[Roosh]

One marine stands up against a dozen NYPD cops and gets them to walk away with their tail between their legs. Amazing..

[Samseau]

Damn that's good. What's gonna happen when the military starts to get its own ideas of how America should be run?

[Roosh]

Dereliction of duty would be the first step by the common soldier. Then it would take a rogue commander/general to harness that sentiment into his own quest for power via a coup or civil war. It would be ugly no matter which way you look at it since military governments are almost always oppressive.

[Smitty]

Fortunately there is almost no way possible for a rogue General to take control of our military (and nation)...other than our Commander in Chief, of course.

[thegmanifesto]

(10-17-2011 08:10 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

One marine stands up against a dozen NYPD cops and gets them to walk away with their tail between their legs. Amazing..

Nice post.

The cat wasn't playing.

I have seen cops back down in real life also when they thought it wasn't worth the trouble.

It would be nice to be 6'5 and packed.

Think a skinny hipster kid would have gotten the same leeway?

[speakeasy]

Here's an extended version...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmEHcOc0S...re=related

[canucktraveller]

This has been posted in a couple other forums.

A couple things;
There is a debate as to whether he is actually a soldier. The general consensus is that no marine would be caught in public with his work top unbuttoned with jeans on.
There is a much longer video out and he basically rants and repeats the same couple points for 5 minutes (edit* vid posted above)
At one point he says (paraphrasing) "if you want to hurt people go to Iraq, don't do it to your own citizens" and that logic is really messed up.


I am on the fence with this situation, not agreeing with him or the police.




(Not a great idea for my first post on this forum, but oh well)

[thegmanifesto]

(10-17-2011 06:38 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Here's an extended version...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmEHcOc0S...re=related

Here is his bio:

United States Marine Corps. Sgt. Shamar Thomas from Roosevelt, NY went toe to toe with the New York Police Department. An activist in the Occupy Wall Street movement, Thomas voiced his opinions of the NYPD police brutality that had and has been plaguing the #OWS movement.

Thomas is a 24-year-old Marine Veteran (2 tours in Iraq), he currently plays amateur football and is in college.

Thomas comes from a long line of people who sacrifice for their country: Mother, Army Veteran (Iraq), Step father, Army, active duty (Afghanistan), Grand father, Air Force veteran (Vietnam), Great Grand Father Navy veteran (World War II).

Damn.

Surprised he is 24 years old.

(10-17-2011 06:44 PM)canucktraveller Wrote:  

This has been posted in a couple other forums.

A couple things;
There is a debate as to whether he is actually a soldier.



(Not a great idea for my first post on this forum, but oh well)

Does it even matter?

And yeah, not a great first post.

[Chad Daring]

Quote:

There is a debate as to whether he is actually a soldier. The general consensus is that no marine would be caught in public with his work top unbuttoned with jeans on.

I've met jarheads who wear the fatigue top by itself like that, rock the dog tags out.

This right here is the future of the OWS protests.

Right now its easily pushed around skinny hipster kids. Just wait till its strong able bodied guys who've had enough. I'd love to see the fatass cops start tackling a crowd of 6'+ 200+lb guys who are all out of bubblegum.

[canucktraveller]

(10-17-2011 06:48 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Here is his bio:

United States Marine Corps. Sgt. Shamar Thomas from Roosevelt, NY went toe to toe with the New York Police Department. An activist in the Occupy Wall Street movement, Thomas voiced his opinions of the NYPD police brutality that had and has been plaguing the #OWS movement.

Thomas is a 24-year-old Marine Veteran (2 tours in Iraq), he currently plays amateur football and is in college.

Thomas comes from a long line of people who sacrifice for their country: Mother, Army Veteran (Iraq), Step father, Army, active duty (Afghanistan), Grand father, Air Force veteran (Vietnam), Great Grand Father Navy veteran (World War II).

Damn.

Surprised he is 24 years old.



Does it even matter?

And yeah, not a great first post.

It does matter, it is not appropriate to wear a military uniform in a protest. Servicemen should not use their uniform as a political force for their own sake whether their ideology is right or wrong. Either way he is wearing the uniform to attract attention to himself and that is not the right way to go about it.





And I served my country (although never deployed), so when I see him taking advantage of his uniform I get offended

[Roosh]

canuck: I do agree with you in principle. I wouldn't want marines rallying at tea party events.

But in this case, he's not arguing for the OWS cause, but against excess police brutality, something that is not a specific ideology. He's not holding a sign and he's not part of an organized march. Therefore I view him as a citizen bystander who witnessed something that went against his personal principles.

[Smitty]

Believe service members are not allowed to protest, attend political rallies, etc in uniform. Hard to judge whether he was actually protesting, but it's a moot point if he is no longer in the service.

[G.L.Piggy]

has there been police brutality at OWS? i saw a video of one chick getting pepper sprayed a few weeks ago, but other than that, which people are these cops supposedly hurting?

this is grandstanding writ large. yes, people have a right to protest. but cops also have a job to keep the peace. at any large scale festivity you'll see cops on hand in order to keep the peace. go to your local night club district and you'll see cops hanging out to make sure that nothing pops off.

so this guy is tilting at windmills. further, OWS will soon *look for* interaction with the police. if the police don't take the bait the protestors will push and push until the police's hand is forced.

let me also add that most of the arrests of these people are badges of honor. what happens to them? they get put into a van and taken to central headquarters and probably get issued a citation. small up-front cost to be able to tell their friends and future children that they got arrested fighting The Man.

so this guy is far from alpha (i mean, he's a big motherfucker, so he's alpha for that reason, but he's not alpha for his actions in NYC). he had his fatigues and a line of cameras backing his words.

[Chad Daring]

GL, I've seen many videos where some kid was just walking or MAYBE shouting, and then 2+ cops took him to the ground hard, and it wasn't for being in the wrong spot either because they'd single one perosn out and drop them, leaving all those around him (usually women) standing. They'd smash him into the concrete, cuffhim, and drag him off. Lots of pepper spraying as well. Seen a few vids where the cops went out of their way to hit some kids in the face when they weren't doing much of anything


I'm surprised there hasn't been more of this kind of stuff calling out the police.

Edit:

http://gothamist.com/2011/10/14/hiv_posi...op_who.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moD2JnGTT...r_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rbXfelyI...re=related

[Roosh]

Interview with the guy:

[MikeCF]

(10-17-2011 09:34 PM)G.L.Piggy Wrote:  

has there been police brutality at OWS? i saw a video of one chick getting pepper sprayed a few weeks ago, but other than that, which people are these cops supposedly hurting?

this is grandstanding writ large.

There have been many videos.

Are you intellectually honest?

If so, how many videos would you need to see before withdrawing your claim, "this is grandstanding writ large"?

[G.L.Piggy]

Am I intellectually honest? Is that how this is going to go Mike?

Perhaps I am just very literal. The ex-Marine shouts about police brutality. Well, that's a nice catch-all term that can be bandied about and used to strike fear and hatred in the hearts of everyone listening. A lot of the guys in the Manosphere decry hyperbolic claims from feminists and anti-Game women. How about women who cry "Rape!" or who talk about the prevalence of date rape, roofies, and creepy men? By your logic, they all have legitimate claims and any inspection of those claims is not warranted. So which way would you have it?

To the Marine, I say that he is overstating the case. What is too much police brutality? It's something I like to think I'd recognize when I see it. But I haven't seen it. I've seen a couple of incidents of heavy-handed police activity. But to me, that sort of goes with the territory of massive protest.

So I'll turn the question on you, assuming that you think that people like feminists and such grandstand about the levels of patriarchial and masculine "brutality", do they have a point?

[MikeCF]

(10-18-2011 02:47 PM)G.L.Piggy Wrote:  

Am I intellectually honest? Is that how this is going to go Mike?

Perhaps I am just very literal. The ex-Marine shouts about police brutality. Well, that's a nice catch-all term that can be bandied about and used to strike fear and hatred in the hearts of everyone listening. A lot of the guys in the Manosphere decry hyperbolic claims from feminists and anti-Game women. How about women who cry "Rape!" or who talk about the prevalence of date rape, roofies, and creepy men? By your logic, they all have legitimate claims and any inspection of those claims is not warranted. So which way would you have it?

To the Marine, I say that he is overstating the case. What is too much police brutality? It's something I like to think I'd recognize when I see it. But I haven't seen it. I've seen a couple of incidents of heavy-handed police activity. But to me, that sort of goes with the territory of massive protest.

So I'll turn the question on you, assuming that you think that people like feminists and such grandstand about the levels of patriarchial and masculine "brutality", do they have a point?

See, here's my perspective.

Guys want to argue this stuff. Yet it becomes a slippery game.

Your claim is that there is a lot of grandstanding at OWS.

You base this - in part - at least, on the "lack" of video evidence.

I think that claim is false. I know lawyers representing the arrestees, and no one is making this cool or fun to go to jail.

So my take: Why discuss this issue if you'll just move the goal posts.

If I send five videos of police abuse, will you retract your claim?

If not, then we're not having an honest conversation. We'll just play bullshit games.

Which is cool for some, but playing those games isn't really what I go for.

So my question remains: How many videos of police abuse need I produce for you to withdraw your claim?

[G.L.Piggy]

(10-18-2011 03:05 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(10-18-2011 02:47 PM)G.L.Piggy Wrote:  

Am I intellectually honest? Is that how this is going to go Mike?

Perhaps I am just very literal. The ex-Marine shouts about police brutality. Well, that's a nice catch-all term that can be bandied about and used to strike fear and hatred in the hearts of everyone listening. A lot of the guys in the Manosphere decry hyperbolic claims from feminists and anti-Game women. How about women who cry "Rape!" or who talk about the prevalence of date rape, roofies, and creepy men? By your logic, they all have legitimate claims and any inspection of those claims is not warranted. So which way would you have it?

To the Marine, I say that he is overstating the case. What is too much police brutality? It's something I like to think I'd recognize when I see it. But I haven't seen it. I've seen a couple of incidents of heavy-handed police activity. But to me, that sort of goes with the territory of massive protest.

So I'll turn the question on you, assuming that you think that people like feminists and such grandstand about the levels of patriarchial and masculine "brutality", do they have a point?

See, here's my perspective.

Guys want to argue this stuff. Yet it becomes a slippery game.

Your claim is that there is a lot of grandstanding at OWS.

You base this - in part - at least, on the "lack" of video evidence.

I think that claim is false. I know lawyers representing the arrestees, and no one is making this cool or fun to go to jail.

So my take: Why discuss this issue if you'll just move the goal posts.

If I send five videos of police abuse, will you retract your claim?

If not, then we're not having an honest conversation. We'll just play bullshit games.

Which is cool for some, but playing those games isn't really what I go for.

So my question remains: How many videos of police abuse need I produce for you to withdraw your claim?

Mike,

The Marine (who is supported by some on this board) made the claim that police brutality was a problem at OWS. I'd say that the burden of proof is on him (and you) to support that claim. So it's not about how many videos I need to see or not, it's about how you define 'police brutality' and what the police are reasonably expected and allowed to do in a large-scale protest attended by lots of younger folks.

Again, I compare this to a feminist yammering on about the rape epidemic. To much hyperbole and not enough nuance and specificity.

So if you think that police brutality is a problem if even one act of heavy-handed police action occurs, then you win the argument based on your own terms. I'm challenging the terms of debate that the Marine and you have accepted.

Now, I've paid a *lot* of attention to OWS. I think I've covered it more than any other blogger in this niche of the Sphere. I've watched videos, read reports from both sides of the divide, etc. There are at least as many accounts of protestors purposely agitating for arrest as there are incidents of heavy-handed police activity. My impression is that the police are relatively passive in all of this. Yeah, they are present, but police are always present around large gatherings like this.

But to give a little bit more of a concrete answer to the debate as you've constructed it, I'd have to see quite a few more incidents of police using obviously unnecessary force against someone who didn't deserve it or who didn't agitate for it.

Also, back to the feminist comparison. You ignored my argument about hyperbolic feminists. Rape happens, are feminists correct in their level of hysteria over it? I mean, there actually are tens of thousands of rapes per year. If we say they are hysterical over it, are we wrong? Are we being intellectually dishonest and moving goal posts?

[Roosh]

Don't want to take sides but you didn't answer Mike's question.

Your tone suggests that even if a protester got shot by NYPD, and it was on film, you still wouldn't waver. No matter what happens, you will hold firm in your opinion.

[MikeCF]

(10-18-2011 03:31 PM)G.L.Piggy Wrote:  

But to give a little bit more of a concrete answer to the debate as you've constructed it, I'd have to see quite a few more incidents of police using obviously unnecessary force against someone who didn't deserve it or who didn't agitate for it.

See, that's not an honest answer.

Hate to sound like a dick, but it's true.

People like to make vague claims, not support them, and then when handed tons of contrary evidence, won't retract their claims.

You're just going to sit there, and shoot down every example. "It's not enough.

Yet you'll never say, "X would be enough."

That's not how logical debate should go.

Unless I'm trolling or being an asshole, this is how I debate.

[G.L.Piggy]

Roosh,

My main point is that 'police brutality' is a nebulous charge and that anyone who levels it needs to back their claim. That means, define 'police brutality' and tell us what the threshold for "expected police brutality" for the given demonstrations is. If we want to live in a perfect world, I guess zero incidents of police brutality would be the goal. But we aren't perfect, and neither are the protestors everywhere and always being peaceful.

[MikeCF]

(10-18-2011 04:04 PM)G.L.Piggy Wrote:  

My main point is that 'police brutality' is a nebulous charge and that anyone who levels it needs to back their claim. That means, define 'police brutality' and tell us what the threshold for "expected police brutality" for the given demonstrations is. If we want to live in a perfect world, I guess zero incidents of police brutality would be the goal. But we aren't perfect, and neither are the protestors everywhere and always being peaceful.

It's not nebulous. When people use "police brutality" they generally mean:

1) Police used more force than was necessary to subdue a suspect.
2) Police used their power to arrest someone who should not have been arrested.

The claim has been made that police brutality is occurring at OWS. That claim has been supported through the use of videos. Some videos have already been linked to.

A rational person would therefore say, "You are right. There is police brutality at OWS."

It's still possible to say, "But those are isolated incidences." That's a weak argument, and ultimately fails.

A logical and intellectually honestly person would say: "Since cameras aren't everywhere, and since police have been caught on video abusing people, it's likely that police abuse is far more prevalent than the videos show."

Why? Because it's not logical to assume that every case of police abuse is caught on camera - again, this is because there aren't cameras everywhere at all times. Is it more probable that every case of police misconduct was caught on tape, or more probable that some instances of police misconduct were missed?

If you see a roach when you turn the light on, is it more probable that you - at that moment in time - happened to see the roach? Who would say, "I only have one roach"?

Another argument that apologists for fascist use is this: The a camera doesn't capture the full story. What full story? Again, we are talking about the degree of forced used at the time of the arrest. Cops shouldn't get to go ape shit on a guy once he's in hand cuffs.

There is simply no logical argument in support of what's happening at OWS - unless you start from the first premise that dirty unemployed people "get whatever's coming to them." In which case, enjoy the tyranny. Remember, though: It's far more likely you'll have the boot on your neck than you'll be wearing the boot.

Even in Stalin's Russia, those who were in favor today were in prison camps tomorrow.

http://www.amazon.com/Commissar-Vanishes...0805052941

[endobendo]

(10-18-2011 04:23 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

A logical and intellectually honestly person would say: "Since cameras aren't everywhere, and since police have been caught on video abusing people, it's likely that police abuse is far more prevalent than the videos show."

In this day and age at a large gathering? It's probably just the opposite. i would think that cameras are everywhere at OWS protests

[canucktraveller]

(10-18-2011 04:23 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(10-18-2011 04:04 PM)G.L.Piggy Wrote:  

My main point is that 'police brutality' is a nebulous charge and that anyone who levels it needs to back their claim. That means, define 'police brutality' and tell us what the threshold for "expected police brutality" for the given demonstrations is. If we want to live in a perfect world, I guess zero incidents of police brutality would be the goal. But we aren't perfect, and neither are the protestors everywhere and always being peaceful.

It's not nebulous. When people use "police brutality" they generally mean:

1) Police used more force than was necessary to subdue a suspect.
2) Police used their power to arrest someone who should not have been arrested.

The claim has been made that police brutality is occurring at OWS. That claim has been supported through the use of videos. Some videos have already been linked to.

A rational person would therefore say, "You are right. There is police brutality at OWS."

It's still possible to say, "But those are isolated incidences." That's a weak argument, and ultimately fails.

A logical and intellectually honestly person would say: "Since cameras aren't everywhere, and since police have been caught on video abusing people, it's likely that police abuse is far more prevalent than the videos show."

Why? Because it's not logical to assume that every case of police abuse is caught on camera - again, this is because there aren't cameras everywhere at all times. Is it more probable that every case of police misconduct was caught on tape, or more probable that some instances of police misconduct were missed?

If you see a roach when you turn the light on, is it more probable that you - at that moment in time - happened to see the roach? Who would say, "I only have one roach"?

Another argument that apologists for fascist use is this: The a camera doesn't capture the full story. What full story? Again, we are talking about the degree of forced used at the time of the arrest. Cops shouldn't get to go ape shit on a guy once he's in hand cuffs.

There is simply no logical argument in support of what's happening at OWS - unless you start from the first premise that dirty unemployed people "get whatever's coming to them." In which case, enjoy the tyranny. Remember, though: It's far more likely you'll have the boot on your neck than you'll be wearing the boot.

Even in Stalin's Russia, those who were in favor today were in prison camps tomorrow.

But what is necessary force when you are greatly outnumbered by young, angry protestors?