saying "fuck the police" makes you cool with your friends, and that's important to you, I understand.

[LooseWilly]

197. Well... in contrast with this story... I refer you to the story of Henry Louis Gates

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6725761.ece

Seems like calling the police on this burglary suspect... wasn't so spectacular a success...

That's why I wouldn't be the one calling the cops in this Georgia case that you managed to dig up (by the way, you're still down 3-1 on the cops bad vs. cops good competition).

And yes, I do believe that cops prioritize traffic stops over felony investigations... because there's a better fiduciary return. It helps cities balance their deficits, collecting money from motorists. I say it, and I'm not lying. Sure... if someone were to start shooting in a courthouse... the cops would abandon their traffic pickets... but short of something that dramatic... not so much.

Saying "fuck the police" doesn't make me cool with my friends... any more than it makes me cool with you. Your attempts to turn it into some sort of "hipness" test is just another example of you thinking like a suburbanite. If you weren't a hopelessly soft and insulated suburbanite, then the things I've said upthread would make sense to you... the fact that you still think you're going to play "gotcha" teenybopper hipster tricks on me just demonstrates to me, and anyone else reading this thread who has ever spent any time in an urban environment, that you haven't got the faintest clue what the fuck you're talking about.

Rather disappointing, given your screen name. Probably no more honest than the impression created by mine that my real name has anything to do with "Willy".

Of course, the story I linked to earlier has my real name... and the site is mine... and the story is true... but you don't seem like the sort to actually investigate words that might be of consequence.

So you go on with the attempts to paint me as some sort of poseur... and let me know when you'd care to come meet me on the corner of 98th Avenue and Edes in East Oakland. We'll arrange a photographer to take pics with the local dealers... and maybe we'll wander over to the pizza place for whatever they offer (the place seems more like a money drop than a real food place... but hell.. I'm willing to go check it out more closely if you are... Mr. Big Brave Army Paratrooper... unless you're afraid to leave the comfort zone of Sunnyvale, where the cops might actually respond and save your ass...)

Hehe... a nicely predictable tack though... trying to prod me about what I think of my friends thinking of ... whatever the fuck your construct is. Really... you live in the Bay Area?... Let's go to East Oakland. It'll be fun. We might get shot... but that's what keeps things exciting, right? Heh, one thing's sure... your notions of the police being relevant will quickly evaporate... and that I would love to watch...

No... really. Let's do this, Big Guy. I'll bring a photographer.. you do the same. It'll be a good time.

You'll truly come to understand "fuck the police"... or else you'll get yourself killed by the Sobrante Park fuckheads... I personally don't much care either way.

[USArmyParatrooper]

241. Don't hurt yourself now.

Those goal posts can be heavy.

First it was calling the police in an emergency is never helpful. Then it was calling the police is only ever helpful if you're a bank or corporation, still refusing to admit it's at least sometimes helpful for ordinary people. Now your argument is that you posted more examples of it not being helpful. Would you like me to post more or is that goal post taking a toll on your back?

And by the way, a Sunnyvale white suburbanite who doesn't know what the fuck I'm talking about? Let's see here. You're only off by about 2500 miles and the city I live in was 42% black as of the 2000 census.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fayetteville,_NC#Demographics

Oooops! Damn, does it sting. Oh those pesky little things called facts.

Oh, and let me have some fun with this gem of a quote from you.

"Rather disappointing, given your screen name. Probably no more honest than the impression created by mine that my real name has anything to do with "Willy"."

Now my screen name is dishonest? LOL Perfect! Let's make a bet. If I *prove* I'm really a US Army Paratrooper you must leave this site forever. If I fail to do so you most leave. Now you have two options.

Edit: And oh, yeah. Didn't you say something about me being predictable? Never mind, continue typing away your choice of option 2.
1: You actually believe your own accusation so you take the bet.

2: You're talking out of your ass, you know you're talking out of your ass, so you will type up some excuse why you won't take the bet.

You must be fuming right now as you type away at the keyboard fulfilling option 2.

[boppers]

183. "every single time they've shown up"

Yup, you don't live in Portland.

[Oak2004]

231. Unfortunately, no, they are not required to by law

The courts have explicitly ruled that there is no individual right to police protection. If you call the police, and they don't show up, you have no recourse.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dogtown]

198. Oath Keepers

:patriot:

[Hannah Bell]

239. the portland police regularly surveil this particular coffeeshop & have killed

some persons personally known to its patrons & staff.

for no good reason.

is that enough reason for you?

[WolverineDG]

68. I've run into their type repeatedly

They only play at being anarchists while acting like assholes & being gigantic pains in the ass.

If they truly believe all cops will brutalize them & that they don't want their business, they shouldn't take their money. Taking the cop's money and THEN telling him to leave = ideological dishonesty.

I never said the cop was a "victim." Please find the post where I did. I didn't say the anarchists were bigots, either, just immature jerks who don't really believe the bullshit that comes out of their mouths because they sold out so easily.

dg

[USArmyParatrooper]

97. +1 n/t

[HuckleB]

116. You gave a plus one to a post that used the phrase "their type" (in a non-parody)?

Really?

:shrug:

[USArmyParatrooper]

136. Yes, and I'll tell you why

The "type" he's referring to are the posers pretending to be "anarchists" who, deep down, don't really believe their own bullshit.

[HuckleB]

139. WOW!

I point out what you did, and you decide to dig yourself into a deeper hole.

Amazing.

If you want to be taken seriously in a discuss about supposed bigotry, that's really not a place to dig.

[USArmyParatrooper]

143. Words cannot express

how unconcerned I am about being taken seriously by your or anyone else for that matter.

Que Response: "It shows!" Right? Were you getting ready to type that? OK, let's move on.

There are posers in every cause. People that either don't really believe in their cause, or actually care much more about trivial things like the fight itself, or the feeling of belonging to something. They is the "type" he was referring to. So yes, I agree. +1

[HuckleB]

146. That's awesome!

So you have nothing to offer the thread.

Got it.

[USArmyParatrooper]

150. Of course I do

An opinion that differs from yours. I'm sorry if that's difficult for you to manage.

[HuckleB]

155. You're not offering an opinion.

An opinion has to be based on all the information in regard to the situation at hand. You have chosen to ignore a great deal of the information.

Thus, you are offering your preconceptions.

Those are different from an actual opinion.

[USArmyParatrooper]

158. I have ignored absolutely nothing

Unless you have an example?

[HuckleB]

159. You ignored every single piece of information offered in our discussion below.

You simply responded to your own little voice, while ignoring the content of the actual post you were responding to...

Are you really going to pretend otherwise?

[USArmyParatrooper]

167. Ah, so that must explain

why you STILL have yet to provide one, single specific example. Got it.

[HuckleB]

204. Actually, I offered several examples.

You chose to ignore. Now you want them repeated for you.

Hello? Is anyone home?

Knock. Knock.

[LooseWilly]

181. Hehe... you miss the irony.

The cafe folks, anarchists or hippies or general ne'er'do'wells that they may be... have to pay taxes or be arrested. Those taxes pay for the cops. The cafe owners have no say in the policies or the control of the behavior of the cops. If they take a cops' money for coffee, but then deny him a seat to sit in and drink it... then they've recouped at least 12 cents of their tax monies... and that figure is based upon calculations that I just pulled straight out of my ass.

"ideological dishonesty"??... hehe... so now people think that "anarchists" are strict "Kantians"?... maybe folks aren't very well versed in the "anarchy" component of the "anarchist" worldview?... it's not exactly a "strict" doctrine people...

[WolverineDG]

225. Then they lack the courage of their convictions

if they were true believers in the bullshit they (& apparently their supporters on DU) put out on a daily basis, they wouldn't pay taxes or form a corporation or in anyway conform to the government & society they obviously despise.


dg

[LooseWilly]

235. "The courage of their convictions"?? hehehe, that's funny.

You really just don't get it- anarchists don't believe in "true belief" in any bullshit, neither your bullshit nor their own bullshit.

Your bullshit about "true believers" is bullshit that they can't be bothered to be roped into practicing, despite how much it might make you want to pull out your hair... or because of how much it might make you want to pull out your hair.

I, personally, suggest you pull the hair out from the sides of your head, so that you can tear your scalp unto a mohawk. Good stuff.

Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχίᾱ anarchíā, "without ruler") may refer to any of the following:
"No rulership or enforced authority."<1>
"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."<2>
"A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."<3>
"Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."<4>
"Acting without waiting for instructions or official permission... The root of anarchism is the single impulse to do it yourself: everything else follows from this."

[G_j]

129. did they refuse to give his $1.50 back?

sorry, I didn't read the whole story.

[Lilith Velkor]

144. No, they gave him his coffee to go.

On this thread, I have learned that that makes them worse than bigots, because that makes them, um, not real anarchists. Or something.

[WolverineDG]

205. If they really believed the bullshit they spiel, they wouldn't have taken his order in the 1st place

plain as day.

dg

[Name removed]

222. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WolverineDG]

224. I never anything of the sort

It's very obvious to any intelligent person exactly what I said & the fact that you keep twisting & turning it so it fits your very narrow intolerant views says more about you than it does about me.

dg

[Raineyb]

168. You're actually trying to make an argument that puts racists in a good light?

Your argument has officially become absurd.

[Lilith Velkor]

175. Why, yes.

Yes it has.

[Raineyb]

229. Unfuckingbelieveable. Not only once but twice. n/t

[WolverineDG]

226. Do you lack reading comprehension skills?

Why yes, you do. I never said anything of the sort, just pointing out that at least the racists had the courage of their very despicable convictions. These little anarchist-wannabees are nothing more than sell-outs.

dg

[Raineyb]

228. No I don't You pointed out that at leasts racists had the courage of their

their convictions thus calling the anarchists cowards by comparison. Calling one group a coward and comparing another saying they have courage is putting the group you consider to have courage in a more favorable position. Thus, you favorably compared the racists to the archaists. So yes you made an argument that put racists in a good light. Attacking my reading comprehension skills which clearly are superior to yours doesn't change that fact.

By the way your argument is absolutely disgusting.

You either need to brush up on your own reading comprehension skills or you need to learn write clearly. Either way trying to make racists look better than someone in comparison earns you a spot on my ignore list.

[cherokeeprogressive]

51. So, in this case, money trumped principle.

[WolverineDG]

70. finally someone gets it

they sold themselves out rather cheaply too.

dg

[KittyWampus]

13. You often see threads about abusive cops because DU'ers like to post those stories.

If I scoured the news and posted "good" cop news, those threads would probably sink like a stone and/or I'd be suspect.

Everyone hates the cops & government except for when they need one/it.

[Lilith Velkor]

23. See? You'd be suspect due to all these cop-hating hippies here!

Why those ungrateful brats don't understand that they need cops to come terrorize innocent people to make them feel better about criminals getting away is just beyond me.

I stand with you in solidarity. :patriot:

[proteus_lives]

42. +1000

[boppers]

61. It couldn't be because of anything systemic!

You can't judge an entire group because of a few, isolated, incidents!

http://www.portlandcopwatch.org/listofshootings.html

[moriah]

63. When do good cops make the news anyway?

Pretty damn rarely. Not because they don't exist or are a minority, but because people don't want to hear about them.

[Raineyb]

171. How good can they be if they say nothing while their scumbag co-workers

abuse the citizenry. That blue line means by definition they're no damn good. Silence is complicity.

[boppers]

187. I disagree.

People want to hear about good cops.

There's not a lot of source material to draw from, though.

[moriah]

200. What gets more ratings?

Police officer investigates robbery, nabs suspect!

Or:

Police officer investigates robbery, nabs suspect, beats confession out of them?

[petronius]

19. So did those other threads get locked, or are you just so proud

of this comment that you didn't want it to get lost in the other thousand or so posts on the topic? :shrug:

[JonLP24]

22. He or she is far from the only one

I'm sure you can find a Helen Thomas thread somewhere to ask the same question.

[HuckleB]

38. +1

[petronius]

90. I asked it here. You can take it as a general query about flamebait

snarky call-out OPs, if that makes you feel better...

[fascisthunter]

40. if it bothers you, hide the thread

[petronius]

87. Who said anything about being bothered?

[druidity33]

21. link of some kind? nt.

[Lilith Velkor]

25. Here ya go!

http://www.democraticunderground.com

[Hassin Bin Sober]

27. I'll repost what I said in one of the other threads ...

For all the whiners crying discrimination:

The cafe isn't "discriminating" against a person. They are discriminating against a uniform, badge and gun. An on-duty uniformed official.

To deny that having an armed uniformed official in an establishment does NOT send a message to other patrons and potential patrons is idiotic. Why do you think some convenience stores and other businesses offer free-bees and discounts to coppers? Those particular businesses desire enjoy the benefit of their presence - The cafe in the OP does not.

If you want to get your panties in a knot over this particular business decision highlighted in the OP you should ALSO get your knickers in a twist over discounts and free-bees offered to policemen and women. Both are engineering a business climate through the presence or non-presence of cops - Though the discounts/free-bees accepted by cops often times violate ethics and laws.

[JonLP24]

30. Great point

I didn't consider that at all and you're right about the discounts and free-bees. Many resturants also offer discounts for Military as well.

I stopped going to that thread when it got over 175 replies so I missed it.

[WolverineDG]

34. those giving freebies to cops are acting in accordance with their beliefs

Baby anarchists who first take an order from a cop & take his money & THEN make him leave aren't. They've basically sold their ideology for $1.50. (or whatever they charged him)

dg

[Lilith Velkor]

35. Actually, they sold their coffee, but please go on about their ideology.

Clearly, you have researched it thoroughly.

[WolverineDG]

44. No, just holding them to the standards they say they believe

which justify throwing a cop out of their shop. If they were true believers & didn't want his business, they shouldn't have taken his money. By taking his money, they sold their ideology for the cost of a cup of joe.

dg

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fascisthunter]

39. lol

[Vattel]

45. I'm with you Ms. Velkor

Tazer scars heal, but the psychological scars of bigotry fester and bleed and are really gross.

[Nye Bevan]

46. Mr. Policeman! Mr. Policeman! Come save me from being mugged!

I don't even mind if you're wearing a uniform!

Thanks!

Now get the fuck out of my restaurant! You're kind isn't welcome here!

[Lilith Velkor]

50. Not only oppressed, but exploited!

The horror. :scared:

[Kitty Herder]

47. K&R

[flvegan]

48. Friggin' vegans. Nothing but trouble.

[Lilith Velkor]

52. Vegans are OK if you cook 'em right.

[cherokeeprogressive]

54. I understand the makers of Shake n Bake have a ten pound bag o' crumbs just for that purpose.

I've heard that it takes two dozen eggs and a gallon of milk to get the crumbs to stick though.

[guitar man]

56. No, not shake n bake

Use corn flakes! :rofl:

[cherokeeprogressive]

58. Isn't that the essence of Shake n Bake?

[flvegan]

66. This whole subthread is just plain wrong.

Hilarious, but just wrong.

Besides, everyone knows you eat a vegan...nah, this is going to become a sex thread.

[Lilith Velkor]

67. Ya gotta marinate 'em in fish sauce overnight.

Makes the cornflakes get all nice and sticky.

[flvegan]

71. Fish sauce?

Maybe then they go into the smoker! Wait...what am I saying?

[Lilith Velkor]

That's what SHE said.

:smoke:

[flvegan]

91. I'm totally taking the 5th

if the mods come calling.

[Lilith Velkor]

110. Nah, leave it.

I can drink pretty fast, if necessary.

[cherokeeprogressive]

73. You mean slowly... with feeling. Right?

That's how I eat MY veggies anyway... You have to appreciate them.

Oh wait, we're talking about vegans, not veggies.

Never mind.

[flvegan]

75. See? See what happened here.

I so knew I could count on you.

I mean...yes, vegans not veggies...wait, what?

Yeah, nevermind. You're going to get us all in trouble.

[cherokeeprogressive]

86. That's funny because I was going to say the same thing to YOU. n/t

[flvegan]

92. Shhh.

Lest we be accused of being in cahoots. You do NOT want to ever be even implied to be in cahoots with me here, friend. Only looking out for you.

Cahoots is a funny word. Cahoots.

[cherokeeprogressive]

106. I don't even know you. I've never even heard of hoots. If there are any in ca, I've no knowledge

of their existence.

When it comes to hoots in ca, I will always have your back no matter WHAT anyone says.

[flvegan]

130. LOL!

:rofl:

[LynneSin]

213. Their lack of the flesh of animals they've hunted & slaughtered makes me hold them suspect!!

:hide:

( I kid I kid! )

[moriah]

62. Let's not forget that he was another minority -- a man!

Those poor men, forced into separate restrooms -- and some fitness clubs refuse to allow them in at all, or have a special "women's floor" that men cannot enter.

We Must Stop This Now!
















:sarcasm: added for the sarcasm-recognition impaired, it looks like a few of the other people missed the invisible tag on the OP

[Lilith Velkor]

65. Together we can - nay, MUST - defeat the matriarchy!

:fistbump:

[MellowDem]

64. The definition of a bigot:

": a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

I would say that the coffee shop owner is "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices" from his actions.

What's disingenous is to suggest that those who find the coffee shop owner's actions bigoted think that cops are a powerless minority that need to be defended (along with the wealthy). Power does matter when it comes to bigotry and discrimination. But even powerless minorities can be bigots. No one was saying that power has nothing to do with bigotry and discrimination. It certainly can effect how far a bigot can carry their discrimination and get away with it.

If you don't think that the coffee shop owner's actions were bigoted, that's your opinion. But you don't have to attack those who do. You could state your opinion without using personal attacks.

[flvegan]

69. I won't adopt a dog out to an animal abuser.

I'm a bigot I guess since it is a prejudice. Can someone please crucify me now?

[USArmyParatrooper]

72. So now police officer = animal abuser?

Really?

[flvegan]

76. No, but thanks for jumping to a conclusion.

This thread is about a preformed prejudice. I was making a point.

[USArmyParatrooper]

79. By making a ridiculous comparison

You wouldn't give an animal to an animal abuser because that person's actions have proven them to be unfit owners. How is that relevant.

Also,

legalities aside...

definition of prejudice aside....

booted before or after paying aside....

The owner of that coffee shop is sad and pathetic.

[flvegan]

83. But they paid their price to society? Actions are erased.

Learned that here. Many folks with a quite decent understanding of Portland's police dept would say that their ACTIONS have proven them to be unfit customers in certain circles.

Thanks for your multiple opinions though.

[USArmyParatrooper]

93. Can you please provide links

to what this particular police officer is guilty of? Thanks.

A side note: Most businesses are equipped with an alarm system. I wonder what phone number theirs is triggered to call.

[flvegan]

128. Links? As stated, might be an unfortunate brotherhood. n/t

[LooseWilly]

84. But he has a nice tie...

And that's all that really matters, right?

[Raineyb]

172. No. Police officer = people abuser

Although some do like to shoot their victim's pets.

[USArmyParatrooper]

173. By that logic - School Teacher = Child Molester n/t

[Greyhound]

194. No, that would be Priests = Child Molester.

:banghead::rofl::banghead:

[Raineyb]

216. I'm merely correcting your statement.

It's your logic.

[MellowDem]

74. If you don't like an animal abuser...

because they're an animal abuser, that's not prejudice.

[flvegan]

77. Some folks don't like cops because they're cops.

I'm not one of them. Frankly, I like the cops here.

Some folks don't like oil company CEOs. Maybe I should have gone there, considering. Some folks don't like lawyers, those fucking bigots. Some don't like Republicans, those damnable bigots!!!

[MellowDem]

207. The difference is....

you know something about an animal abuser's own actions when you first meet them. You aren't pre-judging them. You know they abuse animals.

You don't know if a cop practices police brutality etc. You only know they are part of a profession.

If someone doesn't like lawyers, Republicans, etc. and treats those they meet badly because of it, then they are bigots. It's one thing to not like the profession/political belief in general but still treat the individuals on a case by case basis. It's another to assume that every member of that profession/political belief is bad and must be treated as such.

[moriah]

78. Is it bigoted to judge on conduct?

Anyway... a repost of my post on another thread that no one apparently cared to try to refute:

Okay, so here's something a lot of people seemed to have missed.

The business has a "Safer Space" policy, and here is how it reads:

http://redandblackcafe.com/safer-space-policy

We strive to eliminate any oppressive actions, behaviors, and language in this space. These include, but are not limited to, racism, sexism, ageism, sizeism, classism, ableism, transphobia and heterosexism. We want this to be a comfortable space for everyone. Please feel free to approach a collective member in confidence should anyone here make you feel unsafe.

The following behaviors must result in 86-ing:

* OLCC violations (suchas bringing outside alcohol onto the premises or giving beer to minors)
* Theft of money or property
* Violating our Safer Space Policy
* Physical, verbal, or mental abuse
* Sexual harassment

The following behaviors may result in 86-ing, at the discretion of the worker(s) present:

* Inappropriate / unwelcome comments and behaviors
* Disruptive or disrespectful behavior
* Causing a worker or patron discomfort or distress for any reason (including violating our Safer Space Policy)

Emphasis mine, of course.

Obviously, their policy, at least, does not specifically say police officers are banned. But given the nature of the establishment and the known issues in Portland regarding police, I can see where a uniformed officer might be considered to cause a worker or patron discomfort or distress. And in the first article on the subject, both the police officer and the worker (a co-owner, not "the owner", btw, since the business is a co-op as their website says) said that the issue was the presence of a uniformed officer, and that any hostility was directed to the uniform and not the person.

Also notice that obviously a worker HAD to have served him at first, even though he was in uniform, or he wouldn't have had his cup of coffee in his hands when he was trying to leave, before another patron stopped him and started a discussion regarding police activities in the city.

So, what I wonder is this: Would they still refuse to serve him, or other police officers, if they were not on duty and out of uniform?

I kind of doubt it. How would they know?

We can debate whether it is wrong to exclude police officers, and I stated before I think it was silly for the co-owner to eject someone who was already on their way out the door. But the efforts to exclude him did not start until he engaged in a discussion with the right-wing blogger about police activities in the city. Unless they now start excluding officers out of uniform and in uniform, and before they engage in any discussions that could make other patrons or workers uncomfortable, I don't think you can get the "arbitrary" thing proven.

-----------------

The poster I was referring to was addressing how previous cases regarding the Unruh Civil Rights Act had been interpreted to see arbitrary discrimination against police officers was illegal.

I still see the request to ask the man to leave as having more to do with his conduct (the subjects he was lured by the right-wing blogger into discussing) than his status as a police officer -- but the conduct of wearing a uniform was also part of it I'm sure.

The co-owner (aka worker, since they're all equals in the running of the business) said he would refuse to serve that person again, he did not say that he would refuse to serve other police officers. Before judging the co-owner as bigoted, I would wait and see if it becomes policy to exclude all police officers regardless of their duty status, attire, or conduct.

[USArmyParatrooper]

88. That's really not any better

I'm sorry but if any patron who felt "discomfort" or "distress" simply because a uniformed police officer is having a conversation about his duties is a freaking nutballl marshmallow who shouldn't be taken seriously, or at the very least should get a life. Or a clue.

I'm sure you'd feel the same about two liberals having polite discussion about atheism, no? You'd think it would be A-OK for them to be ejected from the place?

Also, if he really was "ejected" on his way out the door that's very telling. Just as I suspected, the OWNER (who cares if others co-own it with him) just wanted to show he's "going against the man!" Wow, he's so cool.

[moriah]

98. Great job on responding with scorn to an attempt to have intellectual discussion.

The cafe caters to anarchists, protesters, and other people who may have very good reason to be nervous about the police. As a person who was involved in the protest movement in NYC (as a legal observer), I met (and videotaped) many people who were unjustly arrested. There was a lawsuit against the city in one case involving 80+ people arrested without breaking any law, and the city lost. Those people were exercising their First Amendment rights, within the city's laws (not blocking the street or more than half of the sidewalk) but were surrounded by riot police, ordered to disperse when they couldn't because they were surrounded, and then arrested. Several of those people still have panic reactions to police officers.

I also met a lot of people who had a great deal of respect for the police since they were not involved in one of the protests that were unjustly shut down, and I've spoken with a lot of police officers who were very good about negotiating with us about, for example, letting us wait outside of One Police Plaza to give the people who were being released their packets saying "Just because you're out of jail doesn't mean you're done -- go to your court date!" and explaining the various charges that might be pending against them and the procedures to dealing with a Desk Appearance Ticket or other types of citations they might have received, as well as a list of places where they could get free legal assistance.

Honestly, in that environment, a polite discussion about atheism would have been much more appropriate. And great job at making assumptions about me, sweetie.

By calling him the "owner" you suggest that he has ultimate authority over the business and speaks for everyone. That is factually incorrect and misleading.

You are entitled to your opinions, just as we all are. But thanks for being rude about expressing them.

[USArmyParatrooper]

104. Sorry, I don't buy it

If anyone there felt "threatened" by a uniformed police officer buying a cop of coffee they're morons. There's no other way around it. It's all about context. If they were involved in some huge, loud protest and police showed up in riot gear... THEN it might be reasonable to have some sort of perceived threat.

But some cop buying coffee? Really? NO. We all see police officers from time to time buying coffee, or having lunch, or making a bank transaction, etc. Nobody felt threatened by it. They just have a "down with the man!" attitude that makes them feel like they belong to something meaningful. The shop owner was playacting to that ignorance and trying to look cool for his oh so cool customers.

[moriah]

119. As I said, he was served his coffee.

He was asked to leave after he engaged in a conversation with the blogger about the police activities in the city.

I personally think the blogger should have been asked to leave, too, if the officer was. I personally think it was silly. But I do not believe it is bigotry against police that was demonstrated here.

Is a person a moron to drop to the floor if a car backfires, if they had previously been in combat? I don't think so, and I highly doubt you would think so either. Traumatic stress is traumatic stress, whether it was at the hands of police or a combat zone. I've been close to arrest myself in my legal observation work -- and if I'd not been 15 minutes late to that protest I mentioned where over 80 people were mass arrested for doing nothing wrong, I'd have been plasticuffed, thrown in the back of a paddywagon, asked to tell about all of the groups I participated in that were against the war, and held for hours... a traumatic experience when you've done nothing illegal. I get nervous myself sometimes, but I imagine it would have been much worse if I'd suffered the trauma of being arrested for exercising my right to peaceful demonstration. I met several people who I saw as friends through those protests, including one of those arrested that day. She started hyperventilating any time a police officer came within 15 feet of her.

And btw, sorry to get personal here, but the sign I held when I was not there to do legal observation was "Support our Troops -- Bring Them Home Safe". I admire you for your service. Glad you are still here with us.

[USArmyParatrooper]

126. I'm still not buying it

but I appreciate the reasonable way that you try to argue their case. Your friend who hyperventilates anytime she's near a police officer... did they beat her or something? That seems like a pretty extreme reaction to simply getting arrested at a peace rally.

Nobody can really say for sure what the patrons actually "felt" or what the owner's true motivations were. Frankly I think refusing service to a uniformed cop for just simply being a cop is despicable, and I would bet a full month's pay he was just trying to be cool for his wannabe antiestablishment customers.

[moriah]

135. She had small, dainty wrists.

The officer that cuffed her with the plastic cuffs tightened them very tight because he wanted to make sure she couldn't slip out of them. They compressed the nerves in her wrist and made her hands get discolored from cutting off blood supply. She begged for someone to please recuff her a bit looser, but her cries were ignored, even when everyone else in the wagon started chanting trying to get their attention. She had to wait in the wagon for over an hour. By the time she was processed and uncuffed, she had deep bruising on her wrists from the cuffs and could barely feel her hands. By the time she was released she had circulation back, but little feeling. As the days progressed, the numbness turned into excruciating pain.

When I last talked to her two years ago (I moved back to Arkansas) she told me about the second surgery she'd had to try to help the pain. She's not on disability from it anymore, but she still suffered pain on a daily basis because of that interaction with the police. She did win some money out of the court case but it did not come close to paying for her surgeries.

[USArmyParatrooper]

140. Is there more to the story?

Look, I don't doubt that there are *some* bad police officers, or even that there are *some* police departments with low standards of discipline, and thus conduct. But it just seems surprising to me that random people would be selected to be arrested at a peaceful demonstration with mere picket signs. I've seen tons of protests, strikes, and rallies in person and on the news with zero arrests made. At most the police have shown up and stood by to make sure things don't go out of hand.

I do remember a story that appeared in the paper of a Jr. College near where I used to live. It went on and on about the police showing up, making wrongful arrests, etc. But then I also talked to people I know at the school who insist windows of cars were being broken and eggs were being thrown.

Please don't take this as me questioning your integrity, because you've given me no reason to doubt you. But it just seems like there would be more to the story. If not, I have no doubt your case is an exception and not the rule.

[moriah]

161. It was a mass arrest.

There was a small group who went to the other side of the street in front of the business and formed a human chain to block entrance. It was maybe 8 or 9 people. They knew that they would be arrested. They'd participated in jail solidarity training.

After police arrived on the scene and arrested the people participating in the direct action, the order was then given to surround the protesters on the opposite side of the street, who were not blocking sidewalk or street traffic, and who had never expected to get arrested since they were in a peaceful demonstration. These people had not participated in jail solidarity training. They were ordered to disperse after the protest was surrounded by a line of officers with riot shields, but could not disperse because they were surrounded. They were then mass-arrested.

If you'd like to look up information about that protest, it's available online. It was overshadowed in the media by the police in Oakland who used less-lethal weaponry on the group of protesters, including wooden bullets -- that incident occurred on the same day. To my recollection it was April 7, 2003, in front of a building that was believed to house a sub-company of the Carlyle Group.

I believe that most police officers are good people who do not intend to violate people's civil rights. The officer who cuffed her probably had not had much training on how to appropriately use the plastic cuffs, and there were several wagons of people who were likely clamoring -- she wasn't the only one who suffered wrist injuries that day. It wasn't the individual officer that cuffed her who made the order to arrest everyone, it was the person in charge. He was following orders. They had to call in officers who had very little training in protest response.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/nyregion/20about.html is an article about that day and the lawsuit. Only 52 people participated in the lawsuit. Others took their Desk Appearance Tickets and took care of it separately.

[MellowDem]

212. Well, I'm not arguing that it is illegal...

just that it is bigoted.

As far as the story goes, it does seem to me it was the police officer's uniform more than anything else. Sure, some lady came up and talked to him, a lady who, by the way, doesn't fit into the usual demographics of the place either. I think the combination just made the owner too uncomfortable. I'm guessing once he knew the lady's views he was uncomfortable with having her there too. That is, if he even heard the conversation.

And being uncomfortable around people because they are members of a group can definitely be a sign of prejudice. Much less acting on that uncomfortable feeling. Lots of restaurant owner's customers around the country are some sort of bigot or other who feel uncomfortable with certain groups coming in. And many will do what they can to discourage such groups from coming into their restaurant (within the law of course). That's because restaurant's sometimes cater to specific groups or demographics.

It's just amusing that this place claims it is an open, welcoming place. But the demographics they cater to will have some bigots that are uncomfortable with some groups. So in reality, it's not an open, welcoming place. It's a place for a certain type of client. Just like many other places of business. It's only open and welcoming to them.

And it is bigoted to judge and act on contact just because someone belongs to a profession. You are going to have to pre-judge that individual based on your own prejudices about that profession.

I think the idea was to exclude all police officers. I can't imagine that guy would feel less uncomfortable if the cop was off-duty. He'd probably feel even more uncomfortable if the cop wasn't in uniform and knew the guy was a cop. If the policy is to kick out those who make the demographics they serve feel uncomfortable, it is going to have to be a bigoted policy. Maybe instead of "any reason" they should change it to "within reason", because bigotry isn't a very reasonable policy.

[cherokeeprogressive]

85. Did you add the parenthetic comment, or was it part of whatever you were quoting?

I find the actions of the Red and Black to be offensive in so many ways it's not funny. I keep reading here on DU that the Red and Black's patrons have been the object of abuse by LEO's, but no one backs that up with solid evidence other than saying "they're anarchists who are constantly spied on, beaten, and otherwise subjected to abuse by people who wear uniforms". Okay, the quotation is mine, but that's a synopsis of what I've read.

Apparently, the actions of Mr. Langley have been quite positive in the context of his bottom line. I'd diffuse the whole situation by first posting a sign next to the door that says "LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN UNIFORM ARE NOT WELCOME IN THIS ESTABLISHMENT" in large letters, with a caveat underneath that says "IN THE EVENT OF AN UNTOWARD OCCURENCE IN THIS ESTABLISHMENT, REST ASSURED THAT LAW ENFORCMENT OFFICERS IN UNIFORM WILL NOT BE ASKED TO RESTORE ORDER. WE DO THIS SO AS NOT TO MAKE OUR PATRONS FEEL UNSAFE. THIS INCLUDES ARMED ROBBERIES, SEXUAL ASSAULTS, OR ANY OTHER VIOLATIONS OF LAWS THIS ESTABLISHMENTS DOES NOT SUPPORT. ANARCHISM MEANS YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN.

[MellowDem]

214. I found it...

from the Merriam Webster online dictionary. I do agree with you that they might as well put it up in big, bold letters. But if it's sitting next to the "open and welcoming" sign, it might make them look hypocritical.

I do think it's funny that after Rand Paul advocated allowing business owners to discriminate against any group as part of his libertarian ideology,that an "anarchist" establishment gives a nice example of legal discrimination that most on the right would be very uncomfortable with. And it also goes against Rand's notion that bigotry is bad business. Not always, obviously. It just shows that libertarian ideology isn't based on reality. And of course neither is anarchism. What's even funnier is that anarchism and libertarianism really aren't all that far apart as ideologies either.

[JoeyT]

81. It almost reminds you of people that insist racial discrimination

still exists while completely ignoring the oppression of rich white men.
Thank goodness we have people like Limbaugh out there to remind us how utterly awful it is to face the bigotry and hate that rich white guys face on a regular basis.

[dionysus]

218. well hey, would you take that kind of money if you had to look like that ugly bastid?

;)

[JoeyT]

234. Good point.

No, no, I don't think I would.
Though I'd be tempted just because of the amount of good that could be done with it.

[tinymontgomery]

82. I don't know

maybe it's capitalism at work like Rand Paul advocates.

[LooseWilly]

89. I think we all need to be terrified- if the cops' feelings are hurt by the mean hippies...

then they won't protect the rest of us... uhh, from the hippies.

What will we do if the cops feelings are hurt?? Who will star in our episodes of COPS?? And, most importantly- who won't bother to respond the next time I waste my time calling 911 and waiting on hold until I get an operator???

[USArmyParatrooper]

95. Who said the police officer's feelings were hurt?

I haven't read that anywhere. Have you?

BTW, are you going to forgo your right to utilize police services in the future for any reason?

[HuckleB]

100. Hmmmm. View the video.

http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2010/06/04/spurned-coffee-shop-cop-makes-cnn

[LooseWilly]

111. Uhh, looks like the cop said his feelings were hurt.

Are you calling him a liar? How dare you oppress the pigs and kick them while they're down??? Have you no shame?

As the blogger said— "He's not just a policeman, he's a human being."

Ohh, the porsine humanity....

(And by the by... if the police will leave me alone, I'll be glad to return the favor...)

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

94. But the nice officer didn't shoot him, or even have a bad word for the man

Kinda sucks that he didn't uphold the idiotic stereotype held here, huh?

[Dawson Leery]

99. Not sympathetic to cops.

[USArmyParatrooper]

108. Until you need them

[HuckleB]

109. Thanks for the cliches. They're very helpful. -nt-

[USArmyParatrooper]

113. cliche =/= untrue, so you're welcome -nt-

[HuckleB]

115. They also tend to be out of context.

And your responses on this story show that you know little about the context of the situation in Portland. Thus, the cliche isn't nearly as true as you'd like to think it is.

Whoops!

[USArmyParatrooper]

118. Actually it's 100% true

You made a broad, blanket statement, "Not sympathetic to cops." But if cops show up to save your life, or manage to track down and arrest someone who committed a heinous crime on a loved one, or any number of plausible scenarios suddenly those you demonize become your savior. Therefore; my cliche' remains true.

But hey, at least you typed "Whoops!" so at least you have that going for you.

[HuckleB]

120. I made no such statement.

Pay attention!

Whoops, indeed!

:rofl:

(Oh, and I do appreciate you topping the cliche with the emotional appeal, which is a basic logical fallacy.)

[USArmyParatrooper]

123. OK, so it was Dawson Leery

who made the original statement. In other news my point still stands true and correct.

[HuckleB]

124. You keep telling yourself that.

[USArmyParatrooper]

127. Refute it

You Dawson Leery made a broad, blanket statement, "Not sympathetic to cops." But if cops show up to save your life, or manage to track down and arrest someone who committed a heinous crime on a loved one, or any number of plausible scenarios suddenly those you demonize become your savior. Therefore; my cliche' remains true.

True or untrue?

[HuckleB]

138. It's your claim, and you've yet to support it.

Do you not understand how discussion works? I have already pointed out some factors that you left out of your equation, and so far you've ignored them. Now, perhaps you can show the proof for the claim YOU made. Ah, but you will have to include all variables. You can't leave any out, just because it makes the problem easier. This isn't rocket science, but a little math knowledge might help.

Thank you.

[USArmyParatrooper]

142. So let me make sure I understand you.

You want me to PROVE that, if a police officer saves your life or the life of one of your loved ones, you would you would be sympathetic to them?

[HuckleB]

145. Now you're spinning.

Are you dizzy yet?

If not, there's plenty more for you to keep spinning.

Here's another piece you're going to have to put in your equation.

Cops Ask: ‘Will You Stand With Us?’ -- "I Am Christopher Humphreys"
http://blogs.wweek.com/news/2009/11/24/cops-ask-will-you-stand-with-us/

And that BS was pushed by Officer Scott Westerman...

What a guy!
http://blogs.wweek.com/news/tag/scott-westerman/

And I'm going with the mild stuff to start.

See, there's this thing called context. It's kind of important in the real world.

[USArmyParatrooper]

148. It's you who is spinning

Again, let's take this back to the disagreement.

Quote: "Not sympathetic to cops"

Note: He did NOT say, "that particular cop" or even "Portland PD." He made a broad statement referring simply to cops in general.

My Quote: "Until you need them"

Cliche', perhaps. But completely true.

[HuckleB]

152. You keep trying to minimize and eliminate pieces of the puzzle that are inconvenient for you.

Knock knock! That means you're choosing to ignore the real world.

[USArmyParatrooper]

156. No, I've addressed everything

in other parts of the thread. In the case of the specific post we're discussing I responded exactly to what Dawson wrote in its entirety.

[HuckleB]

157. I'm sure you believe that.

:rofl:

[USArmyParatrooper]

160. Tell me what

you're claiming I haven't responded to, and I will copy and paste my own response for you.

[HuckleB]

162. Read the posts I've made, and the posts you've made in response.

If you can't see the wood for the trees, perhaps you should get a new hobby.

Seriously.

[USArmyParatrooper]

165. Ahhh and the challenge goes unanswered

Do a little dance....

It was a simple and fair request. You accused me of failing to address pertinent information, thus, stripping my opinion of actually being an opinion. So, elaborate with specifics. And I will show you where I've acknowledged and responded to those points.

[HuckleB]

203. Challenge?

You ignore the information, and then you want me to repeat it?

That's not a challenge. That's a joke.

Quite frankly, it is clear that you have nothing to offer this board.

[HuckleB]

164. Goodnight.

I hope you can find the real world some day!

[boppers]

180. Heaven forbid you ever need a Portland cop.

If they bother to show up, it's to shoot the good guy, and then blame the bad guy.

People who aren't here just don't get it.

[USArmyParatrooper]

186. Yep, uh huh, that's all they do

They just run around shooting everyone all the time. All of them in fact.

[boppers]

189. Nah, not all of them,

http://www.portlandcopwatch.org/listofshootings.html

Just enough to make sure people live in terror.

[USArmyParatrooper]

192. Is this supposed to be scary?

Portland has some really rough neighborhoods.

We have a total of

3 police shootings in 2010
1 in 2009
3 in 2008
2 in 2007

And I'll even mention this one.. 7 in 2006

And you're silently implying that they're all just random, unjustified shootings. Are you? And in a city of what, a half a million people? Yes, I'm really sure people are living in terror. Please, spare me the dramatics.

[boppers]

196. Murder by people with a legal gun may not bother you.

We live on a strange planet.

[USArmyParatrooper]

215. Not at all what I said

Want to try again?

[boppers]

238. Okay...

When is it ok for cops to kill people for the "crime" of being mentally deranged?

There are only two answers:
1) It's never ok
2) (long-winded arguments here)

Pick an argument.

[boppers]

236. Nice cherry picking.

http://www.portlandcopwatch.org/shootings.html

Your numbers are laughably wrong.

Alternately, you could (and seem to be) argue that some level of police murder is acceptable in a large city.

I don't accept that.

[Hannah Bell]

240. yeah, the rest of the time they're helping little old ladies cross the street

to the anarchist coffeeshop.

[Dawson Leery]

114. Welcome do DU.

Enjoy your stay while it lasts.

[USArmyParatrooper]

131. LOL!

Meanwhile, my very first thread made the top of the Greatest Threads list for number of recs. :rofl:


Does it sting?

[Zix]

178. Have in fact needed them.

Assaulted.

result?

Cop rudely haranguing me for my name and address while I was semi-conscious from concussion. Assumed it was my fault. (other guy threw first punch).

Did they get the guy?

Did they fuck.

Until we need them. To do what, exactly?

On another occasion my boiler broke and started leaking into the cafe downstairs. Downstairs calls police. Policeman comes to my house to start lecturing me on how to fix broken boilers. Not a word left my lips without being interrupted.

Not impressed.

You seem to be suggesting that cops should be allowed to screw with people however they like because they get other stuff right? It's no good trying to stop people from criticising the actions of a group because the group's also responsible for good things. That's not the point. The point is to cut out the crap. If you step in and make it difficult to get rid of the crap because the crap generator is ooooooh so human and prone to error all that happens in the end is more errors.

[USArmyParatrooper]

184. I have suggested no such thing

You must have the worst luck in the world because I've had tons of dealings with the police, and the vast majority of the time they handled their job with courtesy and professionalism.

"You seem to be suggesting that cops should be allowed to screw with people however they like because they get other stuff right?"

Never once have I ever said or implied such a thing, ever. The point is not to act like a dickhead to a cop for the mere fact that he is a cop. No reasonable person would ever suggest we don't need police officers, do you? If not then you recognize we all *need* to have police officers, an inherently dangerous profession. And yet many are suggesting it's perfectly fine to shit on one just because he's a police officer.

Here's a suggestion. How about we let the bashing be targeted toward specific police officers who have earned it, and leave the broad paint brushes in the Conservative supply stores where they belong?

[Zix]

188. Good response....

I agree. I retract my accusation regarding your "suggestion". :)

The difficulty with the anti-cop bias in this cafe is that their case isn't simple. If they've extensive experience (as appears to be the case) with bad policing, well, discrimination based on one aspect of your being is different from discrimination based on an aspect of your behaviour. You're right, action should be directed against specific policemen but this is complicated by the fact that they tend to close ranks under these circumstances.

This cafe is protecting its clientele from perceived bad policing. Is that bigotry?

[USArmyParatrooper]

190. But deep down do you really think that's the case?

"This cafe is protecting its clientele from perceived bad policing."

The guy just came in for a cup of coffee. I doubt anyone had the notion that any policing was the agenda. And even if there was official police business, there's not damn thing they could have done about it. The store owner knew he could make him leave *because* he knew he was just there for coffee.

Throwing out a cop just because he's a cop is pretty freaking low in my opinion, but many are arguing that the store owner had virtuous intent. While I won't pretend to know for a fact his intentions, it's pretty clear to me he was just trying to show off for his young, rebellious clientele.

[Zix]

219. There are gay bars that disallow women.

There are women's groups that disallow men. There are entire religions that won't acknowledge that you can be a member unless you are personally descended from one of their own members and disciplinary hearings in my country won't allow the presence of lawyers.

I'm gay and I'm forbidden from giving blood.

Civilians aren't permitted to wander about willy nilly on army grounds and members of the general public dont get to just walk into the Houses of Parliament.

In each of these cases it is because a specific space is being created for a specific purpose. I'd be very surprised if an anarchist store owner DIDN'T bar the police whenever possible, given that his clientele's philosophical position is that there shouldn't be a police force at all! Providing they're classical anarchists of course...

You may disagree with their position but don't mistake it for bigotry. And please don't assume that the store owner's showing off, you're projecting qualities onto anarchists that are extraordinarily ABSENT from any of the anarchists that I actually know. Very few of them are rebellious in any way. Anarchy has little to do with rebellion. Mainstream culture can only ignore the benefits of anarchic structures by pretending they only exist as a childish reaction to itself. Anarchy's about being more grown up than a member of ordinary society, not less, you're supposed to take responsibility for your own affairs and expect others to do the same, whilst acknowledging that you have a wider responsibility to the whole (last phrase distinguishes anarchists from libertarians).

Anarchy is the absence of one individual's power over another. This means you can't have a police force in an anarchy. You're absolutely right, if the policeman was on official business there's nothing they can do about it, but if not they *can* provide a space where the individuals participating don't have to feel that someone might whip out a nightstick and start thrashing them and sniggering because of ludicriously prejudiced and trivial reasons such as that they have extra holes in their body for decoration or unusually coloured hair...

If that means kicking out a nice guy because he's chosen to sling his lot in with giggling psychopaths that just want to smash the long haired hippies (please don't pretend such policemen don't exist) then, sorry Mr Nice Guy, but if you wanted to be treated like a normal person maybe you should have chosen a normal profession... none of us have any illusions about who Mr Nice Guy's going to side with when Psycho Cop pulls out the stick.

[USArmyParatrooper]

232. Just a couple points

The gay clubs disallowing women - a fair comparison.

Religious organizations fall under freedom of religion and freedom of assembly

Gays forbidden from giving blood - apples and oranges. That's for the purpose of protecting the public. In principle I think it's completely wrong, but I presume the reason is gays have a much higher HIV rate on a percentage basis. If the data doesn't support that they should change it. Either way we're talking about apples and oranges.

Civilians on a military post - a ridiculous comparison.

______

You actually make a very fair argument, but here's the thing.

I disagree with your comparison of Anarchism to Libertarianism. In my opinion it's nothing more than Libertarianism taken to the utmost extreme. When you say, "whilst acknowledging that you have a wider responsibility to the whole," elaborate on that. In what way do they acknowledge such thing? And and while Liberians are detached from reality, anarchists are completely loony. There will always be people and groups with power over others. Look at Somalia, with no real, centralized government. Now there's anarchist utopia I don't see one single anarchist running toward.

The day an "anarchist" chooses to forgo police protection when their life or the life of a loved one is threatened, then I'll take them seriously. I'll still strongly disagree with them but at least I'll respect that they actually believe their own ideology. Until then I consider them posers, with very few exceptions.

[Starry Messenger]

103. It's the same school of thought that brought us

the "Christians are oppressed by teh gay". When the freedom to oppress is oppressed we are all oppressed...or something. :crazy:

[Lilith Velkor]

107. It's like a Moibus strip of hatred.

(Actually, it's made of astroturf.)

:woohoo:

[Starry Messenger]

122. and wrapped in Velcro.

When all oppression is outlawed, only outlaws will oppress.

[Lilith Velkor]

149. Drizzled in crude oil, with bullshit sprinkles.

Don't hate the hater, hate the hate.

[G_j]

134. Just a big, DUH..

Police officers quite frequently, and quite deliberately project authority and fear.
It is part of what they do, to keep "order". But then it's only logical that people will have an aversion to their presence
That's also part of the job.

"I don't hate police, I just like it when they're not around."
-Charles Bukouski

Seriously, we recognize that police are human beings, it's fear that is the problem, ordinary people are apprehensive of police.

[USArmyParatrooper]

153. I wouldn't say ordinary people

are afraid of police, with one exception. If you're drive past one doing 10 mph over the speed limit you're hoping like hell he's looking for bigger fish to fry. Other than that I don't see the fear of police as rational at all.

[Raineyb]

176. You don't seem to see much at all.

Not for nothing but after having people explain numerous times about fearing the police after instances where the police have acted like bullies, shot people for no good reason and other instances of abuse and you can't understand then there's no point in going on. At this point you're just spamming the thread with your willful blindness.

[USArmyParatrooper]

179. I see all too well

Bashing the police, the marque symbol of authority, is fashionable among self proclaimed anarchists and others who want to be against "the man"

I can post a plethora of links showing school teachers all over the country who sexually abused students. But I don't see school teachers being refused service just for being school teachers, nor do I see incessant bashing of them in any thread. But I guess that type of faux fear wouldn't make people look like cool rebels fighting against the machine.

[frustrated_lefty]

208. I think you're probably a "good" cop.

The fact that you seem so desperate to have police in general viewed in a positive light makes me worry you may become a bitter cop.

The police officers where I grew up sucked. If they weren't in donut shops, they were hanging out in strip clubs, sometimes partaking of the wares.

You're pissed that a coffee shop refuses to serve police officers. Note, business in that shop has gone UP since making that decision. Cops have done a lot to fubar their reps. I don't think you can ever repair the reputation of police officers in general. You, over years, can make it known that you, as a person, can be trusted. That's up to you. You're young and foolish to think you can throw on a badge and assume people will trust you.

[USArmyParatrooper]

221. Wow, quite presumptuous

But I suppose the screen name US Army Paratrooper confused you? It's pretty unambiguous if you ask me. No, I'm not a cop. This may come as a shock but it's possible for someone to totally disaree with you without having an ulterier motive.

I find it hard to believe any department would let their officers hang out in a strip club in uniform. If they were out of uniform who gives a shit?

[frustrated_lefty]

223. Actually I'd hoped you were home

[Raineyb]

217. School teachers don't go into people's establishments, spy on them

and beat them when they get them out of the site of passersby. Not to mention, I might add, that in theory the powers that be don't send teachers who abuse students back into the classroom with the very same student they abused. Which is certainly not the case when it comes to abusive police officers. Not only do "good cops" not do anything to turn in or testify against bad cops but then those in charge send the cop back into the same community of people he or she had been abusing in the first place.

And I suspect that if teachers in a community were known serial abusers that they would not be welcomed in an establishment that has a lot of children running around it. And no one would be making the asinine argument that their profession is the equivalent of being a racial minority either.

Face it. You have more respect for cops than you do the general public so you don't give a shit if the cops in a community has been regularly abusing the residents to the point where their presence isn't welcomed. You must think that policing is the equivalent to coming in and occupying a neighborhood. No doubt the PPD and the NYPD would love to have the likes of you on their forces.

[G_j]

201. I guess you live in pleasentville

& I guess there are no blacks in pleasentville either

[USArmyParatrooper]

233. I love all these assumptions

You're only off by about 3000 miles.

- I'm using a sock puppet account

- I'm a cop

- I live in some white suburban area

Have I missed any? Just an FYI the city I live in has a very high black population.

[Dawson Leery]

227. When they project authority as a means to instill fear in society,

that makes the badge the enemy the Constitution.

[HuckleB]

151. Well, the Portland Police already faced "repression" last Fall.

It would be mildly interesting to know if Crooker wore a "I Am Chris Humphreys" shirt.

http://blogs.wweek.com/news/2009/11/24/cops-ask-will-you-stand-with-us/

http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2009/12/17/definitely-not-sorry

This is not a police department that wants to connect with the citizens of Portland.

[Greyhound]

193. Hard to believe just how thick some people are...

:rofl:
:thumbsup:
:kick: & R

[lynne]

202. I have to wonder what the response would have been had the officer been black, Asian or Latino ? -

- Or had the shop decided that they no longer wished to serve construction workers because they tracked in mud, making their cleaner and neater patrons uncomfortable.

[Echo In Light]

209. K/R

[LynneSin]

210. A White House official says Some people say it's true

:rofl:

[frustrated_lefty]

211. *sshssshh...that was a anonymous source...***"

[SidDithers]

220. Today, I learned that hippies can be just as discriminatory as everyone else...nt

Sid

[annabanana]

237. oh very good

I admire the restraint shown in not shooting the hippie dead on the spot. He should get a medal.